Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/August 2020

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates‎ | Archived nominations
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 25 August 2020 [1].

Everything I Wanted edit

Nominator(s): The Ultimate Boss (talk) 06:12, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a song by American singer Billie Eilish. It was her second top-ten hit in the United States, peaking at number 8 on the US Billboard Hot 100. I have brought up the article to GA status. The article has also received a copyedit [2] and a peer review. [3] The Ultimate Boss (talk) 06:12, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest withdrawal as at this time it appears that many of the comments from the previous FAC have not been addressed. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:49, 22 August 2020 (UTC

Nikkimaria It has been suggested that the article get a copy edit and peer review. I withdrew the first nomination for Everything I Wanted and had to wait almost 2 months for both of these to be completed. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 20:36, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Here are some concerns that I've found that are by no means exhaustive:

  • In October 2019, Finneas O'Connell said he and his sister Billie Eilish were working on new music.[1] In November of that year, Eilish announced the release of two new songs and a music video for the song "Xanny", which was released the following month.[2][3] → I don't see the mention of "two new songs" necessary; if they are connected to this song, please specify
  • Eilish and O'Connell—who is best-known by his stage name Finneas— → redundant, can be mentioned in the first sentence
  • it began as a feeling of Eilish's depression → How can a song begin with a feeling of depression? Do you mean the song's inspiration or songwriting process instead?
  • The single's cover art ... was made by Jason Anderson → Not a good choice of word imo
  • There have been concerns about the verifiability of Musicnotes.com
  • The track has been described as a house and electronica-influenced pop and alternative pop track in press reviews; → by whom?
  • Eilish said "Everything I Wanted" was inspired by a dream in which she died after jumping off the Golden Gate Bridge. → This is the same thing discussed in the previous section; plus the Golden Gate Bridge clue can be linked to the cover art, if there are sources for that
  • The majority of the discussion part on the lyrics is about the influence of depression/mental illness on the song, which has been more or less covered in the previous section and thus makes the flow very bloated. I recommend to state it once and for all
  • "Everything I Wanted" was met with mainly positive reviews from music critics → passive voice; plus a potential case of WP:OR or WP:SYNTH
  • The critical reception section is a quotefarm
  • Per WP:MOSTABLE it's usually not recommended for tables within article (non-list) entries; plus I don't see the point of including a table of three awards which can be discussed in the prose
  • Speaking to Apple Music's Zane Lowe, Selena Gomez said she related to Eilish's view of fame and said; "when I heard ["Everything I wanted"], I just sobbed because I've been doing this for so long and it's like, 'Damn, that's so true.' "[41] Bono of U2 included the song in his list of "60 Songs That Saved My Life", saying in a "fan letter", "I step inside your song and it's a black beauty, achingly awesomely vulnerable and terrifying".[42] Eilish's mother Maggie Baird also cried when she heard the song.[43] → Non-encyclopedic trivia
  • Per WP:MOSNUM integers from one to nine must be spelled out in words

Overall the article has potentials to qualify for FA but it needs more polishing. HĐ (talk) 06:41, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Aoba47 edit

  • As I noted in the previous FAC, I do not see a clear rationale for including the music video screenshot. It is generally encouraged to only include non-free media to illustrate a point that cannot be conveyed through prose alone. The "Synopsis" section already explains what is being illustrated in the screenshot so it seems more decorative than informative. I also want to point out that Reference 72 leads to a "Page Not Found" page. Aoba47 (talk) 21:42, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per the other editors participating in this FAC, I would also recommend withdrawing this nomination and putting it up for another peer review. I have noticed a number of things that were not addressed from the first FAC, and while the article did receive a recent peer review, it only attracted commentary from one editor. Hopefully, another peer review will get more attention. Aoba47 (talk) 00:51, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - oppose edit

Disclaimer: Gonna be claimed for the WikiCup.

  • ""Everything I Wanted" was used in an advertisement for Beats by Dre headphones that features Eilish" - We need a better source than a YouTube video for this
  • What makes Tidal (service) a high-quality RS for this?
  • "It was added to the reissue of Eilish's debut studio album When We All Fall Asleep, Where Do We Go? in December 2019" - The source is a sales site. The source proves that a version with this was available in December 2019, but not that it was added to the album then, or that it was explicitly added to the album
  • Genius is user-generated. It is not RS.
  • WP:RSP says that there's no clear consensus that BuzzFeed is reliable, so that means it's below the high-quality RS bar of FAC.
  • "Eilish released the music video for "Everything I Wanted" on January 23, 2020" - is cited to a YouTube video. That's the date that specific video was posted to YouTube, not necessarily the release date. The video could have been taken down and then reposted, for instance.
  • Ref 72 is dead.
  • Ref 148 is dead.
  • The use of YouTube videos and sales sites is not enough for dates of releases/sales starting per the above comments, so I'm not going to highlight all of the many times those are used.

More coming later. Hog Farm Bacon 22:00, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Some of the title are in sentence case, with only the first word and proper nouns capitalized. Others are in title case, with most words capitalized. Pick one and stick with it.
  • Ref 7 has an author: Glenn Rowley
  • "The release came with a digital single that was delivered to US customers via email" - Not supported by the reference
  • ""Everything I Wanted" has a moderately fast tempo of 120 beats per minute (BPM)" - Source only has the 120 bpm, calling that moderately fast is WP:OR.
  • Ref 37 you give stereogum as the publisher, and Randy Holmes as the author. Holmes appears to be the credit for the image, and the source is actually published by ABC.
  • Ref 87 has an author, add it.
  • Ref 31 has a different date than the one you list, and has four authors, not just one
  • Sometimes you link a publisher in the reference, sometimes you don't. Be consistent.

I'm opposing this, and I've only gone through about a third of the sources. Too many spot check issues, too many formatting issues, too many sources that are unreliable or aren't high-quality for what is being cited. Especially considering that some of the issues from the last review haven't been addressed, this should probably be withdrawn and taken to peer review. Again, I repeat, I haven't even gone through all of the sources on this. Hog Farm Bacon 23:38, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hog Farm: it has already received a peer review if you noticed on the top... It was suggested to be withdrawn for a peer review and copy edit when I first put it up for nom. Had to wait almost 2 months for both to be completed... The Ultimate Boss (talk) 23:52, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw edit

Hog Farm and Aoba47, with everyone saying it should been withdrawn and have another peer review, it’ll be months before it happens. And with school happening now, I will not have the time at all which really does suck. I was hoping to get an article to FA by the end of the summer, but I guess it’s not gonna happen. :/ @WP:FAC coordinators: The Ultimate Boss (talk) 01:18, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • @The Ultimate Boss: I can try to look through all the sources at a later date to give you advice on this, if you'd wish. I don't think it's ready now, but the article has a lot of good material, so IMO the hardest work is probably done on it. I'm fairly busy in RL, but if you'd like me to, I can look at the sources further sometime. Hog Farm Bacon 01:21, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 21 August 2020 [4].

Lips Are Movin edit

Nominator(s): NØ 03:24, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about "Lips Are Movin", the second single by American singer-songwriter Meghan Trainor. Its music video was the first to feature social media influencers in it as we know them today, with a Billboard author describing it as a "historic milestone in the realm of YouTube creators". While the song drew widespread comparisons to Trainor's debut number-one hit, it eviscerated any doubts about Trainor being a one-hit-wonder as she became just the fifth female artist to follow her debut number-one single directly with a second top-five hit. The article has received two peer reviews and a failed FAC in the past. Although I've rewritten basically everything after the Trainor bio became an FA, so this one should go more smoothly. I appreciate any comments and am open to doing QPQ for anyone who may support this nomination. I will ping Jaguar and SNUGGUMS to let them know about this nomination as prior peer reviewers. Cheers--NØ 03:24, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose edit

Resolved concerns

Just skimmed through the lede, and here are my concerns:

  • MTV News premiered the song on October 15, 2014. Epic Records released it as the second single from the album on October 21, 2014 → Does this mean that the premiere by MTV News is unorthodox?
  • It was an official premiere. Hopefully changing it to "Epic Records released it for digital download" makes this simpler to understand. Open to suggestions.
  • Music critics widely compared it to Trainor's debut single "All About That Bass" (2014) → In what aspects (i.e. the musical style?)
  • Yes, elaborated.
  • reviews for the song were mixed → Ditto; this needs some details (i.e. some liked the sound but others did not)
  • Done.
  • The song's multi-platinum certifications in Australia and the US can be helpful in the lede
  • Done.
  • the video was viewed 2.5 million times on YouTube within two days and received positive reviews → Not sure if the view count is notable; ditto for how positive the reviews were
  • Removed.
  • Trainor has performed "Lips Are Movin" on several shows, including Today, The Voice, and Dancing with the Stars. It was also performed during Trainor's 2015 That Bass and MTrain Tours, and The Untouchable Tour (2016). → These two sentences can be merged
  • Done.

— HĐ (talk) 08:47, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thank you so much for the swift comments. The lead already looks so much better. I'm excited for the rest of your review :)--NØ 09:54, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article overall is in pretty good shape, though prose concerns exist. Continued:

  • Music critics widely compared its musical style – girl-group harmonies and bubblegum pop hooks – to Trainor's debut single "All About That Bass" (2014); and reviews for the song were mixed, with some critics thinking that the similarities signaled commercial success for the former, but others criticizing the songs for following the same formula → this is over-complex and could be divided into two/three sentences
  • Split.
  • Was Trainor working with the Nashville publishing company? I think some context on this is needed
  • Yes, she was signed to them. I added this. Let me know if you think I should mention her indie albums here too.
  • He has spoken fondly → I prefer past simple tense
  • Done.
  • surfaced online → Do you mean leak?
  • Yes :)
  • and released it for digital download in various countries → Was it released the same day with the US release? Plus "various countries" appear to be European countries
  • By my understanding, it was digitally released everywhere on the same day, except UK. Here are the refs for China and South Africa. Might be overkill to add it all in the article though.
  • In the former country, the song was made available to those who pre-ordered Title → The source is for Australia, though?
  • Removed it altogether. The second ref states "Album Only" which is enough for verification.
  • being held back till January 18 → Why was the release delayed?
  • It can be assumed it was to push pre-orders for Title, but this information as such hasn't been stated by any source and is WP:SYNTH.
  • "Lips Are Movin" is a doo-wop and pop song that lasts for three minutes and one second. → This is a case of WP:SYNTH
  • Fixed this.
  • There have been concerns over reliability of Musicnotes.com, as anyone can post their arrangements of songs onto the website. I don't insist on removing it, but please pay extra care to this.

— HĐ (talk) 05:05, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed all. Left some replies above.--NØ 11:02, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I regret to oppose for now; the prose is yet not up to FA quality in my opinion. I have pointed out some examples above, and below are a few of my concerns, which is by no means exhaustive:

  • "Lips Are Movin" received widespread comparisons to "All About That Bass" from music critics.[27][28] → I am not sure if two sources equate to "widespread"; plus this comparison has already been mentioned in the Composition section. I get that the majority of the reviews compare this song to it predecessor, but citing two sources for this claim is SYNTH unless there is a source explicitly saying so. Otherwise, I recommend removing the bit
  • There are upwards of 10 sources comparing the two songs, not just two. It would just be WP:OVERKILL to put them all after this sentence. Basically 90% of this section is a testament to the comparisons.
  • a catchy ladies' anthem → This sounds awkward
  • I will work on fixing this.
  • Lengthy quotes such as "She's versatile, confident, vulnerable and smart, something everyone should already know based on 'Lips Are Movin." can be shortened or paraphrased
  • I will try to paraphrase it, but it is composed of mostly adjectives so that will be hard.
  • t it reminding him of Christina Aguilera's "What a Girl Wants" (1999) saved it from being a "complete mess" → grammar; plus I don't know what this means
  • The author wrote this. For some reason the song's similarities to "What a Girl Wants" are what saved it from being "a complete mess" according to him.
  • The Critical reception section is very bloated; try grouping the reviews into similar themes (i.e. Those complimented the song's production included A, B, C. Those who criticized the similarity to its predecessor included D, E, F)
  • I will try doing this.
  • Some opinions don't really need to be quoted (i.e. writing that it "strictly adheres to the same beat sheet as its predecessor" / the two songs are "nearly interchangeable"). They are just the same opinion reiterated multiple times
  • I will take this into account while rewriting.
  • Clash's remark on the song's "pseudo-feminist" theme is worth discussing at the Composition section
  • Will do.
  • Will remove.
  • The Reception of the Music video section is mainly comprised of positive reviews, while the headlines of some (most notably "Meghan Trainor's 'Lips are Movin' and the art of corporate patronage") seem to potentially provide varying perspectives on the video's production and relation to the excessive corporate environment, as well as apparently some criticism. That said I'm not seeing any of that discussed.
  • Will look into this.

I apologize for not having taken part in the peer review (which I barely noticed), but the prose needs more polishing for FA quality. It'd be great if copyedit can finalize within days to prepare for FAC, but I don't think FAC is the place to address issues that could have been resolved elsewhere. I will oppose for now, but will take a second look after a few days to check up on the progress. Cheers, HĐ (talk) 04:38, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I understand that this specific FAC is doomed now, so I'll try it later after working on your concerns.--NØ 05:12, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Media review edit

  • Thank you for this ;) --NØ 04:13, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawal edit

With some extensive concerns being pointed out by HĐ, I will withdraw this nomination for now and attempt later. Thank you, @WP:FAC coordinators: .--NØ 05:14, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 16 August 2020 [5].

Let's Fall in Love for the Night edit

Nominator(s): The Ultimate Boss (talk) 23:01, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a 2018 single by American singer Finneas. This song is his most famous song, getting over 100,000,000 downloads in Spotify and is his only song that has charted on any US Billboard chart. He released a different version of the track on August 7, 2020, titled "Let's Fall in Love for the Night (1964)". He wanted this version to sound more like it was from the 1940s and 1950s. Seeing the FA potential, I added more information and made the article bigger altogether. Any feedback will be appreciated! The Ultimate Boss (talk) 23:01, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • You still have an active FAC, and since it is not allowed to have two FACs at once, this should be withdrawn/archived. Removing a FAC from the WP:FAC page and the article's talk page (as was done for the "I Love You" (Billie Eilish song) one) does not automatically close it. Aoba47 (talk) 17:50, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47 I love you should be archived. Not ready for fac yet. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 18:45, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • It would have been better to wait until the FAC was archived and you received permission to nominate another FAC before the two-week time frame. I just wanted to let you know that this was not the best way of handling this. Aoba47 (talk) 20:09, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Kyle Peake edit

Oppose: This article is quite a while away from the FA criteria, since it could do a lead expansion and the reception section needs to be organized better, including splitting into more than one para. Plus, MOS:TABLECAPTION has not been followed for three sections, the awards table is not needed and the release history table's info is not laid out properly. Not a bad article by the way, just not exactly ideal at this point. --K. Peake 09:46, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to archive this and the I Love you FAC also. Please wait 2 weeks before nominating another FAC - and if you wish in the future to withdraw an FAC, let the coords handle it, not just delete it from the page here, because there is more to archiving an FAC than deleting it from the FAC page. --Ealdgyth (talk) 14:35, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 16 August 2020 [6].

I Love You (Billie Eilish song) edit

Nominator(s): The Ultimate Boss (talk) 18:21, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 2019 song by Billie Eilish. I have brought up the article to GA and have been improving it since. I also got help from other amazing editors like Kyle Peake. And maybe the fac coordinators: Ian Rose, Laser brain, and Ealdgyth can look at the article. All feedback would be appreciated by them and anyone else! The Ultimate Boss (talk) 18:21, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Rose, please close this nomination. Don’t want it up anymore

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 15 August 2020 [7].

Sleepless (comics) edit

Nominator(s): Argento Surfer (talk) 12:59, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a fantasy romance comic released by Image Comics a few years ago. The story features a princess, a magical knight, and a conspiracy to replace the throne with democracy. The article was promoted to GA last October and has been stable since then. After some tweaks today and a search for new sources/commentary, I'm confident the article is as complete as it can be. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:59, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review
  • Pass acceptable use of a non-free image (t · c) buidhe 00:01, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • What makes Rogues Portal a high-quality reliable source? Smash Pages? Comicosity? Multiversity? Black Nerd Problems? ComicBook Round Up? Adventures in Poor Taste? Comic Bastards? Nerdspan?
  • Link in FN4 is a redirect
  • Barnes & Noble is a publisher, not a work. Ditto Image Comics, check for others. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:37, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose pending resolution of point 1. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:00, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47 edit

  • I'd link colorist and letterer the first time they are mentioned in the lead. I am not familiar with comic books at all so I was slightly confused when I first saw these words.
  • I would add ALT text to the infobox image.
  • For the lead's second paragraph, I would combine the first sentences into something like the following: (Set in a medieval kingdom, the fantasy story is about Lady "Poppy" Pyppenia the illegitimate daughter of the king, who died just prior to the opening scene.) The current structure reads a little choppy to me.
  • I would say "before the opening scene" rather than "just prior to the opening scene" to be somewhat more concise.
  • I would link "fantasy" to the fantasy literature article on its first mention in the lead and the body of the article and in the infobox. It may seem obvious, but I think it would be useful for unfamiliar readers (similar to how science fiction is linked in the article for The Left Hand of Darkness).
  • I am not entirely sure what this phrase, "try to find their role", is referencing.
  • I am a little confused with the lead's second paragraph. Only Poppy and Cyrenic are named, while the other characters are referenced by titles (i.e. "the king" "the new king's daughter and nephew", "the mastermind). Is there a reason for it? Also, for this part, (the mastermind behind the assassination plot), it seemed weird to not directly identify the villain.
  • For this part, (Vaughn sent del Duca a short list of story pitches from which to choose), I do not think "from which to choose" is necessary as it can be assumed from the context of the sentence.
  • The "Development" subsection uses the word "idea" three times, with two of these instances being in back-to-back sentences, and since the subsection is so short, it comes across as repetitive. I would change at least one of the back-to-back ones.

These are my notes for the lead and the development subsection. I'll wait until the source review is completed as it would be better to get the sources cleared before getting into anything with the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 20:17, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I've addressed most of these. In the second paragraph, I went with titles over names because I thought it would be cumbersome to specify everyone's name and title. I can craft a version with names if you think it would be better. I didn't identify the villain by name because right up until the reveal, he's a very minor character. The summary is a bit deceptive because it reads like he has a big role, but he's really only present in the last chapter. Thanks for taking a look. Argento Surfer (talk) 21:07, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clarification. I can see your point about the names being cumbersome. I will think on it further, and hopefully other editors/reviewers will look at it too. Aoba47 (talk) 21:24, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note edit

Given the oppose on sourcing and the lack of other reviews, I'm archiving this nomination. --Ealdgyth (talk) 14:42, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 15 August 2020 [8].

Squirm edit

Nominator(s): GamerPro64 16:47, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Late in the evening of September 29, 1975, a sudden electrical storm struck a rural sea coast area of Georgia. Power lines, felled by high winds, sent hundreds of thousands of volts surging into the muddy ground, cutting off all electricity to the small, secluded town of Fly Creek. During the period that followed the storm, the citizens of Fly Creek experienced what scientists believe to be one of the most bizarre freaks of nature ever recorded. This is the story...."

That is the opening text to the movie Squirm, a movie about killer worms. And what would seem to be a hokey concept that would eventually be a subject on Mystery Science Theater 3000, it ended up being a much more interesting topic to cover. Mostly funded by Broadway executives, this movie also caused the state of Maine to have their local fishing industry devastated by the lack of worms that were instead used for the movie. And while not well received at the time, it has seen be the subject of analysis by critics for its place in 1970s "revenge of nature" films.

And I think this article has what it takes to become a Featured Article in its current status. If nothing else better to say, Squirm. GamerPro64 16:47, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Comments by Andrzejbanas edit

Some information in the infobox is not anywhere in the article. specifically, the production company, the cinematographer, original theatrical run time, and its production country. Also, per MOS:FILM standards, we usually say "film" in an article, not "movie". Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:59, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Cinematographer is mentioned in the articles body. "Joe Mangine was the director of photography". Never heard of needing the theatrical run time in the body. Added it anyway. Changed movie to film in a few instances. GamerPro64 20:24, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Whups thank you. The theatrical runtime can be sourced in the infobox if its hard to include in the prose. I usually squeeze it in to a release section like Squirm was distributed theatrically by American International Pictures with a __ minute running time." It's more or less for having the running time in the infobox reflect an original release running time opposed to any "uncut" or "extended" version that may be on home video. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:20, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't know where to mention its production comapny and not sure the point of adding the production country. Not sure what that means either. GamerPro64 19:10, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Production company indicates a company or team formed that funded the film project. In this case, this one mentioned is a one off for the film in question. if you can't find a way to properly fit it in the prose, I would cite it in the infobox. the AFI database should handle it. Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:48, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I added the AFI source in the infobox. GamerPro64 04:18, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In the release section, you state it was shown at the Cannes Film Festival, was this at the Cannes Market, or as part of the festival? Cause those are two different things entirely.
I think it might mean the festival. I cant find any evidence to the contrary. GamerPro64 03:41, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see it on this section [9] here, so I'm assuming its the market. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:37, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If thats the case I cannot find any sources saying that. The AFI link sources an article from the Daily Variety and I do not have access to the article. It just does not seem to have been talked about. What if I change the sentence to it being shown during Cannes? GamerPro64 16:00, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Probably for the best. Andrzejbanas (talk) 10:59, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
When describing the films the editor has worked on, those names aren't going to mean anything to anyone who is not familiar with the history of these films or their reputation. Are they known for having high quality editing or are we just trying to say he's had a prolific career here?
I did it for the latter but I removed it from the article. I thought I read somewhere that Lieberman hired the editor because of his work for Performance but I cannot find a reliable source for that. GamerPro64 03:41, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would try and separate contemporary and retrospective reviews of the film to show how its grown or shrunk in reception at the time. Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:05, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I moved one review to the second paragraph as the second paragraph is more retrospective. GamerPro64 03:41, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I would use a source other than blu-ray.com for its release date. Blu-ray.com information on release dates and technical details are all supplied by its users. I know, as I've done it myself! :) Might be a good starting off point to find another source though. Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:11, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I replaced the source. GamerPro64 03:41, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would split up the page sources from Fangoria. It appears to be going over two pages, when sources from books should be limited to one and two pages. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:01, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which Fangoria link? There are two in the article. GamerPro64 15:57, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I know which source you mean now. I don't see where that is a requirement for magazines. GamerPro64 18:30, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would split it up so it doesn't get tagged for going above and beyond. Doesn't really hurt to get specific. Andrzejbanas (talk) 10:59, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean getting tagged for going above and beyond? When I nominated Soultaker I didn't get flak for one of my sources being multiple pages. GamerPro64 03:58, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrzejbanas: With the Fangoria link nonwithstanding, would you say the article meets the standards for FA or oppose its nomination? GamerPro64 22:04, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the slow response. I might change the Leonard Maltin review to just say its from his book. His book has several editors, so I don't think it's just him reviewing the films in those books. Having trouble finding confirmation. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:30, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Changed it to the book. GamerPro64 18:32, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As all my suggestions have been met, I support this article for as FA-status. Andrzejbanas (talk) 05:20, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie edit

I don't think I'll have time to do a full review, but on looking through I think the reception section needs some work. See WP:RECEPTION for some ideas; you have the "A said B" problem. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:13, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Mike Christie: That is a fair assessment. I reworked the Reception to make it better. GamerPro64 20:46, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a little better, but not what I think is needed. Take a look at the before and after versions of Open Here; I think that's a great example of how to take a reception section from a listing of quotes to an integrated narrative of the critical opinions. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:49, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I understand now. I reworked paragraph one. Hopefully that works better. Not entirely sure if paragraph two can be worked out the same way. GamerPro64 05:57, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That's much improved. I do think the second paragraph needs similar treatment. I've copyedited the first paragraph but I have one question: what do you mean by "though considered there was admirable earnestness for the effort"? This is qualifying the comment about the "clumsy and amateurish" production, which is in turn qualifying the comment about the special effects, so I can't tell if the "effort" is towards the effects or the production. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:06, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll just remove that bit out of the sentence. GamerPro64 15:59, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The second paragraph has been reworked. GamerPro64 16:54, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Mike Christie: Are you only looking at the Reception page for this review? GamerPro64 19:49, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, at least unless I get more time than I have now. I have glanced at the second paragraph and I think it's improved but could do with some copyediting. I'm going to hold off on commenting again till I see what other reviewers think and may revisit if I have time then. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:52, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi Mike, I probably should have done this earlier but it looks like the outstanding thing here is perhaps just a quick once-over of the prose, and since several commentators have stopped by since you were here anyway, this looks like a mission for you should you choose to accept it (this message will not self-destruct in five seconds)... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:35, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Will try to take a look this weekend -- I am in the middle of a couple of other reviews but may be able to squeeze in some time for this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:08, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll copyedit as I go; please revert if you disagree with anything.

  • The power line lands in wet mud and starts to electrocute the worms underneath: to electrocute means to injure or kill, so I think this is probably not the right word.
  • Roger's shipment of 100,000 bloodworms and sandworms escape: from the back of the truck?
  • Mick deduces the worms killed Beardsley but cannot figure out the reason: I don't know what the second half of this means. Do you mean "cannot figure out why they attacked him"?
  • producers Edgar Lansbury and Joseph Beruh, who bought Squirm in 1975 and invested $470,000[b] of their own money into the project. They read the script in the summer of 1975, after which the project moved very fast. Seems out of sequence. Can we reorder this to follow the chronology? Manasse shows them the script, they read it, then they buy it and the project moves fast; they invest their own money. Currently we say they buy it before we say they read it.
    • Reworked it.
  • This was the only film produced by The Squirm Company. Can we say who The Squirm Company are first? I assume Lansbury and Beruh formed The Squirm Company to make the movie, but we should say that if so.
    • I can not find any real information on the Company. I personally do not think it should be in the article but another user suggested it should be in here. GamerPro64 03:55, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have "R.A. Dow" at one point, and "Richard A. Dow" at another; might as well be consistent. And it seems he is an unknown, perhaps even new to movies, since his name is not linked and he had to study acting? Is there any information about how he got the part?
    • Apparently this was his only movie. Can not find anything about him. Meanwhile made consistency. GamerPro64 03:55, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • making the sound effects for the worms using balloons and shears: I'd love to know what sort of sound this produces. Any way to describe it? Squeaking, snipping, popping?
  • The re-edited film was used for a television version: so the original edit, with more gore and the shower scene, was released in theatres? Or this is the same version as released in theatres? I think it's the same as the theatre version; if so I'd make it "was also used for the television version".
  • I see some problems with the prose in the reception paragraphs; some said-bookisms, a capital letter after a semicolon; "gave exception" should be "took exception". I'll finish the rest of the review and try to do a copyedit pass on this section.
    • "a capital letter after a semicolon" What do you mean? GamerPro64 19:51, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This genre began in the early 1970s with films like Frogs, Night of the Lepus, and Sssssss, leading on to Jaws, Squirm, Empire of the Ants, and Kingdom of the Spiders. What do you mean by "leading on to"? What puts a film in the first half of this list rather than the second-half? If the source characterizes them differently (e.g. "second wave") we should say so; if it's just to break up a long list, the list is probably too long. And the long list of movies in the next sentence is definitely too long. I would pick just a couple of examples for each clause. And then we have yet another long list of movies mentioned by Muir. If there's some reason to include all the ones Muir mentions, put the full list in a footnote.
    • The first three movies came out before the others chronologically. GamerPro64 16:18, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I cut back on the listing. GamerPro64 19:51, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • These films—depicting attitudes and fears prevalent at the time—reflect the public's unease about what Muir called "man's continued pillaging and pollution of the Earth": OK on the second half, but the films depict attitudes and fears prevalent at the time? That seems much too strong; the films depict horrific attacks by natural entities; I don't think that reflects attitudes of the day. What exactly does the source say that supports this? At a minimum I'd attribute it to Muir inline, if we keep it.
  • The Robin Wood source is dated 2018; Wood died in 2009, so I assume this is a collection of essays written before he died, and some quick Googling suggests that's the case. A minor point, but it would be nice to cite the original article or essay, in order to get the original date into the citation. You can ignore this comment if you don't have the source to hand at the moment, or if it doesn't indicate the original publication of the essay.

I'm going to stop there. I've just read through the rest of the article. Up to the "Reception" section, the issues I've raised above are pretty minor and no doubt can be easily fixed, but the prose from that point on does not seem to me to be FA quality. I'm sorry to say this, since it's been two months since I first commented here, but I never planned to do a full review. I initially commented because I think WP:RECEPTION is important (well, I wrote it, so I would think that) and the article's reception section needed improvement. It's better than it was, but here are some points, from those paragraphs or further below. I'll include in this list some picky stuff I'd normally fix while copyediting. I haven't tried to make this an exhaustive list of the issues.

  • Critique of the special effects was mixed: The verb is wrong; it should probably be "critiques...were mixed", but you could fix it some other ways, such as "Opinion...was mixed".
  • Said-bookisms include "stated", "commented", "remarked", "gave", "considered"", "believed", and others. Not all of these are bad -- "considered" and "believed" are often better choices than "said" because they indicate an opinion -- but there are too many. "Garnered" is another word to avoid; it's not strictly a said-bookism, but it should be avoided for the same reason -- it sticks out like a sore thumb as an unusual usage, rather than just communicating.
  • Use of "noted" for an opinion; "noted" implies something is factual.
  • The reviewer gave exception to: should be "took exception to".
  • The reception section initially had an "A said B" problem (defined in WP:RECEPTION); that's much improved but there are still traces of it.
    • I don't know where else its at.
  • Wood also expressed disappointment with the film's ending because he felt the survival of Mick, Geri, and Alma counteracts the film's logic. A couple of things here. This could be done more concisely -- e.g. "Wood was disappointed with"; and "counteracts" is the wrong word here -- I think something like "contradicts" is what's intended.
  • to make it abundant of their "bigger-than-life and almost mythic" character flaws: this is not the right way to use "abundant"; I think perhaps "abundant with" is meant, but I'm not sure.
    • Tried it out with your suggestion. GamerPro64 21:32, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Sorry; I really hate to do this right at the end of a long review, but the prose needs work, and I think it's more than the surface polish a copyeditor can provide. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:37, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47 edit

  • I would simplify the following sentence, (Makeup artist Rick Baker provided special effects for the film using prosthetic makeup for the first time in his career.), by just saying "prosthetics" to avoid repeating the word "makeup" twice in the same sentence.
  • I would mention the split between contemporary and retrospective reviews in the lead.
  • I am assuming an exact production budget and box office are either not known or simply unavailable, but I just want to make sure that I am correct.
    • At the least they got $470,000 from the two Broadway producers. In terms of box office I can not find any source about what it got but at the least it was financially successful. GamerPro64 01:43, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Makes sense. Thank you for the clarification. Aoba47 (talk) 03:00, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the first sentence of the "Plot" section, I would link Georgia to be consistent with the lead where the state is linked.
  • I think a link for worm farm would be helpful. It may just be me, but I have actually never heard of this concept or phrase before reading this article.
  • I think this part, (The original filming location and setting was planned for New England), could be simplified by removing "planned for" as I do not think it is needed.
  • I am uncertain if the United States link is entirely necessary in this part, (who released it theatrically in the United States on July 14, 1976,) since I think a majority of readers would be familiar with the country.
    • You are probably right. Removed. GamerPro64 01:43, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is more of a clarification question, but do we know what was removed from the film to meet the PG rating?
    • In the next paragraph it mentions a shower scene with Patricia Pearcy, where she is nude in it. GamerPro64 01:43, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you for the clarification. Aoba47 (talk) 03:00, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have seen some editors/reviewers say they dislike having the Rotten Tomatoes score in the prose, specifically for a film released prior to the website being founded and for something without a "critics consensus". I am not saying you should remove it, as I am indifferent about the topic, but I just wanted to raise this to your attention.
    • If someone else here has a problem with it, I can definitely remove it from the article. GamerPro64 01:43, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will leave the discussion on the "Reception" subsection to Mike Christie as he is more qualified than I am for that. I do agree with his suggestion, though I think the separation between contemporary and retrospective reviews is a good idea.
  • For the Mystery Science Theater 3000 part, I would clarify that Lieberman did not care about "goofing on the movie" (according to the citation) and was more angry about MGM than anyone with MST3K. This is conveyed in this part, (saying it cheapened the value of the movie), but I still think it would be helpful to emphasize his criticism was not directed at the show to avoid potential misinterpretations.
  • I would avoid Wikipedia:SHOUTING (i.e. having titles in all caps) in references 32 and 35.
  • The formatting for AllMovie is inconsistent in references 11 and 19. In 11, it is not in italics, and in 19, it is in italics. In either case, the M should be capitalized.
  • Random question, but is there any information on the song that plays over the credits?
    • Besides it being written by the movies composer Robert Prince, I don't see any other information. GamerPro64 01:43, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you for the clarification. I could not find any other information on it as well. Aoba47 (talk) 03:00, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I must admit this is 100% not my kind of movie, but this article was very engaging and genuinely enjoyed learning about the film. I am surprised this FAC has not received more attention. This is what I noticed from my first read-through. Once everything is addressed, I will go through the article again to make sure I give everything the proper time and attention. Have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 23:47, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • There seems to be an error with reference 16. Aoba47 (talk) 04:45, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Gonna make it easier and just remove the url. You can still find it on the Wayback Machine but the url is a bit wack. GamerPro64 04:59, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you for the clarification. Citation formatting can be annoying, and I think your edit makes sense. Aoba47 (talk) 19:35, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I support this for promotion based on the prose. I will leave the "Reception" subsection to the more experienced Mike Christie, but I do have one quick suggestion. It may be beneficial to start new paragraphs on the critical reviews for Jeff Liberman's direction and the less than positive retrospective reviews, but that is just a suggestion. Either way, have a great rest of your day. Aoba47 (talk) 19:42, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Apologies for adding another message here, but if you have the time, I would greatly appreciate any help with my current FAC about a very different type of film. I completely understand if you do not have the time or interest. Aoba47 (talk) 01:04, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note edit

Hi, just a heads-up that this is getting on a bit without much in evidence of consensus to promote -- I'll add to the FAC Urgents list and aim to revisit in the coming week to see how things are going. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:25, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would really like to see a comprehensive review from outside the movie project, and I'm not seeing a source review either. I'm close to archiving this - it's been on the urgents list for over three weeks now and hasn't really gotten much traction or a source review either. Giving it a day or so but... --Ealdgyth (talk) 14:53, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be possible to forgo waiting two weeks to renominate? I think this almost had a chance to become a Featured Article but the lack of eyes killed it. GamerPro64 19:12, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
GamerPro, I am working from the bottom of the list, and I would be willing to do an in-depth here (on first glance article appears well prepared for FAC), but I cannot get to this probably until the weekend or early next week, and you will have to pester me so I don’t forget :) If the Coords want to give you another week, I can get to it; elsewise, pester my talk page to work off-FAC, as I lose track of those darn pingie-thingies. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:32, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm good for a bit if Sandy thinks it's at least within range on a quick glance. --Ealdgyth (talk) 13:49, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No promises yet, but quick glance is not discouraging. Busy most of Friday and Saturday, on my list. Gamerpro will owe me for life, as I am sure to have nightmares!! The YUK factor in the description at the top of the page could be why no one engaged ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:53, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The description is how the movie opens up, by the way. And I think this comment makes the article write up all worth it. GamerPro64 20:06, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@GamerPro64: as I read, I will do the source check for copyvio, reliability and source-to-text integrity. Are you able to email me any of the offline sources? I am out for the day ... pls email and I will respond via email so you can attach anything. Coords may assume I am checking as I read. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:18, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I answered Sandys question on her talk page but will bring it up again here. I added urls to four of the sources but I do not have a way to send the Los Angeles Times and The Monthly Film Bulletin sources. The Baby Boomers and Popular Culture book meanwhile was added in by another user. GamerPro64 20:06, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SG review edit

Whether to proceed on FAC or off is up to the Coords. On the one hand, this has sat here for almost two months, with limited review, while GamerPro64 is a regular and helpful contributor at FAR-- an editor who deserves exceptions, IMNSHO ... meaning, I will help them see this article through whether on or off FAC, 'cuz they deserve it. On the other hand, the FAC received two Supports when it had typographical and grammatical errors; we need to find a way to call attention to the reviewers that do that, and I don't want to keep being the one to do it. The two Supports were premature. But I believe we can get there from here, with some more work. I leave it to the Coords to decide whether that is here or off FAC.

Sources, citations, and text-to-source integrity
  • I have seen no indication of too close paraphrasing or copyvio and sources I have checked are accurately reflected. What I have seen is that there is information in the sources that is not used, that could really make this article more compelling. There is some good stuff here, for the gross-yuk factor, and it would not be too much to add more quotes from the reviewers.
    • I can try to expand the production section more with what is given in the sources. GamerPro64 04:01, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is a wealth of information in the Fangoria article alone ... lots of description of how they got the gore, and stuff like Basinger ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:58, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • I added more information from Fangoria. GamerPro64 02:37, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • And I added a bit more ... I am satisfied now with the material covered. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:53, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not only can I not locate the article from The Los Angeles Times; I can't even locate any mention that it ever existed. This concerns me a bit ... isn't there somewhere on Wikipedia where we can ask someone to look into that?
    • I found the review from Newspapers.com. here. GamerPro64 04:01, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Excellent ... can you use the quote = parameter to add the exact text to the citation? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:58, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm still waiting approval for my application for Newspaper.com. GamerPro64 02:37, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • My application got approved but I have to wait a week for access. GamerPro64 20:03, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • We can let this one go (and trust you to review and add quote once your application is approved). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:24, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
              • I now got access and added the quote. GamerPro64 02:40, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • My understanding in past years was that we did not link book titles unless the link went specifically to the text being cited, and in those cases, we should link that to the specific page sourced, like this. Has that changed? I think some of the book urls need to be removed, and corrected as above, unless we have a new practice on Wikipedia. Template:Cite books seems to agree with me.
  • I can't convince myself of the reliability of Birth Movies Death.com ... [10] Is Devin Faraci a well-known critic? The About page does not give indications of reliability.
    • The writer is interviewing the director so I would think the interview from a primary source would be reliable enough. GamerPro64 04:01, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am not comfortable with that, because we have no indication the source reliably reports things, and that is citing an emphatic statement. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:58, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • I thought WP:Interview explains that primary interviews would be okay in a situation like this. GamerPro64 02:37, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • That is an essay; also, this is a non-reliable source— different than primary. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:53, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Milipede inspiration is mentioned in one source ? Should that be included?
    • I'm not exactly sure what you mean.
      • Will go back and look for it, cannot remember which source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:58, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Starlog Magazine, Kerry O'Quinn, mentions a milipede migration and also has LOTS of good material. Notice the descriptive adjectives. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:53, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citation consistency, pick one style on page ranges ...
    • Muir 2012, pp. 134–136.
    • Platts 2015, pp. 156–7.
      • Should be either 134–136 and 156–157, or 134–6 and 156–7 (I prefer the latter :) Fix throughout ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:45, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fixed. Though I personally prefer the latter. GamerPro64 02:37, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Grammatical and typos
  • Several instances of Liberman instead of Lieberman ... also, Jeff Lieberman many times, which could be just Lieberman, since there are not multiple Liebermans.
    • I think I just have problems spelling his name right. Fixed. GamerPro64 04:01, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The local Boy Scouts troop were hired ... American English, troop --> was ... or re-cast the sentence.
  • he conducted a full-orchestra soundtrack in England. I don't believe (?) one conducts a soundtrack ... conducted a full orchestra for the soundtrack ... mention that he was composer and conductor, both.
  • MGM later released in 2011 ... not a sentence.
    • Combined two sentences. GamerPro64 04:01, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Here, grammatical issue (and another "later") ... MGM later released in 2011 as part of a set with Swamp Thing and The Return of the Living Dead.
  • Donald Guarsico saying ... is not a sentence.
  • tone and lack of ... undermines ... grammar (tone AND lack UNDERMINE)
  • John Kenneth Muir missing comma ... undermined, tense agreement? ... word "overall" not needed.
  • "Weird Paul" needs quotes ... worm in egg cream is mentioned three times for him, redundant, can do better, vary the wording
  • 93-minute run time (hyphen is missing)
Linking
Misc
  • The film guidelines call for a plot summary of 400 to 700 words for a featured film; this is at 660. It could be considered, then, on the long side for a short-ish film article, but I think not ... because ... I believe there is still interesting material in the sources that might be incorporated. Adding to the article would bring the plot summary size more in line with the overall article size. I am not sure the full date which the film was set needs to be in the plot summary (just the year?).
Prose nitpicks
  • Most of the film's budget came ... budget is different than financing, and I believe financing is the word wanted here, according to source.
  • He completed the rough draft in six weeks then gave it to producer ... change then to and ?
  • This film happened start to finish very fast (mentioned in the sources), that maybe should be included in article.
    • I could not find what source you mean. GamerPro64 02:37, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ruined fishing industry is too strong of a word -- implies the industry was destroyed ... source says "thrown off".
  • Mangine was the director of photography while Henry Shrady was the ... while implies a distinction not needed here ... while --> and ?
  • On prosthetics ... make clear how he used prosthetics ... unclear if the lead means worms were fake here ... it is actually the prosthetics used on actors when worms in face, this could be better developed, explained, and grossified.
  • R to PG could be better explained ... what sorts of things were cut?
    • I mentioned later in the article that they restored a scene in the movie where the female lead was naked in a shower. GamerPro64 04:01, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • This might be reversed then. When we first mention R to PG, state that this scene was cut, and then later mention that the shower scene was added back ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:19, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Boy Scouts did more than handle the worms, they crawled under to make them appear to undulate ... lots of things that are in sources that could be used to explain how the film was made yukky.
  • WAY too much use of the word "later", when it is implied, or could be implied:
    Add the word "May" before Cannes ... remove the next later ...
    AIP "later" ... later is redundant in this section ... AIP edited the film, cutting the running time to 92 minutes, with the goal of getting a "PG" rating.
    R to PG Despite the edits ?? What did the edits remove ? We don't know why the "despite" is called for ... did they remove really good stuff?
    Release, too much "later" ... Another later ... change to ... The film was released ... in 1983 and by on DVD ... in 2003, no need for "later", more straightforward.
  • restored ... and includes ... tense change
  • Contemporary reviews were lukewarm upon its release. Contemporary is redundant to "upon its release", not needed.
  • These films reflect attitude ... reflecting ... vary wording.
  • Suggest fixing sentence to: Reviews of the special effects were mixed; Variety described them as genuinely creepy, but stated that their effects was ... (I encountered the oddest thing there ... one of my browsers was eating the space after Variety, so I put an NBSP there, not sure how that should be fixed, and two other browsers were not doing that ... just weird).
    • Not sure what the issue is so I will leave that be for now. Meanwhile I changed it. GamerPro64 04:01, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I rejigged, added a word where the faulty space was, and the browser seems happy now ... weird.[13] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:31, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But mostly, the sources provide good material, and the lead can be more compelling:

  • directs electricity ... into not onto ... not directs, better word?
  • "in the course of" five weeks --> over five weeks ...
  • featured in a tenth-season episode

Almost there! A good start ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:22, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I answered a lot of your comments and will do another pass through the stuff I did not. GamerPro64 04:01, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good progress, GamerPro64; I will be back on this later today. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:02, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Much better. I will do a top-to-bottom re-read in the next few days to make sure the changes hang together well and cover all of the interesting material in the sources. @Mike Christie: might you have a look now? Also, since Aoba47 and Andrzejbanas supported the FAC while the article had grammatical, typographical, MOS and sourcing errors, perhaps they will read the subsequent reviews and re-read the article now to help identify any remaining issues. Depending on further feedback, I hope to be able to support. Mainly at this stage, I think the lead could be more compelling ... will try to generate some ideas as I re-read.SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:19, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I no longer do reviews of any kind. The ping and the parts about the apparent failures of the past reviewers (myself included) are unnecessary and not constructive. The focus should be kept on helping to improve the article. If you really wish to pursue a conversation on how I should be a better reviewer, someone's FAC is not the right time or place for that at all. Either way, I do not see myself doing any reviews in the future after recent developments. Aoba47 (talk) 04:29, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Asking you to review the changes and suggest any further improvements— as a previous reviewer— is to improve the article. I apologize that my phrasing made it seem otherwise. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:55, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SG continued edit
  • “ Pittsburgh musician "Weird Paul" Petroskey created an album titled Worm in My Egg Cream, which made extensive use of material from the film, and was dedicated to the scene where Mick finds a worm in his egg cream. All 16 tracks on the album are titled the same as the album.” Extensive use of material unexplained, not in source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:27, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wood does not have page nos, but the citation can specify the chapter, “Return of the Repressed”. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:39, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest using more material from Craig, 349 ... good, graphic descriptions of why he liked special effects, and more exploration of themes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:01, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I expanded on the source material. GamerPro64 21:41, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abbott source, material about the showerhead scene, comparing it to Psycho. Was this what was deleted for PG? Then article could use this material. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:05, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • IIRC, there are two moments of that happening in the movie. The shower is used again to set up when Alma goes to the bathroom and when she opens it worms flood out. GamerPro64 14:42, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Get some mention of it somehow, as it is singled out in reviews and compared to Psycho.  ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:04, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Multiple sources call it a cult film or cult classic, article does not mention. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:07, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • TV Guide review mentions tongue-in-cheek humor and homage to the film Psycho. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:12, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • AllMovie review gives info about creepy music, synthesizers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:18, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about using Kyle Counts entire “excessively clumsy” sentence? Done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:04, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • On Counts, https://the-eye.eu/public/Books/Cinefantastique/Cinefantastique%20Vol%2005%20No%203%20%281976%29.pdf from https://the-eye.eu/ ... I am unsure if we are linking to a copyvio. @Mike Christie and Nikkimaria: might know. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:27, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It does look like a copyvio; the magazine is definitely copyrighted, and the hosting site appears to have no connection to it. Re your other ping, I don't expect to be doing a full review; I'm trying to get a project completed in real life and am doing only a little editing and reviewing till that's done. I originally commented because there were problems with the reception section, and since I wrote much of WP:RECEPTION I sometimes note those issues without intending to do a further review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:10, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I removed the url to Cinefantastique. GamerPro64 14:12, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

People have also suggested here to have a shot of Rogers face being covered in the worms. If I were to upload an image on here, would it be best to include it in the Reception section? GamerPro64 14:42, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think that's a great idea! It is often singled out in reviews. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:04, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added the shot. GamerPro64 15:38, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Nikkimaria: might you review the status of the new image at File:Squirm Wormface.jpg? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:40, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Think it's reasonable to include, although ideally the FUR would be more expansive. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:36, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • GamerPro64, I am a disaster with images ... can you expand the Fair Use rationale? I am satisfied with the amount of info now included from the sources and will begin a re-read, with the idea of adding a bit more to the lead to beef it up a bit. Almost there! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:56, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • I think I improved the rationale. GamerPro64 01:29, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The prose needs a push to bring this FAC over the line; there is good material in the sources, more of which is now incorporated. Perhaps Ceoil or Gog the Mild would do The favor of some prose smoothing? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:10, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry SandyGeorgia, but I am busy with both RL and Wikipedia and it would be next week at the earliest. And this just isn't my sort of article. I am going to remind myself that I do this for "fun", and say "no". Gog the Mild (talk) 10:30, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well I can't think of anyone in particular who can do a copyedit at such short notice. GamerPro64 06:19, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Followup edit

Gamer, www.dreadcentral.com gives no indication of reliability. Also, what it says is that Lieberman makes this statement in the commentary on the DVD, so if the Stallone content is added, it would need to be prefaced with attribution "Lieberman stated that Stallone auditioned ... ". So, you would need to listen to the DVD to see exactly what he said, and cite the timemark. But my suggestion is that if no other source mentions this, it's not worthy of inclusion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:06, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy, Dread central is considered a Reliable source for the Film wikiproject. GamerPro64 20:14, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have seen instances in which a WikiProject's assessment is not considered strong enough to classify a source as appropriate for a FAC. I feel slightly uncertain with those kinds of remarks as I find that it speaks down to a WikiProject's work. It might be helpful to point out if there is any indication of editorial oversight on the site. The fact that it won AMC's Site of the Week, and has been cited in a third-party publication like Tampa Bay Times may be helpful in this case as well. I hope this helps. Aoba47 (talk) 22:55, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47 continued edit

Apologies for initially refusing to come back to this review. I want to help as much as I possibly can so I will read through the article again and post further suggestions here if that is okay. I will put them up shortly, but I want to leave this as a placeholder for now. Aoba47 (talk) 19:52, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Before getting into the prose, I have run across chatter online that Sylvester Stallone wanted to play Roger Grimes. This bit of casting information is mentioned in the following book (link), but I am uncertain if it would be considered a high-quality source.
    • Not sure about that book but apparently the commentary by Lieberman brought up Stallone also with Sheen and Basinger. Found a Dread Central review for that. GamerPro64 04:03, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This DVD Talk source (link) includes some helpful background information on the film that is absent from the article. It talks about Lieberman being influenced by The Birds, which is a connection brought up in some academic analyses/books, the reason for Jean Sullivan's accent, and R.A. Dow doing some method acting by spending weeks in Port Wentworth to prepare for the role. I think this kind of background information would be helpful for the article.
  • Would it be beneficial to note that this was Jean Sullivan's final film appearance?
    • Not really finding a source on that.
      • Understandable. I found this Variety source (link), which mentions how she left acting to pursue dance and theatre instead. However, that kind of information is probably best for Sullivan's article as it would probably pull focus away from the film here. Aoba47 (talk) 17:38, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think there should be a citation for the running time.
  • I think it would be notable to mention that Squirm was the only production by The Squirm Company. Here's a link to support that.
    • Not sure if its really worth mentioning that. GamerPro64 04:03, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I respectfully disagree as I think it is worth mentioning. It was the first question I had when I saw that the film and production company shared the same name, and if I had that question, I could also safely assume that other readers may have the same experience as well. Aoba47 (talk) 17:36, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would change the lead's first sentence to (Squirm is a 1976 American natural horror film written and directed by Jeff Lieberman, starring Don Scardino, Patricia Pearcy, R.A. Dow, Jean Sullivan, Peter MacLean, Fran Higgins, and William Newman.) for two reasons. The "that was" part is not necessary, and after seeing the "starring..." sentence structure in the Whiskey Galore! article, I think it reads more smoothly than the current "and stars" structure.
  • I think it would be better to put this part, "Lieberman was inspired to write the script by a childhood incident", into a more active tense. Maybe something like "Lieberman developed the script based on a childhood incident"?
  • I would re-examine the prose in the lead's second paragraph. I find it to be somewhat choppy, and I think more sentence variety would make this information read more smoothly and cohesively. I find that a lot the sentences have a very similar structure throughout the article, but this is the part where I find it to be the most noticeable.
  • I am uncertain about this part (called The Art of Film—he says he developed). I have never personally seen a dash used to separate two sentences in this way so I am not sure if it is grammatically correct.
  • There is minor repetition with the phrases "the script was inspired by an incident" and "Lieberman was also inspired" as it puts a variation of "was inspired" in two back-to-back sentences.
    • I changed the first one to based. GamerPro64 04:03, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The part on Martin Sheen seems rather long, particularly since Sheen and Mick are repeated twice. I'd instead put the Hamlet part as a separate sentence as I think it would make the information more digestible to readers.
  • I do not thinks this part, "To get the worms to move the way they did in the film, they were", is grammatically correct. I think the noun "they" should be referring back to the dependent clause. So the noun should be the person/people that "get the worms to move the way they did in the film".
  • Psycho is linked twice in the article. For its first mention, I'd change it to "composer for the films The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951) and Psycho (1960)", and for its second instance, I'd remove "1960's".
  • For this part, "covered in lubricant onto Dow, with a puppeteer pulling the worms on the line to have them appear they were going into Dow's skin", I think you can just saw "his skin" as it is clear from the context of the sentence and it would avoid the repetition of "Dow" twice in the same sentence.
  • For this part, "slaughtered in Brian De Palma's 1976 film Carrie.", I am not sure if the director's name needs to be included in the prose. It just seems rather random to name him here.
    • I think its important to keep in it as its said later on that De Palma would later use a poster of Squirm in one of his other movies. Could be seen as going hand in hand. GamerPro64 04:03, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you for pointing that out. I am not sure how I missed that. I agree with you that it does help to build a connection and support that Lieberman was a fan of De Palma. Aoba47 (talk) 17:40, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would add ALT text to the film screenshot.
  • In the "Reception" subsection, there are times you use the critic's name and other instance you only use the publication's name. I'd be more consistent with one way or the other. For instance, in this part "use of synthesizers in the music score was described by Allmovie as", I'd use Guarisco instead of AllMovie. And for parts like "Variety magazine described them" and "TV Guide thought it", I'd use something like "a reviewer for Variety" or "a TV Guide contributor" to keep things more consistent.
  • The "Reception" subsection's final paragraph loses its focus in the final three sentences. The topic sentence is about more mixed/negative retrospective reviews, but the TV Guide seems like a positive review, the Abbott part reads like an objective comparison, and the paragraph ends with a positive review on the music
  • For the Abbot part, I would expand on his point. In the source, Abbott seems to enjoy that scene as "a sick twist" on Psycho, so I would add more context to this sentence so more information is available.
  • In this part, (score was described by Allmovie as producing an "unnerving effect"), it should be AllMovie. For reference 11, it should be AllMovie.
  • I think this sentence (Lieberman, who idolized De Palma, told Fangoria he met De Palma years later and asked him about the poster.) reads rather awkwardly due to the repetition of "De Palma". I think something like the following would be better: (A fan of De Palma, Lieberman told Fangoria that he asked him about the poster years later.)
  • It seems rather random to describe "Weird Paul" Petroskey as a "Pittsburgh musician". The city name does not seem particularly relevant and I do not think adds any further meaning to the sentence. It might be more insightful to add the genre of music he makes instead.
  • Here are some more sources on Petroskey and Worm in My Egg Cream. This Vice source (here) mentions that he wrote the album and released it on his label Rocks & Rolling Records. This Pittsburgh Post-Gazette source (here) briefly mentions the album in the larger context of how he uses comedy in music. I think these two third-party sources would support why the album is notable enough for inclusion since the information is currently only supported by a primary source.
  • For the Bibliography subsection, I would have each publishing company/press linked to be more consistent.
  • The Variety citation says April 11, 1976, but the source says December 31, 1975.
    • Not sure what happened there. Done. GamerPro64 04:07, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd remove "Staff Writer" from references 5 and 7.

I hope that my comments are helpful. Once everything is addressed, I will look through the article again. I hope you are doing well and stay safe with all of the craziness going on in the world at the moment. Aoba47 (talk) 21:20, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would suggest removing the Rotten Tomatoes sentence in the "Reception" subsection. I had brought this up earlier in the review, but I do not see it adding much value to the prose. It is not great to have a single-sentence paragraph, and and I have seen some discussions about the value of putting a Rotten Tomatoes score in the prose of articles about films that predate the website.
  • I'd look at the sentence structure in the "Reception" subsection. I like how you have group topics together, but a majority of the sentences have the same structure. I would add in more sentence variety to make the material more engaging to the reader and present the information in a more cohesive manner. It's a similar comment that I had on the lead's second paragraph. Let me know if that makes sense. I'd recommend looking at the same essay that Mike Christie linked. Aoba47 (talk) 04:09, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Hurricane Noah edit

Placeholder. NoahTalk 15:27, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Be consistent on whether or not you use middle initials for references. NoahTalk 19:48, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Squirm is a 1976 American natural horror film film written and directed by Jeff Lieberman" - small typo. NoahTalk 19:48, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You should also mention in the plot section that Fly Creek is fictional as some readers skip the lead. NoahTalk 20:02, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies for interrupting your review. I am uncertain if the plot section should mention that Fly Creek is fictional as it may lead to some confusion that the town is fictional in the context of the movie. For instance, the film The Beautician and the Beast occurs in a fictional Eastern European country, and when I worked on the article, an editor left the following edit summary: (In the plot, the country is not "fictional" and rephrased the sentence to clear the confusion.) I think a similar sentiment can be said here. Aoba47 (talk) 21:59, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe include a note for this as well. NoahTalk 01:07, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would make sense to me too. I can understand Hurricane Noah's reasoning as people do skip around an article so a note may be helpful. Aoba47 (talk) 18:04, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not seeing how the storm drove the electricity into the storm as mentioned in the lead. It reads to me that the lines fell and then simply electrocuted the worms. Could this sentence be reworded in the lead? I just think the act of driving implies some kind of strong force. NoahTalk 20:02, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes the lines fell and electrocuted the worms. I think I reworked it. GamerPro64 03:55, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The worms infest the house, and attack other places in town." I don't think a comma is needed here. NoahTalk 20:02, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "August 9th" I would keep this consistent with other dates. NoahTalk 20:14, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you add a note stating what year monetary values are in? I assume 1975 USD. NoahTalk 20:14, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think I understand. GamerPro64 03:55, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • There should be something specifying what year the dollar amounts are... for example "$400,000 (2020 USD)" or it could be displayed using a note saying what year all the amounts are. A note would be less intrusive than the example. We just need to make sure that the reader is aware the dollar amount listed isn't in 2020 USD. NoahTalk 01:07, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricane Noah: Do you have anymore comments? GamerPro64 22:09, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm supporting promotion. NoahTalk 22:20, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note 2 edit

I'm sorry to archive this but the prose concerns highlighted by Mike are enough to bring me to archive it. I strongly suggest working with Mike to get his concerns resolved, and hopefully we can see this again shortly in stronger shape. --Ealdgyth (talk) 14:38, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 15 August 2020 [15].

University of Missouri School of Music edit

Nominator(s): Grey Wanderer (talk) 22:34, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article on the University of Missouri School of Music was nominated and failed about a year ago. Despite my improvements, it failed to garner a prose review. The School of Music is at the University of Missouri, a large public University in the Midwestern United States. Although the school is not particularly notable, it has played a significant role in the study of music in Missouri, generated a number of prominent alumni, and is one of the primary academic divisions of a major University. The school recently (2017) celebrated its centennial and the publication of a book by musicologist and historian Michael J. Budds provided enough high quality source material for an article. I have attempted to diversify sources as best as possible. Article has been stable for a year now, although I recently updated the new facilities. Thanks. Grey Wanderer (talk) 22:34, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment
  • In 21 citations you reference the Budds book without providing a page number. This is not verifiable. I would also recommend using some form of short reference (such as WP:CITESHORT) to avoid duplication and inconsistency in how you are referring to this source (Is the publisher "MU School of Music" or "University of Missouri School of Music"?) buidhe 07:46, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Hog Farm edit

(Will be claimed for the WikiCup)

There's 53 citations in the article. Including the Budds book, which was published by the Mizzou School of Music, I counted 33 citations being from the Mizzou School of Music (counting the 21 from Budds with no page number as 1). (I may have miscounted) Even more refs are affiliated with Mizzou and are of doubtful independence since they're from an organization that it the parent university of the article subject. Of the 53 refs, ref 5, 6, 7, 11, 21, 26, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, and 53 are the only ones not affiliated with Mizzou. That's 12 out of 53, and when you count the 21 as 21, not one, you get 61 of 73 refs, or over 83.5%, are affiliated with Mizzou. Mizzou's reliable, but it's not an independent source when it's talking about itself. Too much reliance on sources that lack independence for me to support this right now. (Ref numbers from this revision). Hog Farm (talk) 03:38, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "which had become too popular for the Fraternity to manage" - not sure Fraternity needs capitalized here.
  • "In 1933 the Department of Music would become a member of the National Association of Schools of Music and in 1935 the University Concert Series would host pianist Sergei Rachmaninoff in front of a crowd of thousands" - Comma after 1933. Also, try to avoid use of the word "would" in contexts like this, it's just better to have "... the Department of Music became a member ... Concert Series hosted pianist ..." etc. There's a lot of usages of would in here, it's generally best to go ahead and state it in less passive voice.
    • Wow. That might be the best feed-back I've ever received. It was awful, I've parred it down to just one "would". Grey Wanderer (talk) 23:49, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • We really need page numbers for Budds for verification. For your sake, I hope Budds has an index. I used a book with no index at First Battle of Newtonia, not a fun time.
    • Haha yeah. Working on it. Lucky most the history section is sourced from a timeline near the beginning, that's most of the missing page numbers. Grey Wanderer (talk) 23:49, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1954, Bethune Bischooff became the first woman appointed to a full-time position" - I'm assuming full-time position is referring to teaching, but probably best to be explicit on that, you can also be a full-time janitor.
    • Yes that's clearly what Budds meant, but that's his wording in the book and I didn't want to stray from the sources claim. I would make the change, but would also like to stay true to the source. Any thoughts? Grey Wanderer (talk) 23:49, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Probably best to stay loyal to the source. I tried looking on Google, but even searching for "Bethune Bischoof Missou" only brought up obscure German genealogies. Hopefully there's another source out there to clarify this.
  • "and a former Unitarian church adjacent to campus" - Link Unitarian to the article about the denomination
  • "The first Jazz ensemble sponsored by the Department" - Should Jazz really be capitalized? It's lowercase in other usages.
  • "In 2015, the Sinquefield's" - Not a possessive use, so drop the '
  • "In 2019 the Mizzou New Music Initiative announced a 2.5 million gift from the Sinquefield's" - Comma after 2019 and drop the ' in "Sinquefield's"
  • "The new Music Building opened in the Spring 2020 semester.[6]" - Is not supported by the source. The source is from 2019, so there is no way to demonstrate using that source that the opening actually happened.
    • Fixed. Reworked the last two paragraphs of the history section, new sources and updates. Grey Wanderer (talk) 01:43, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the big gallery in the facilities section, drop one of the images so they will fit all on one line (I'm assuming it gets split into two lines on more machines than just my laptop. The Marching Mizzou image is probably the least relevant for the facilities section.
    • My understanding is that we should let individual users setting determine how pics display. I tried it on several devices and got two lines of 4/4 on mobile and two line of 6/2 on my computer, so removing one may make it look nice on your device, but wouldn't do anything aesthetically for the two I use. Although if you think the gallery is too expansive for other reasons I'm open. Grey Wanderer (talk) 01:43, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "who's large Skinner pipe organ" - Should be "whose", not "who's"
  • "Sinquefield Music Center North entrance" - I'm not entirely sure that North should be capitalized here
  • "Mini Mizzou performs at Missouri Tigers men's basketball events. Musical Theater opportunities are provided through the Department of Theater.[43]" - Mini Mizzou is not mentioned in the reference at all, and the musical theater opportunities are only mentioned obliquely in the sense that there's an announcement on the page that the Theater Department is having a musical.
    • The source for Mini Mizzou was in the prior sentence, easy fix. I found the best source I could quickly find on performance opportunities in musical theater for school of music students, does that work or should I find something less primary? Grey Wanderer (talk) 02:09, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Looks acceptable to me.
  • Esterhazy Quarter is a duplink
    • Fixed. I'm curious is this a strict rule? It seems reasonable someone could take a interest in the "Ensembles" section without ever reading the "History" section and therefore miss the Esterhazy Quartet page entirely. Grey Wanderer (talk) 23:49, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the references would be better off having the publisher instead of the website in the citation. For instance, for "Chapter Listing: Tau Beta Sigma", giving a publisher of Tau Beta Sigma is more meaningful than having tbsigma.org as the website listed.
    • Fixed? The student groups were all cited like that, I've fixed those. Do you feel that way about citing the School of Music website (or any others) as well? Grey Wanderer (talk) 01:50, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I see from a quick run-through. I'm willing to discuss any of these, and a longer look may turn up more. Hog Farm (talk) 22:31, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to the independence of sources, if I can mange to pull it under 50% associated with the school, is that enough to garner support here? I totally understand the concern, it's quite difficult as all the most authoritative sources are published by the school itself. I'm sure I can dig up some news articles from the Columbia Daily Tribune to support some of the history independent of the Budds book. Grey Wanderer (talk) 23:54, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I personally (not sure about other editors) wouldn't base it on a hard numerical line. I'd look more for balance, especially in the history section. For like the degrees offered and the specific bands the department supports, I think leaning heavy of Mizzou is acceptable, because Mizzou is probably going to be the most definitive and up-to-date source on the program's offerings. I think the history section could use having independent sources spliced in, for at least some of the facts. Maybe one of the newspapers in Columbia has done a write-up of the program's history.
@User:Hog Farm, I made a major effort to diversify sources further. I've doubled (+50 or so) the number of sources, most of which aren't affiliated with the University or School of Music. The Budds book makes up a much smaller chunk now. Grey Wanderer (talk) 23:48, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments

Ref 43 (BNIM) - Drop bnim.com, you don't need the website when it's identical to the organization's name.

Done

Hunt's Black and White Justice needs a publisher

Both of these Hunt books might be self published. I went to the library and looked at physical copies, No publisher listed. Both are very good local history books. Should I find alternative sources or can they be made usable somehow?
Unless Hunt has really good credentials, I don't think they can be used in a FA.
Maybe Google preview will let you see the information you need in this book. McFarland & Company looks like a reliable publisher. Hog Farm (talk) 16:54, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure if it meets your credentials, but he is a Professor Emeritus of English at Mizzou, and looks to have won some national awards for writing including one for the the essay above. Take a look at his bio on Amazon and Mizzou. The book you found is awesome, but I hesitated to use it as much of the author's information came from Hunt. More importantly the author is the granddaughter of Hermann Almstedt, the dude I'm trying to find a source for, so might not be the most neutral source. This is anecdotal, but I do know Hunt is considered the authority on the historical event the book is about.
Just to be safe I've gone ahead and removed the two sources per your objection. Grey Wanderer (talk) 20:15, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm doubting the reliability of Hunt's The Lynching of James Scot. It looks rather self-published.

See comment above

Check on Worldcat for OCLCs for Switzler, Lockmiller, Howard, and Underwood. Olsen may be new enough it has an ISBN, but if there isn't one, check for an OCLC on that one, too.

Done, you were right Olsen was ISBN

For ref formatting consistency, add a publisher to ref 45 (another one of the Mizzou sites)

Done

The reference balance is much improved. Hog Farm (talk) 01:43, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Grey Wanderer (talk) 03:38, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Therapyisgood edit

Can give this a look. Therapyisgood (talk) 15:21, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Therapyisgood (talk) 12:56, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • All caps should generally be avoided in references, see ref 49 for instance.
    • Fixed
  • You use the Budds reference one way (ie citing pages to a book listed in the "References" section) but you cite other book differently. I think you should move Stephens, Frank (1962). A History of the University of Missouri. to the "References" section and cite like you do for Budds.
    • Done
  • Ref 74 I believe you should use an endash (–) or an emdash (—) rather than a hyphen.
    • Fixed
  • Perhaps cut File:Belem-TeatroPaz3.jpg, it's breaking into the section below it.
    • Done
  • I am surprised there is no estimate of students in the infobox.
  • It is located on campus in Downtown Columbia on what campus? On the University's? unclear wording
    • Fixed
  • It is located on campus in Downtown Columbia in the recently opened can you give a year here? MOS:RECENTLY applies, I don't think this page would be updated regularly.
    • Fixed by removing "recently opened"
  • The Fine Arts Building, opened in 1961, continues to house faculty offices and a recital hall as of when?
    • Fixed by removing "continues"
  • The school's ensembles have performed worldwide and can be heard weekly on 90.5 FM Classical. something should be added here on 90.5 being owned by the University of Missouri.
    • Done
  • band, today known as Marching Mizzou when did it adopt that name?
    • I'm not sure I've ever seen a source for the name's first usage. Any ways I think that particular spot is not appropriate to go into greater detail, as I'm trying to lay the history out strictly chronologically.
    • Ok, A deep dive into the Budds book did turn up a date so I've added it to the history section.
  • and first at an institution perhaps "the first"
    • Fixed
  • to campus perhaps "the campus"
    • Fixed
  • Rechristened as the "University Concert Series," when? do you have a year? can you specify it it was at the same time as it changed hands from the fraternity?
    • I thought it was clear it was the same year we had been talking about, I made further edits for clarity.
  • for the band his band or the university's?
    • Fixed "the Cadet Band"
  • by Paul Van Bodegraven could you give a half-sentence on who this was?
    • Added "by choral director"
  • Bethune Bischooff again another half-sentence would be great, especially since we don't have an article on her.
    • Added "pianst" that's literally all my source says about her.
  • Though panned by critics past and present why? can you give examples?
    • Added specifically for it's design, I'd hesitate to go into further detail as it doesn't seem consequential enough to me to merit more than a passing mention.
  • Copeland conducted the University Philharmonic and narrate narrated?
    • Fixed
  • work Lincoln Portrait a half-sentence on what this is would be great.
    • Added "orchestral work", this is a very famous piece.
  • to the film Koyaanisqatsi film should be in italics
    • Fixed
  • who currently hold the position as of when? MOS:RECENTLY
    • Added "As of 2020"
  • The Sinquefield Music Center, opened in 2020 any idea how much this cost?
    • Yes, there are many sources, somewhere in the 20-30 million range. I purposely left it out as I think too much is made of money, but I can add it if you think it's important.
  • The Bachelor of Music degree is divided into ten focus areas as of when?
    • Added :As of 2020"
  • can be heard weekly on 90.5 FM Classical. this isn't mentioned in the article anywhere but it's in the lead.
    • Added a couple sentences in history section with sources

This isn't as far off from being a FA as I first thought it would be. Credit to the author. Therapyisgood (talk) 21:21, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. Grey Wanderer (talk) 01:50, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would be interested in hearing more about the partnerships, what they entail, how they are established, etc.
  • Lincoln Portrait needs to be in italics.
    • Fixed
  • America's Got Talent needs italics. Therapyisgood (talk) 12:56, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed. Question: Should Beethoven's 9th Symphony be treated similarly or is that different? Grey Wanderer (talk) 22:40, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Based on my reading of MOS:ITALICS Major works of art and artifice, such as albums, books, video games, films, musicals, operas, symphonies should be italicized, so yes. Therapyisgood (talk) 03:52, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fixed
  • The students infobox label is for students, IMO not appropriate to list majors there. Therapyisgood (talk) 03:52, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can see a case for sticking with majors. At many universities, some sort of fine arts credit is required as a graduation requirement, so most students will take a class in the music school/department at some point. The number of music majors is probably a more relevant figure. Hog Farm Bacon 04:17, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]


I tend to agree with Hog Farm, however, if it is the difference between your support or not I would gladly remove it. I originally added it I think because you said you thought it was odd nothing was in the field and I do agree that basic information is needed, but I don't think the University of NCES tracks anything but majors/minors. Grey Wanderer (talk) 22:58, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Therapyisgood, I have removed the stat per your objections. Grey Wanderer (talk) 19:52, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note edit

I've added this to the urgents list to hopefully gather some more reviews. Also the image and source review list for same. --Ealdgyth (talk) 14:12, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass edit

  • All images are free.
  • I've removed some images. There are now only three photos in the gallery, which perhaps could be distributed to the rest of the article (or not).
    • Thanks for the trimming, I did add back the picture of Faurot Field since it is mentioned in the lead; I also added a sentence in the relevant facilities section, does that address your concern? Grey Wanderer (talk) 19:54, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Mizzou Jesse Thumb.jpg ideally should be replaced with something a bit higher resolution. (t · c) buidhe 15:22, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

About time this one had a source review, working on now. Aza24 (talk) 00:10, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Bibliography looks good
  • The use of locations is inconsistent, some have them and some don't. That being said it looks like, which I'm assuming was on purpose, the only uses of locations are in the books. I'm fine with using locations for books but not web/news sources, but you'd have to remove the location from ref 13 – which I believe is the only web/news source you use a location for.
  • 43 missing author and date
  • 46 missing date
  • There's also inconsistencies with the use of the web template and the news template, some news sources uses news and some use web, I would recommend changing all news sources to news, this would include refs: 36, 43, 59, 66, 83 – I may have missed some
  • Ref 41 (link) is broken
  • Use ISBN 13s in refs 18 and 24 (use the converter)
  • I think I'll have to give it a second pass after these changes but no major clean up needed by any means, you're on the right track. Aza24 (talk) 04:46, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I hate doing this but this, but its been three weeks and still no further reviews. I can't make folks review things, although I hate doing this to nominators. I'm going to have to archive this, @SandyGeorgia: - do you have any suggestions on folks who might help this at a peer review and then when it returns to FAC? --Ealdgyth (talk) 14:12, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If the nominator will take it to peer review, and pester my talk page with reminders ( I am busy, I forget, and I lose track of pings), I will make sure it happens. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:18, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 12 August 2020 [16].

Manilal Dwivedi edit

Nominator(s): Gazal world (talk) 13:26, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Manilal Dwivedi was a writer, poet, and philosopher from British India famous for his works on Indian philosophy, particularly on Advaita Vedanta philosophy. He was, along with Swami Vivekananda, invited to the first Parliament of the World's Religions to represent Hinduism. In the short span of his life (40 years), he left a long lasting impression on Gujarati literature. I am nominating this for featured article. It had a GA review by Yashthepunisher, and several people were active in its Peer Review. All constructive criticism and advice is welcome, no matter how minor, as I'm only interested in improving the representation of such an important Indian writer. I'll endeavour to answer comments as quickly as possible. Bringing this article up to this stage would not be possible without help and collaboration. Thanks to all the editors who have helped along the way, including Gog the Mild, Tim riley, Peacemaker67, Nishidani, and Nizil Shah. This is my first attempt for FA. --Gazal world (talk) 13:26, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass
  • All images look good. (t · c) buidhe 16:24, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mike Christie edit

I'll copyedit as I read through; please revert anything you disagree with. It might take me two or three days to complete the review.

  • Pandit Yuga, an era of Gujarati literature during which scholarly writing evolved: is "scholarly" the right word here? Our (linked) article seems to say that the change during this era was more general than that. Perhaps "Pandit Yuga, an era in which Gujarati literature expanded beyond religious forms to address ..." and perhaps take something from the list in our linked article: "social welfare, criticism, plays, new-age thinking, worship of the country, the values of life, etc.". I gather "Pandit Yuga" is literally "Age of Scholars" but it doesn't sound like that's the right way to define the literature of that era.
Rephrased: Pandit Yuga, an era in which Gujarati literature expanded beyond religious forms to address social welfare, Western literary genres, and new-age thinking.
That's an improvement, but now I look at it "new-age thinking" is probably not the right term - in English the phrase refers to "New Age", which I'm sure is not what is meant. You're citing this to Desai 2011; how does he define it Pandit Yuga? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:35, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Desai's book don't say anything about the defination of Pandita Yuga. We will have to use another source for the definition. Perhaps, this source would be best for the definition. Please check.
The distinct characteristics of this age was : all the writers received western education at newly founded university, and all of them were proficient in Sanskrit language.
I would suggest this:Pandit Yuga, an era in which Gujarati literature expanded beyond religious forms to address social welfare, Western literary genres, and new ideas and concepts brought by the colonial rule. -Nizil (talk) 14:39, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatively: Pandit Yuga, an era in which Gujarati literature expanded beyond religious forms to address the literary genres, ideals, ideas and concepts from the West brought by the colonial rule. -Nizil (talk) 14:39, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see the linked source, but the second sentence suggested seems fine to me, so long as it's supported by the source. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:10, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The definition proposed by Nizil is not supported by the source. So I am working on a new definition supported by the source.
Somewhat similar definition supported by ref: Pandit Yuga – an era in which Gujarati writers explored the traditional literature, culture and religion to redefine contemporary Indian identity when it was challenged by the Western culture brought by the colonial rule – ...[1]-Nizil (talk) 18:09, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Panchal, Shirish (1998). B.K. Thakore. New Delhi: Sahitya Akademi. p. 5. ISBN 978-81-260-0373-0.
  • The lead says both He was one of several ... who campaigned for reforms ... and he resisted the influence of Western civilisation and social reform; these appear to contradict each other.
In colonial India, the process of reform was two fold. One coming from the West, and the other indigenous. Also there were reformers who felt the need for reform but did not want to look upto the West. Manilal was one of them.
That's a helpful distinction but it's not apparent in the lead; can you make it clearer that the two uses of "reform" are different in this way? And in the "Social reform and educational writings" section can we get some examples of what he believed were needed reforms? That also might help with the distinction -- i.e. if we can see what he campaigned for, which is relevant information for this article anyway, we can contrast that with Western reform ideas he disagreed with. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:35, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lead already includes As he held Eastern civilisation in high esteem, he resisted the influence of Western civilisation and social reform. In section, Gazal world may add needful info.-Nizil (talk) 15:09, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What's missing from the lead is the background information that social reformers were divided by the question of Western influence. Details in the body would help flesh out the ways in which the groups differ, but I don't think that's needed in the lead. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:17, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This quotes from Raval's book clarifies that there were two groups of reformist. See "The conflicting trends — one of new wave of reform movement under the Western influence, wanting to change the structure and the value-system of the Indian society, and the other, and urge to safeguard and justify the cultural tradition of India — shaped the mental make-up of Manilal Dwivedi. (Raval, p.197)"
I have prepared two paraphrased version of the above quotes: (1) In 19th-century India, there were two main groups of reformers. One, influenced by the Western education and ideas, challenged the validity of many Indian traditions and agitated for either abolishing or making fundamental changes to them. The other group resisted the Westernisation of Indian culture, wishing to protect traditional Indian heritage. (2) Among 19th-century Indian reform movements, two trends existed. One aimed to alter the structure and value-system of India itself along Western lines. Concerned that such a model might undermine Indian culture, a counter movement arose which opposed such social reengineering on a foreign model, arguing that reform must update, rather than eradicate, Indian traditions. Minilal's outlook was aligned with the latter position.
Regarding your question "...in the "Social reform and educational writings" section can we get some examples of what he believed were needed reforms?", I have prepared this paragraph: Manilal was in the second of these camps and a defender of all aspects of Indian traditional thinking. He believed that the Westernising reformers' concentration on the external manifestations of institutions and traditions was fundamentally misguided. His concept was that individuals should concentrate on reforming their own attitudes and views. Such internal reforms, he believed, would express themselves in a better cooperation with others as a part of society, thus improving traditions and institutions holistically. His emphasis was more on the duties individuals owed to others rather than on the rights owed them by others. (Thaker, 56)
What you think ? If it is OK for article, where should I add it ? Can we add this at the start of "Social reform and educational writings" section?
  • Manilal appeared to be contradictory in his professions and performance. In his private life, he indulged in unrestrained eroticism and promiscuous relationships. Suggest "Manilal's private life was inconsistent with his professions: he indulged in unrestrained eroticism and promiscuous relationships."
Done
  • to a Sathodara Nagar family. What does "Sathodara" mean?
Nagar Brahmin is a Hindu caste and 'Sathodara' is a sub-caste of it. Should we include a footnote for it?-Nizil (talk) 06:22, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
done, added a footnote.-Nizil (talk) 06:33, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They are known as Sathodara because their ancestor belongs to a village named 'Sathod' (near Dabhoi). Added this fact into footnote.
  • It took me a while to figure out what "standard" means; I think a footnote explaining that it's equivalent to "grade" or "year" would be helpful to non-Indian readers.
done, added a footnote: An educational stage equivalent to grade or year.-Nizil (talk) 06:42, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • He returned to Nadiad and in July 1880, becoming an assistant teacher at the government high school: something wrong here: either "returned to Nadiad in July 1880, becoming" or "returned to Nadiad, and in July 1880 became" depending on what the timing was.
My bad. You are right. He returned to Nadiad, and in July 1880, became an assistant teacher. Corrected.
  • Given that there appears to be a book-length biography of Manilal, the biography section is fairly short -- is there no more detail that would be worth adding?
Ok. I am going to add some important biographical details. Will add some two paragraphs.
I'll take a look when you add the additional material. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:17, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Mike. I have added one paragraph in "Biography" section. Unfortunately, I could not find more details suitable for this section. As he lives only for 40 years, very less details about his biography is know. Most details about his biography come from his autobiography Atmavrittanta which he left in manuscript from; it was published 80 years later after his death. Still I am trying to find more detail, and if I will succeed, I will let you know.
Looks good; I copyedited it slightly. If the bio has no more details then that's fine, so I'm striking this point. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:05, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Manilal's first literary attempt was the play Kanta (1882): I'd consider his 1876 poem, Shiksha Shatak, a literary effort, so I would think this needs to be rephrased.
Ok. Changed to In 1882, Manilal published his play Kanta
  • He believed that the root of all activities of human life can be traced to the principle of Advaita Vedanta: I don't understand this.
He believed that 'all human activities were informed by the philosophy/principle of Advaita Vedanta'. What would you suggest. Please guide.
I can't because I still don't understand what it's telling me. Can you give me an example of what this belief might mean in practice? E.g. if someone believes this, what sort of thing would they say, or argue for? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:50, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am simplifying the sentence: Manilal believed that Advaita Vedanta philosophy can guide all human activities.-Nizil (talk) 14:56, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Simple explanation: Advaita Vedanta teaches that self-liberation (moksha) can be achieved by understanding oneself and the ultimate reality. It teaches the person and the ultimate reality are one thing, not two things. As Rambachan says: this state of liberating self-knowledge includes and leads to the understanding that "the self is the self of all, the knower of self sees the self in all beings and all beings in the self." For example, a person believing in Advaita would not harm other person because it recognises him as a part of himself. It is oversimplification but I hope that it is good enough to understand.-Nizil (talk) 14:56, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's helpful; thanks. So to say that "all human activities are informed by the philosophy/principle of Advaita Vedanta" means that he thinks that all activities should be conducted with this awareness the self is part of all and vice versa? Or that all human activities are in fact conducted in a way consonant with the principle, whether the person involved is aware of it? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:21, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. The first one. He thinks that all activities should be conducted with this awareness the self is part of all and vice versa? Note that the source does not say anything about this. But, as I am closely connected with the subject, I know this background details. If this sentence is problematic, then we will remove it.
Explaining "the philosophy/principle of Advaita Vedanta" as "awareness the self is part of all and vice versa" is presumably sourceable, right? So the only thing we need to source is the "should"; is there anything in the source that indicates this? If not I don't see how to include it, but in that case, if you're confident this is the right reading, how are you confident? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:05, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I talked with my scholar-friend Babu Suthar, and came to this conclusion that we should not use "should" here as Manilal doesn't prescribe this as an idea. He says that the roots of all the activities are in non-dualism (Advaita). This is a descriptive statement which describes his position. We can not support such claims by giving empirical proof. It is, in fact, a theoretical position. I would prefer Nizil's rephrasing: Manilal believed that Advaita Vedanta philosophy can guide all human activities.
To say that Manilal believed Advaita Vedanta philosophy should be used in a certain way is not supporting the claim; it's just stating Manilal's belief. However, I think the rephrasing is OK too. I'd like to copyedit it slightly, and explain it inline; how about "Manilal believed that the philosophy of Advaita Vedanta, that the self is part of all and vice versa, can guide all human activities."? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:37, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Rephrased: He believed that the philosophy of Advaita Vedanta, that the self is part of all and vice versa, can guide all human activities.
  • He was recognised both in India and more widely as a staunch protagonist of ancient Indian religion: "protagonist" isn't the right word; do you mean "proponent"? And should "Indian religion" be more specific -- Hinduism, perhaps? As it stands it could mean he was a proponent of Jainism too. And "more widely" is a fairly strong claim, given that he was writing in Gujarati; what does the source actually say here?
Rephrased He was recognised both in India and in abroad as a staunch proponent of ancient Hindu tradition. Further, he also wrote several books and articles into English, which were well received in abroad. According to sources, he was known as a 'learned Indian philosopher' in abroad.
  • Did he attend the 8th or 9th Oriental Congress, for which he wrote articles?
No. He didn't attend it. He only sent his articles to be read at the 8th & 9th Congress.
  • He was awarded a certificate of merit for the second article: who by?
Obviously by the Congress. No more information is available.
  • Manilal wrote two books in Gujarati: I was surprised by this, as I'd assumed everything above not specifically described as being in English was in Gujarati. I assume you're not including Gulabsinh since it was a translation, but I had assumed Raja Yoga was in Gujarati except for the parts you describe as being in English. Given that Manilal is famous as a Gujarati literary figure it would probably be good to be clearer about what's in Gujarati and what's in English as we go through, and I'd change "two books" to something like "two books in addition to Gulabsinh". Reading further, what about Panchashati? And looking at Works of Manilal Dwivedi I see several other Gujarati titles.
Sorry for confusion. You are right. No need to mention: Manilal wrote two books in Gujarati. All his books were written in Gujarati. For the English books, I have described them as being in English. The entire book Raja Yoga was written in English. Panchashati is the Gujarati version of Manilal's English book The Imitation of Shankara. Can I replace Manilal wrote two books in Gujarati, with In order to response the so-called reformist movement of his age, Manilal planned to write two books. (Thaker, p. 29) ? What you think ?
It would be "In order to respond to the so-called reformist movement of his age, Manilal planned to write two books"; but what do you mean by "so-called"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:41, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The "so-called" reform movements are "other" reform movements inspired by the West. Manilal's reforms were rooted in Eastern philosophy. I suggest: In order to respond to the reformist movement of his age inspired by the West, Manilal planned to write two books.-Nizil (talk) 15:09, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the distinction between the two branches of reform, Western-inspired and indigenous, is a key point. Are there names for these two approaches, or were there names then? Would it make sense to add a paragraph at the start of the "Works" section explaining the history of the reform movement and the distinctions drawn between the brances, and placing Manilal's works within that context? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:24, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rephrased. In order to respond to the Westernised reformist movement of his age, Manilal planned to write two books. To clear the distinction between the two branches, I have prepared some two paragraphs in my sandbox. Waiting for your reply.
I'll comment there. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:40, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think, we should strike this point, as it is resolved. The remained issues has already been covered in the above discussion (Your 2nd point).
  • By design, the first contained practical expressions of spiritualism according to Hindu philosophy and is titled Pranavinimaya. Do we need "by design"? Suggest "The first, Pranavinimaya, contained practical expressions of spiritualism according to Hindu philosophy."
Done as you suggested.
  • started a Prarthana Samaj movement in Nadiad: I think "movement" is probably the wrong word here; the movement was started by Dadoba Pandurang and Atmaram Pandurang, according to our article on it, so Manilal and his friends would have started a local group, or a society, or a meeting, or something like that.
done, changed to started a local group of Prarthana Samaj in Nadiad. -Nizil (talk) 06:17, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, given that the Prarthana Samaj movement is relevant to the controversies section, a parenthetical explanation of the movement would be helpful to the reader -- just "(a movement for social and religious reform)" would be enough.
done, added footnote: a movement for social and religious reform started in Bombay in 1867. -Nizil (talk) 06:33, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Priyamvada and Sudarshan are mentioned twice; I'd suggest finding a way to combine the mentions, and it would also be good to explain why he switched from one to the other -- the linked articles say it was because he realized an article on women's issues would never be successful, so if you can source it that would be worth adding.
Fixing twice mention... Done See, what you think?
Explained the reason why the magazine was switched to other.
Now it says he found that it was difficult and premature to run an exclusive women's magazine, which is not very specific. Are the sources clear on this? E.g. was it because he realized the magazine would never gain much circulation since men would not buy it? Or perhaps because it was premature, in that women's issues were not of interest to many reformers, so there was not much of an audience for it? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:35, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think, the current explanation is enough. Also there are separate articles for both magazines. Manilal realised that the magazine would not flourish so long as it addressed only women readers. So he expanded the scope of the magazine. At that time, Gujarat was very backward, and most women were uneducated. So he didn't received desired response from women community. But, I am happy to do whatever you would suggest.
That's a much clearer explanation than what is in the article. Assuming you have a source for what you say, I'd suggest "In 1885, Manilal founded and edited a magazine called Priyamvada to discuss the problems faced by Indian womanhood. At the time, most Gujarati women were uneducated, and the magazine did not draw the response he had hoped for from the women's community, so in 1890 he renamed it Sudarshan, and made it wider in scope." Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:04, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done
  • As Jhaveri noted in History of Gujarati Literature, through his writing in Priyamvada and Sudarshan, Manilal emerged as the acknowledged master of Gujarati prose: Again quite a strong claim; is Jhaveri enough of an authority to make this claim as fact? "Noted" implies that what follows is clearly factual, so it would probably be better to weaken this to "according to Jhaveri", or something similar.
Changed to According to Jhaveri. Jhaveri is considered an authority in Gujarati literature. His book History of Gujarati Literature was one of the earliest literary history of Gujarati literature. The book was published by Sahitya Akademi, India's national academy of letters.
OK; I copyedited it a little. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:35, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not necessarily a problem for this article, but I see some inconsistencies between this article and Works of Manilal Dwivedi. For example, I don't see Charitrya listed in the works article, and Malati Madhava is listed as Malatimadhavam.
Charitrya is listed in the works article; in 'Translation and Adaptation' section (from English). Regarding Malatimadhavam, both spelling are OK. For consistency, I have changed it to Malatimadhava in both article. P.S. Sorry. The correct spelling is 'Charitra'. Corrected now.
  • It seems there are many more works by Manilal that you don't mention; of course you can't list them all, but what's the basis for selecting which ones you do mention in this article?
I have included only those works which were widely discussed and studied. I can write one or two paragraph about his minor works, if you suggest.
No need; I just wanted to understand the basis for what was mentioned. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:35, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Their public debates are considered unparalleled in Gujarat's history of reflective literature. Does this refer to actual debates at public meetings? Or to the back-and-forth articles they wrote? I think it must be the latter but "public debates" implies the former.
The 'public debates' refer to the articles they wrote to each other and published in their own magazines. (Neelkanth's magazine was Jnanasudha; Manilal's magazine was Sudarashan).
How about making it "Their public debates, carried on in the pages of Manilal's Sudarashan and Neelkanth's Jnanasudha, are considered unparalleled in Gujarat's history of reflective literature"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:35, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done As you suggested.
Struck. Does Jnanasudha deserve a redlink? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:09, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Mike. Don't worry. I am going to create a blue-link for Jnanasudha.
  • Is Advocate of India worth a redlink?
Done
  • (the one who steadily fixed in the consciousness of the Supreme Brahman, the ultimate reality): I don't follow the syntax here. Should be just "(one who steadily fixed in his consciousness the..."?
This sentences is the explanation for the Sanskrit term Brahmanishtha. Brahmanishtha means 'the one who continuously keep his mind attached with Brahman'. Brahman is the Advaita vedanta terminology for 'ultimate reality' (God). What would be the right explanation. Please guide me.
I think ""(one who always keeps his mind fixed on the Supreme Brahman, the ultimate reality)" would do it. Looking elsewhere on the web for definitions of this makes it clear it's not a term with a simple definition. Is the term itself worth a red link, do you think? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:47, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done As you suggested. If you talk about Brahmanishtha, I don't think it deserves red link.
OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:25, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure Arnold's comments at the end are a good way to conclude the article. This is the opinion of a Western orientalist, talking about one of Manilal's earlier works. It might be more suitable to mention this (perhaps in a footnote) when you talk about Raja Yoga earlier in the article; you do already mention Arnold's admiration for the book at that point.
Done Moved that quote in a footnote.
  • Any reason there are no citations to Purani's biography?
Purani's biography is very old and outdated, So I haven't used. Thaker's biography is the most reliable source.

That's it for a first pass. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:46, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: My honest 'thanks' to you for your time and your detailed comments. I will address all the issues very soon. --Gazal world (talk) 12:24, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am helping in this FA. -Nizil (talk) 06:17, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Replies without signature are mine. --Gazal world (talk) 15:05, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck or replied to everything above, except for the note about adding more biographical material; I'll read through when you add that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:50, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Section break edit

Coming back to this after a hurricane-enforced break. Here's what is not resolved from above -- I know some of this is discussed and perhaps resolved at the sandbox linked above, but I'm just trying to gather things here to simplify re-reading.

  • A good translation and explanation of Pandit Yuga is still under discussion.
  • The background of reform during Manilal's time needs expansion, and an explanation of what kind of reforms he supported and how he fit into the movements of the day.
  • Clarification of Manilal's belief in Advaita Vedanta philosophy.

Everything else above is dealt with, whether struck or not. I'll go and look at the sandbox next. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:40, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, have read through again. I suggested above that more context at the start of the Works section would help set the stage, and looking through now I still think that's the case. The first paragraph defines the Pandit Yuga, and finishes with a sentence about Advaita Vedanta, but that's the only context we get. For a reader like myself who has none of this background this is not enough to position Manilal historically, or amongst the other reformers of the day. Here's what I think the reader needs to understand before we get to the discussion of his works (with the caveat that my understanding is drawn from the notes in your sandbox, so I may well have misinterpreted some things):

  • Pandit Yuga was (per Patel, cited in your sandbox) an era in which the writers had absorbed a knowledge of Western culture and intellectual history, but were also familiar with the Sanskrit literature of their own culture. That appears to be a big part of what launched their scholarship.
  • It might also be worth pointing out that apparently the writers of Pandity Yuga gained their knowledge of Sanskrit, initially at least, via Western scholarship. I would guess there's a tie there with the wish for independence and reclamation of one's own culture that parallels and informs some of the strands of the reform movement.
  • The reader needs to understand the division within the reformers: some believed in "outward reforms": changing social practices directly, such as caste restrictions, and others believed that these changes should come from a reform of religious ideas.
  • This latter type of reform still needs more explanation, I think: I'm still not seeing in what sense he was a social reformer, if he argued only for changes in people's relationship with their religion, and not for a change in outward behaviour in any way. If the answer is that "social" here includes religious reform, then we need to clarify that -- "social reform" is not going to be interpreted that way by most readers. The characterization of Manilal's desired reforms is clearer (in the sandbox) than it was, but I still think we need specific examples both of what characterized the group Manilal was allied with and his own specific beliefs. This will presumably include some form of the sentence about Advaita Vedanta that we've been working on.

Once the reader understands those things, I think we can go on with the material in the works section.

I don't think these are minor changes; it's going to take a little while to get it right. If you agree that something like what I'm suggesting is a good idea, then given that it's been a while since this was nominated, I think you might consider withdrawing at this point. I'd be willing to work with you on the wording of the material -- there's not a lot of it needed but the sandbox work attests to how tricky it's going to be get it right. Once we have that sorted out and you renominate I would expect to be able to support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:26, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: Hi. Happy to see you back. I have no problem with withdrawing this nomination. But I already have prepared some contents to answer these question: (1) the definition or Pandit Yuga (2) Distinction between two reform group & (3) Manilal's position among them. Please see your 1st and 2nd point. Answers are there. --Gazal world (talk) 06:07, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The content above is a good start, but my comments were after reading them. For example, the two points about Sanskrit aren't in Nizil's suggested wording. I'm not insisting on these points, just suggesting that we include them based on my (limited) understanding of the sources you quote. Similarly, the expanded comments about Manilal's reformist beliefs are helpful but are general; there are no specific examples of what he was arguing for. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:45, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok Mike. I understand your point. I will work on it, and definitely I will ask for your help at sandbox. How can I withdraw this nomination. Please guide me. And when I can re-nominate this after withdrawing? --Gazal world (talk) 10:52, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You can withdraw by asking the coordinators; pinging Ian Rose and Ealdgyth -- one of them will take care of it. I'm out of town part of this weekend but should have some time to help out. You can renominate after two weeks, and it'll probably be close to that by the time we're done with the sandbox. I look forward to working with you on this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:25, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'll handle the withdrawl in a few... I just got out of bed and need some caffeine before doing anything that might break the wiki... --Ealdgyth (talk) 12:35, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 7 August 2020 [17].

Ilomilo (song) edit

Nominator(s): The Ultimate Boss (talk) 00:49, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a song by Billie Eilish. It was released as the final single from Eilish's debut album When We All Fall Asleep, Where Do We Go?. The song is about the fear of being separated from a loved one. The article was brought up to GA class thanks to Cartoon network freak. It has received a copy-edit and been improved since it was created. Any advice would be truly appreciated! The Ultimate Boss (talk) 00:49, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural exchange

Ian Rose, I would like to withdraw this nomination because it’s been over three days and no comments have been made. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 22:16, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry I missed this earlier. It now seems you'd like this to remain as a nom. That's fine, I wouldn't necessarily be discouraged by lack of commentary after only a few days. If it's still the case in a week or more then maybe. A Peer Review before FAC can also be helpful but now we're here let's give it a bit longer... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:13, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ian Rose, Sorry to bother you again, it's been over a week and I would like to withdraw this nom and probably renominate it tomorrow to see if any comments are made. Thanks a lot. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 19:50, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can see another nom has been put up instead, that's okay given lack of commentary here, but we can't keep throwing noms at FAC in the hope one will 'take'. If the next goes nowhere it'd be best to pause and try Peer Review or look at the FAC mentoring scheme. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:31, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Archived_nominations/August_2020&oldid=974788867"