Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/December 2018

< 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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 23:20, 29 December 2018 [1].

PlayStation Portable edit

Nominator(s): JC7V (talk) 07:55, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I feel after the work that was put into the article, including my work that I put into it that it's ready to be a FA. I feel it's already a FA but would accept feedback to fix any loose ends to make it a FA. It's the first true Sony handheld video game system. JC7V (talk) 07:55, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Unfortunately at this point I don't feel this article is ready for FA. Some specific issues:

  • I'm seeing quite a bit of unsourced detail, including much of the Models table and some of the specifics of the redesigns
  • The prose needs work in general for clarity and flow - for example "The PlayStation Portable was met with positive reception as most video game critics gave the PlayStation Portable positive reviews"
  • Citations need work for completeness and consistency. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:28, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose—I think this article needs a substantial rework to meet FA quality in its current state.

  • Prose is messy. There's lots of unneeded words ("Also, it only features a mono speaker instead of the previous models' stereo speakers") and clunky phrasing.
  • The structure of the article doesn't feel very focused, nor logical. The article starts with the announcement and launch of the intial version, which is fine, but we then get a huge contextless table of revisions, then a discussion of the later revisions before the initial one. Basic details aren't covered until the "Hardware" section that comes after mentioning all the different revisions. Reception is sometimes in the section about the hardware revision (PSPGo), other times in a dedicated section (Reception and sales). There's an unnecessary and thin "controversy" section that really feels like it should just be expanded into a marketing section and moved somewhere more germane. There are lots of single lines orphaned from paragraphs. It's kind of weird that a game handheld covers digital comics reading before it covers games.
  • I'm not sure about a lot of the images. Given how minor the PSP Room mention is, I don't see how File:PlayStation-Room.jpg is justified per non-free content criteria. A lot of images are repeated in the table and then elsewhere in the article.
  • There's a number of issues I saw in a spot check of sourcing.
    • Despite the high price, the console's PAL region launch was a resounding success, selling more than 185,000 units in the UK. The PSP sold out of all stock nationwide in the UK within three hours of launch, more than doubling the previous first-day sales record of 87,000 units set by the Nintendo DS. is not directly cited, and is not contained in the next cited source (current ref 32.)
    • Nintendo had been dominating the handheld market since launching its Game Boy in 1989, with only close competition from Sega's Game Gear (1990–1997), and Bandai's WonderSwan (1999–2003) in Japan. is not adequately cited by [2], not to mention the GameZone article doesn't appear to be a good source to use in the first place.
    • The PSP Go features 802.11b[68] Wi-Fi like its predecessors, but replaced its USB port with a proprietary connector. A compatible cable that connects to other devices' USB ports is included with the unit. The new multi-use connector allows for video and sound output with the same connector (using an optional composite or component AV cable). is not adequately cited to anything; refs 68 and 69 do not cover the details of the connector.
    • The above were just a few that I randomly pulled out. There are additional lines throughout that are clearly not cited at all.
  • Sources in spots need to be fully formatted, and archiving them would be a good idea as well.

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 22:20, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- I'll be archiving this shortly in line with the above comments, so that improvements can be made away from the pressure of the FAC process; per FAC instructions, pls wait a minimum of two weeks before (re-)nominating this or any other article. Once initial improvements are made, I'd recommend taking through GAN and then a Peer Review before considering another FAC nom; you'd also be eligible to try the FAC mentoring scheme. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:20, 29 December 2018 (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) 06:14, 29 December 2018 [3].

Working Group (resistance organization) edit

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

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

Images:
  • It's covered under FoP Slovakia: According to section 37 and 41 of the Slovak copyright law, Slovakia has freedom of panorama. Works permanently located at public places may be freely reproduced and such reproductions may be freely published and sold without the consent of the original author. and now has been tagged accordingly.
  • You can verify the license here:[4] In fact, it is PD-US-Army because it was taken by an American military aircraft; Fortepan obtained it from the (United States) National Archives. I marked it accordingly.
  • Unfortunately, I do not have any additional information on this photograph than stated on Commons.
OK ALT text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:16, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Indy beetle edit

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

Comments by Bloger edit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment by Kaiser matias edit

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

Considering the work both Bloger and Sarah have put in to improving the article here, and not wanting to rush their improvements (unless they think the issues have been addressed, of course), I reluctantly think it may be best to close this nomination and bring it back once everything is taken care of. Kaiser matias (talk) 02:38, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Kaiser matias:@SlimVirgin:@Catrìona: If the article is properly balanced - I.E. 1) the historical perspective of the likes of David Krenzler get their proper due in the right place – not as an afterthought or worse - and 2) The successes of the Group – for example: “Hiatus in the Slovakia deportations”, “Auschwitz Protocols dissemination”, “Rescue as a byproduct of the Europa Plan negotiations” ETC. - are included as a summary in the lead of the article – I will support. Bloger (talk) 19:24, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As previously stated, the book by David Kranzler that Bloger is seeking to include was described by Efraim Zuroff in an academic journal as "an extremely one-sided polemic" and "a popular invective of limited scholarly value" with significant factual errors. The lede has been edited to reflect the Working Group's role in the other events that Bloger describes above. Catrìona (talk) 20:07, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by SarahSV edit

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

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

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

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

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

“Most historians agree, that the actions of the Working group had at least some effect in halting the deportations in Slovakia in 1942. As to how much of an effect they had, and which of their actions specifically should be credited is debated”.

Do you agree that this is a fair and factual statement? And do you think that something to this effect should be in the leading section of the page, and also in the section of the page dealing with the deportation hiatus? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bloger (talk • contribs)

I must apologize for being so slow about this, but I've been caught up in other issues, and have had difficulty thinking myself back into this. It's 17 pages of reading, one and a bit pages of notes, and six pages of citations/bibliography. Not all the sources are easy to get hold of. In other words, reviewing it is a lot of work. I'm not sure how it can be managed at FAC. Ideally, it would happen via peer review with several editors involved over a longer period.
Bloger, to answer your question, I'll have to wait until I've read the article carefully. Then I'll be better able to judge whether the content fairly reflects the sources and the lead summarizes the content. SarahSV (talk) 20:08, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@SlimVirgin: Thank you for your work on this article. If it would help, as I stated above I have legally obtained pdf copies of most of the works listed in the bibliography and if it would make it easier to review, I would be happy to share them with you.
@Bloger: I think that would be a fair overview of that section in the article; we have Bauer, Fatran, Braham, Bartrop, Longerich, Rothkirchen, Aronson, and Friling who ascribe at least some effect to the Working Group's activities, versus Kamenec who doesn't. (He does not give much support to this idea in On the Trail of Tragedy either (pp. 230–233)). Notably, all of the tertiary sources favor this interpretation. Catrìona (talk) 20:51, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the offer of sources; that would be very helpful. SarahSV (talk) 04:25, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Catrìona, thanks for your note. I'm not quite sure what I need at this point. So far, I've managed to find everything, though it has taken time. I'll email you when I next have difficulty. Thanks again for being willing to send them. SarahSV (talk) 05:26, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Break edit
  • Conway: I think Conway should be handled a little differently. You've isolated him as a fringe thinker, but he was a mainstream historian who, so far as I can tell, was respected by Bauer. I've just noticed that he was a contributor, with Bauer, Rothkirchen and others, to the book (in Hebrew) Leadership in Time of Crisis: The Working Group in Slovakia, 1942–1944 (2001), the one with the introduction that insults Vrba and the people helping him, which is odd. That would be an ideal source, but I don't know whether it has been translated. I can't find it in WorldCat.
When Fatran wrote in Holocaust and Genocide Studies in 1998 that Conway's claims were "contrary to the historical truth", Conway wrote a letter to the editor complaining about it (which you cite). The editors published a note apologizing: "Most unfortunately, we allowed the article cited by Professor John S. Conway to appear with wording that might have been construed as approaching a personal attack on him. We apologize for the oversight; as Professor Conway is a member of our Advisory Board, he should in any case have received the article before publication so as to enable him to respond." That's not how fringe thinkers/positions are handled, and the lead of our article repeats the "not based in fact" point. You could remove those words after "multiple historians[c] have dismissed Conway's arguments" and just leave it there. (That sentence needs an additional "that": that it failed.)
According to the fringe theories guideline, "We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field. For example, fringe theories in science depart significantly from mainstream science and have little or no scientific support." In this case, I am unable to find any other historian who positively references Conway's theories regarding the Working Group, so it's fair to say they have little support from historians in general. Furthermore, Conway's main field of research (per Worldcat search) appears to be the churches in 20th-century Germany; he himself cannot read the language that most of the archives are in (Hebrew and Slovak). Both Fatran and Kamenec credit translation issues with what they describe as Conway's misunderstandings.
It appears that an apology was made because the claim was "construed as approaching a personal attack" on Conway, not because the claim was found to be wrong. In this article, the claim (that the theory is "not based in fact") is clearly sourced to Conway's detractors (and milder that Fatran's original formulation, "blatantly contrary to the historical truth"); it's noteworthy that Conway's critics have challenged the facts that his theory is based upon. There are a lot of things that are difficult to understand about this "controversy", but Bauer has made it repeatedly and explicitly clear what he thinks of Conway's theories about the Working Group, which he has expressed most recently in the 2006 paper and in Rethinking the Holocaust (2002) in which he states, "That Vrba should repeat this preposterous accusation against one of the real Jewish heroes of the Holocaust [that Weissmandl was a collaborator] is understandable in a bitter Auschwitz survivor. That it should have been accepted by others is less understandable." In a different section, he says of the claims made about the Working Group in the two papers written by Conway, "Nothing could be further from the truth" (p. 180). So I don't think it's fair to say that Bauer thinks of Conway's ideas as a valid alternative interpretation. It's called the fringe theories guideline not the fringe theorists guideline, and I would consider Conway reliable in the areas where his scholarship is respected.
You refer to Conway's 1979 and 1984 papers, but cite Bauer and Fatran. Conway should be cited directly. "The first article was based on the false premise": according to whom? This needs attribution. "Conway said that the Working Group collaborated": had collaborated. That sentence needs some punctuation; perhaps commas around "and failing to distribute the Vrba-Wetzler report to Jews in Slovakia". I don't understand what this means: "to cover up the complicity of group members who had allegedly drawn up lists of Jews to be deported". What is the relationship of that to distributing (or not) the report?
The problem with Conway's 1979 and 1984 papers, other than that their factual accuracy has been challenged, is that they never mention the Working Group and attribute all of its activities to the Jewish Center (the only source connecting the two is Fatran 1994). Fatran writes that more information surfaced regarding Lenard's escape "coupled with a more cautious reading of Lenard's testimony by Conway himself... prompted Conway to revise his original article" [in 1984]. If this was an inaccurate characterization, Conway did not mention that in his reply, which does explicitly mention the Working Group. "to cover up the complicity of group members who had allegedly drawn up lists of Jews to be deported" was supposedly the Working Group's motive for covering up the information; I've edited to be more clear.
  • I would rewrite the final paragraph of the lead. "Mainstream historiography on the group has been attacked from both sides. Its leaders ... believed that the failure of the Europa Plan was due to the indifference of mainstream Jewish organizations. Although this argument has influenced public opinion and historiography, most historians maintain that the Nazis would not have allowed ..." I'm not sure I understand the sentence about "mainstream historiography on the group" being attacked from both sides, or who the two sides are. I'm also not sure what "Although this argument has influenced public opinion and historiography" means. Do any mainstream historians (perhaps apart from David Kranzler) believe that the Europa Plan failed solely because of the indifference of mainstream Jewish organizations?
Rewritten and clarified "...influenced public opinion and Orthodox historiography".
  • "Europa Plan": That should be linked in the section devoted to it; "however, the Working Group could not raise", I would say "but" there, preceded by a comma; "despite his reluctance" needs a comma before it. This sentence isn't clear: "Leaders of the JDC, the WJC, and other organizations believed that the Nazi promises were empty,[170] blocking the distribution of funds to Mayer and the Yishuv, and the Swiss government obstructed currency transfers on the required scale." "[S]ome of this money was earmarked": in what sense?
"Earmarked": both intended and needed for the other activities mentioned. I've changed the sentence to "Some of this money was needed for..."
  • "A copy of the report was sent to the Judenrat of Ungvar in Carpathian Ruthenia, which unsuccessfully tried to suppress its contents." Cited to Bauer 2002, p. 237. On that page, he discusses Weissmandl's letter to the head of the Judenrat, warning people not to board the trains, but the head of the Judenrat tried to keep the letter secret. He doesn't say that the report accompanied the letter or that the entire Judenrat tried to keep it secret. Re: "Although the information was transmitted to two other Carpathian Ruthenian transit ghettos, the Jews were unable to act on the report": Bauer says they "refused to heed the warning", not that they were unable to act.
Revised: A copy of the report was sent to the head of the Judenrat of Ungvar in Carpathian Ruthenia, who unsuccessfully tried to suppress its contents. Although the information was transmitted to two other Carpathian Ruthenian transit ghettos, the Jews did not act on the report.
  • "The general information in the protocols was sent by post". That's unlikely. Cited to Bauer 2002, pp.  232–233, but I can't see where he says that. Better to say "report" instead of "protocols".
Fixed
  • Oskar Krasniarsky should be Oscar/Oskar Krasniansky.
Fixed
  • Do you know what Bauer means when he writes "falsely accused not only by Vrba but also by authors such as Tom Segev" (p. 239)? My memory of Segev is that he is supportive of the Working Group and Kastner.
In The Seventh Million, Segev portrays the Working Group positively. I added a mention of this to the article.
  • Kastner: I take the point you made earlier that this article isn't about Kastner, but it does seem odd to mention the collaborationist allegation without mentioning that Kastner was tried and assassinated in relation to the same allegation in Hungary.
  • "'Blood for goods' negotiations": The paragraph beginning "Kastner visited Bratislava in the summer" is sourced to Fatran 1994, pp. 194–195, but those pages contain footnotes only and nothing that supports the paragraph that I can see.
Corrected the page numbers to 188–189
  • "Developments in Bratislava": Re: "As a result, the Working Group recommended that the Jews in Bratislava go into hiding", what does Fatran mean by that? (Fatran 1994, p. 191) Bauer doesn't mention it that I can see. Can you say more about what Bauer means by a "dark shadow"? What could they have done that they didn't do? How did they, or how were they expected to, tell people to go into hiding?
This isn't at all clear in the sources, but I've tried to clarify in text as much as I can.
  • Re: "The Working Group was one of the only underground organization[sic] in occupied Europe to unite the ideological spectrum": I think it was the only group uniting the spectrum. But it wasn't the only group rescuing Jews from other countries. That was the point I was making above.
Yes, that's why I changed it to "one of the only". There were not many groups that tried to do this; the only one that I know of is the Aid and Rescue Committee.
  • Prose: The article is a little list-like in places. For example, in "Role in deportation hiatus": "Fatran emphasizes ... Braham credits ... Paul R. Bartrop writes that ... According to Rothkirchen ... Longerich credits ... Israeli historian Shlomo Aronson says ... According to Ivan Kamenec ..." The previous and following paragraphs do likewise. Go through the article and try to smooth out any examples of this.
I've tried to do this a bit, but I'm not sure how much the listlike quality can be altered, because it is basically a list of what each of the relevant scholars thinks (and there isn't space for more than a sentence each). Is there another article that I could use as an example for improvement?
  • The hyphens should be removed from "roughly-equal factors", "economically-useful positions", "reasonably-accurate information", and "physically- or mentally-disabled".
Done

SarahSV (talk) 17:27, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The Czechoslovak government-in-exile publicized the information in the hope of preventing the murder of Czech Jews imprisoned at the Theresienstadt family camp." Sourced to Fleming 2014, pp. 231–232. Fleming discusses how Kopecky contacted the British legation in Berne and others, not that he publicized it. He asked that it be publicized.
Fixed
  • "At its request, the BBC European Service used information about the family camp in warnings to the German leadership (broadcast on 15 and 16 June in all languages) that it would be tried for its crimes." Sourced to Fleming 2014, p. 215; Karny 2002, p. 228; and Rothkirchen 2006, p. 261. Fleming talks about a BBC German service's women's programme broadcasting this at noon on 16 June 1944, and he cites a BBC primary source. He writes that the news scripts for the Polish, Czechoslovak and German services for that month have been destroyed or lost. Karny 1993, p. 209, writes that it was also broadcast on 15 June on the BBC Czechoslovak service (this is according to Fleming; I haven't checked Karny). Which source says that it was broadcast on 15 and 16 June in all languages? SarahSV (talk) 04:25, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Rothkirchen 2006, citing this paper (which I haven't looked at).
Rothkirchen says it was broadcast on all the BBC European Services at noon on 16 June 1944. She doesn't mention 15 June. I would use Fleming 2014. This is what his book is about, and he has traced these broadcasts very carefully. SarahSV (talk) 05:57, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fleming does not mention a broadcast on 15 June so I cut that. He also says that records were destroyed so it's not clear whether the broadcast was made in other languages; revised as follows: On 16 June, the BBC broadcast warnings to the German leadership that it would be tried for its crimes.
  • Lead again (just a suggestion): Would mentioning Auschwitz and the group's leaders in the first paragraph make the rest of the lead clearer for readers? Something like:

The Working Group ... was an underground Jewish organization, based in the Axis puppet state of Slovakia during World War II and the Holocaust, that tried to rescue Jews from deportation to Auschwitz and other Nazi concentration camps in German-occupied Poland. Led by Gisi Fleischmann and Rabbi Michael Dov Weissmandl, the group gathered and disseminated information on the fate of deported Jews, smuggled valuables to them, and bribed German and Slovak officials in an effort to halt the deportations.

I don't think so, because until early 1944 it did not focus on Auschwitz, having much more information on the Operation Reinhard death camps.
  • "to set up a Jewish Council": link to Judenrat.
done
  • "into halting the deportation of European Jews: add "all" before European Jews.
Actually, this didn't refer to all European Jews; it only referred to Jews in Western and southern Europe and would have done nothing to help those already in Poland (or other eastern areas).
  • "A $2 million bribe was demanded". Change to: Wisliceny demanded a $2 million bribe. The lead says $2 million, but the body of the article says $3 million: "Wisliceny told the Working Group that Reich Main Security Office head Heinrich Himmler had agreed to halt deportations to the General Government in exchange for $3 million."
Done
  • Third paragraph: say who Vrba and Wetzler were (two escapees or similar). The paragraph doesn't connect these two events: (1) "In April and May 1944, the Working Group collected and disseminated the Vrba–Wetzler report ... (2) Diplomatic pressure and fear of retaliatory Allied bombing caused Hungarian regent Miklós Horthy to halt the deportation of Hungarian Jews ..."
  • Should the lead mention Weissmandl's efforts to have Auschwitz bombed?
It previously did; you requested this part to be removed.
I asked that you fix this sentence—"Diplomatic pressure and the interception of a telegram about the Working Group's suggestion to bomb Auschwitz caused Hungarian regent Miklós Horthy to halt the deportation of Hungarian Jews to Auschwitz in July"—because it wasn't accurate as written. The question is whether there should be any reference in the lead to Weissmandl's efforts to have Auschwitz bombed. SarahSV (talk) 05:43, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re: "Its leaders, Gisi Fleischmann and Rabbi Michael Dov Weissmandl, believed that the failure of the Europa Plan was due to the indifference of mainstream Jewish organizations." What is the source for Fleischmann believing that?
  • Found it myself: Bauer 1994, p. 101 (regarding the $200,000). SarahSV (talk) 00:45, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Final lead paragraph: I think that could use a rewrite, and I'm beginning to wonder, as you mentioned above, whether Conway needs to be included by name.
Somewhat rewritten based on Bloger's suggestion above

By the way, I should add that I'm very close to supporting, and the issues I'm pointing out are mostly just loose ends. I think you've produced a tremendous piece of research. It's particularly striking when the article is printed out how much attention to detail there is, and how well the article flows. It's a real achievement to have produced that, especially in a relatively short space of time, so congratulations. SarahSV (talk) 23:16, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley edit

  • "The report caused diplomatic pressure against the Hungarian government, which was a major factor in regent Miklós Horthy's decision to halt the deportation of Hungarian Jews to Auschwitz in July." This is clumsily worded. Maybe "The report put diplomatic pressure on the Hungarian government and it was a major factor in regent Miklós Horthy's decision to halt the deportation of Hungarian Jews to Auschwitz in July."
Reworded, let me know what you think
  • What is "Orthodox historiography" with a capital "O"? Is there a historiography of Orthodox Jews? The argument can hardly be orthodox in the standard meaning of the word if most historians disagree with it.
This is discussed further in the "Other perspectives" section. There is a historiography written by/for Orthodox/Haredi Jews which differs from the mainstream academic perspective, but I'm not sure how to rephrase this to be clearer.
For the lead I think you just need to say "[[Orthodox Judaism|Orthodox Jewish]] historiography". Dudley Miles (talk) 21:47, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done
  • "According to the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum" The museum is the publisher, not the author.
Changed this to "According to the Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos". The publication is notable and under strong editorial control. However, this entry was written by three authors, none of whom have enwiki articles.
  • "Another theory posits that the Working Group's negotiations were collaborationist and that it failed to warn Jews about the threat awaiting them; multiple historians have dismissed this narrative as not based in fact." This is clumsy and wordy. How about "It has also been argued that the Working Group's negotiations were collaborationist and that it failed to warn Jews about the dangers awaiting them, but most historians reject this view."
Done.
  • "The potential of Nazi–Jewish negotiations and to what extent their bribery was successful are subjects of ongoing historical debate." Presumably "their" refers to the Working Group rather than the Nazi–Jewish negotiations, but this should be clarified.
Shortened this sentence to To what extent the Working Group's bribery was successful is a subject of ongoing historical debate.
  • "the Slovak State proclaimed its independence under German protection" I would specify independence from Czechoslovakia.
Done
  • "a staunch anti-Zionist" "staunch" implies approval and is POV. I suggest "strong".
Removed this, and mentioned his "strongly anti-Zionist" views in the next paragraph.
  • " the Bratislava Working Group". This is presumably left over from the group's name in the previous version of the article.
Removed
  • "The first deportee reports trickled in during May" Presumably May 1943, but it would be helpful to say so.
Actually May 1942, clarified
  • "Widespread resistance drove the Hlinka Guard to forcibly round up Jews to fill transports and to deport Jews in labor camps, who had been promised immunity" I do not understand this.
Clarified: Because Jews were not reporting for their transports, the Hlinka Guard had to forcibly round up Jews and deport some prisoners in the labor camps in Slovakia, who had been promised that they would not be deported
I would not say "had to" as this appears to excuse their action. "the Hlinka Guard forcibly rounded up Jews and deported some prisoners" Dudley Miles (talk) 21:47, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done
  • "Fleischmann justified the collaboration" What collaboration?
Removed this as it is not really important.
  • More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:12, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "(particularly Lenard's report)" This appears to be the first reference to Lenard and should be explained.
He is already mentioned in the "Evasion and escape" section under a different spelling; fixed.
  • "The Slovak representatives could not have been allowed to go to Lublin" I would prefer "were not allowed"
Done
  • "halting all transports to the General Government" Sending transports to a government does not make sense.
(talk page watcher) @Dudley Miles: My impression, in this context, is that "GG" refers to the region rather than the governance of the area? ——SerialNumber54129 13:26, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Serial Number is right. The General Government was a German occupation zone and significant to mention because, for example, the Europa Plan specifically hinged on the halting of deportations to this particular zone, where most of the death camps were.
General Government is sometimes used in the sense of a government body and sometimes in the sense of an area. I think you need to add "occupation zone" where it is first used in this sense and "zone" in subsequent cases. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:54, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've done this, another option would be to call it the General Governorate. Catrìona (talk) 20:56, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he demanded that the ÚŽ arrange for the orderly collection of Bratislava's Jews at Sereď" You say above that the UZ had been disbanded .
Fatran is a bit confusing on this point. It appears that even though Neumann disbanded the UZ, some of the leaders were still operating. However, to avoid confusion I've changed this to "Jewish leaders".
  • "After the war, Weissmandl accused the Jewish Agency, the JDC, and other secular Jewish organizations of deliberately abandoning Jews to the gas chambers to prevent them from settling in Palestine.[296][174][u] His assertion became a cornerstone of Haredi historiography on the Holocaust, and his collaboration with Fleischmann—a woman and a Zionist—was minimized or omitted.[298][299] Many Haredi writers take Weissmandl's allegations at face value, claiming that mainstream scholars are influenced by unconscious pro-Zionist bias[300] as part of a religious explanation of the Holocaust as caused by the abandonment of Jewish observance." I do not understand this paragraph. Weissmandl's (unbalanced) accusation sounds pro-Zionist, so why was it taken up by anti-Zionist Haredis? Dudley Miles (talk) 12:49, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There's no contradiction here, because the point of Weissmandl's accusations was to criticize Zionist and secular Jewish leaders, not to encourage anyone to go to Palestine (now that the danger was over). However, I can see how it would be confusing, so I've removed the clause about going to Palestine. Catrìona (talk) 17:53, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you need to say "Haredi historiography on the Holocaust, which was misogynist and anti-Zionist," to explain the comment on his association with Fleischmann. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:54, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Dudley Miles: The problem is that not all Haredim are anti-Zionist and branding their historiography as "misogynist" is not in any of the sources and has POV overtones. I've tried to clarify a bit: Weissmandl's accusations, which fell in line with the Haredi tendency to blame Zionists for the Holocaust, became a cornerstone of the Haredi "counter-history". For ideological reasons, his collaboration with Fleischmann—a woman and a Zionist—was minimized or omitted. I also added a link to Haredim and Zionism for further explanation. Catrìona (talk) 20:56, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Weissmandl accused the Jewish Agency, the JDC, and other secular Jewish organizations of deliberately abandoning Jews to the gas chambers.[296][174] Weissmandl's accusations, which fell in line with the Haredi tendency to blame Zionists for the Holocaust, became a cornerstone of the Haredi "counter-history". For ideological reasons, his collaboration with Fleischmann—a woman and a Zionist—was minimized or omitted." This revised version still has problems. 1. "Secular" in the first sentence is equated with "Zionist" in the second. Would it be correct to change "other secular Jewish" to "other Zionist Jewish"? 2. "fell in line" does not sound right. Perhaps "supported Haredi claims blaming Zionists for the Holocaust". 3. It is not clear why Fleischmann being a woman should have been an issue if the Haredis were not misogynist. Maybe omit "a woman and". Dudley Miles (talk) 20:33, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I edited it to be more clear that Haredim blame both Zionists and secular Jews for the Holocaust. Both sources mention Fleischmann's gender as a reason that she was written out of the Haredi "counter-history", but neither of them actually describe this literature as "misogynistic". Many people believe that excluding women from leadership roles is misogynistic, but others distinguish between misogyny and complementarianism. Catrìona (talk) 05:33, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Vami edit

As the Good Article reviewer of this article, I offer my tentative support. Full disclosure: I am on good terms with Catrìona and have reviewed and passed a number of her article at GAN. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 03:29, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note edit

This has been open for almost two months without attracting clear support for promotion. I came close to archiving it a few weeks ago, when it appeared to have become bogged down over historians' interpretations, but then it seemed to progress for a while. As it stands I'm again inclined to archive and ask that the work continue outside FAC before another try here in a couple of weeks; I'm not sure much would be gained from another PR before a re-nom here, but as an option I would've thought the article came broadly under the MilHist banner and could be worth nominating for A-Class Review there (non-MilHist members would be welcome to participate, it's not an exclusive process). That said, I realise things can be quiet at this time of year so won't close just yet in case Sarah, Kaiser matias and Dudley are in fact teetering on support -- but I don't want to pressure them either. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:25, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian Rose: I had been under the impression that the article wasn't really under MILHIST since the group was non-military; otherwise, I would have gone through ACR. However, since you are one of the coordinators and think it would be OK, that's very good to know. I would do that if this nomination fails, although I'm still hoping that it will go through. Catrìona (talk) 03:47, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As I noted above, I wanted to see how it moved along, which it certainly did. I'll go through the discussion and article, and give a more solid stance tomorrow. Kaiser matias (talk) 04:19, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose: I think it might be best to archive this for now and take it through MILHIST A-class review before resubmitting. Thanks to everyone who commented. Catrìona (talk) 05:34, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Tks Catriona. Yes, things don't seem to have changed too much since my earlier comment. Re. ACR, MilHist has always been pretty liberal in its interpretation of what comes under its banner... As we speak Apollo 15 is in the list, a mission by a civilian agency, not the military. Of course it was crewed by serving or former military officers, and could well be seen as an element of the Cold War, but then the Working Group has a clear association with the Second World War, even if it wasn't a military organisation. Yes, if anyone challenges you about I'll be happy to come and defend my recommendation...! As suggested earlier, feel free to ping the above reviewers to stop by the ACR, and then ping the ACR reviewers to look at a future FAC nom. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:58, 29 December 2018 (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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 22:30, 28 December 2018 [5].

Becky Lynch edit

Nominator(s): Ikhtiar H (talk) 20:05, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a female professional wrestler known as Becky Lynch. This article is a part of WikiProject: Professional wrestling, which I am a member of. I believe this meets the style and guidelines of the wikiproject and is ready to be FA. Feel free to leave any constructive criticism and suggestions. Ikhtiar H (talk) 20:05, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quick note - not enough info in the lede about her WWE career. This is clearly the most notable part of her career, and there is two sentences (1 on being called up, and the second going main roster and winning the belt).
In an FA, I'd want info on her style whilst wrestling, and what critics say. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:39, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Lee Vilenski the section, In wrestling is removed from the wikiproject's style. If you are talking about her wrestling persona, I will try to work on it. It would be difficult to find relevant information from reliable sources since her popularity rose really suddenly this year; before she had relatively less known in the context of pro wrestling. I don't think not having the section of Professional wrestling persona affect its quality (look at Shelton Benjamin and Bobby Eaton), as long as her persona is briefly mentioned inside her career section. As for the lead, I can spice things up a little by adding stuff like she being in the first ever women's TLC match if it works. Ikhtiar H (talk) 21:10, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quick comment - On first glance I'm concerned with sections suffering from WP:PROSELINE and choppy sentences not forming a cohesive narrative ("On this date this happened. Then on this date this happened." etc). This doesn't meet the standards required of criterion 1a and I'd have to oppose on those grounds. I recommend you withdraw this for further preparation and possible Peer Review. --Laser brain (talk) 21:42, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Laser brain as you wish. I respect your opinion. I trust you since you are an admin. The question is how do I really withdraw this? Just remove it and the tag from it's talk page, like just pretend it never happened (it sounds depressing)? What will happen the next time my nominate this? Will the archive number change? ~If you have to do immediate failure, feel free to do so. Ikhtiar H (talk) 21:55, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My being an admin has no bearing, just offering my opinion as a fellow editor. If you do wish to withdraw it, we can archive it and the next time you nominate, it would be archive2. There is no stigma on taking some more time to work on it, so don't worry about that. --Laser brain (talk) 22:14, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Laser brain yes you can archive it. I became too hasty. Peer reviews are great but they kind of take time. Thanks for your time and hopefully this will be re-nominated in the near future. Ikhtiar H (talk) 22:25, 28 December 2018 (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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 17:03, 27 December 2018 [6].

Jill Valentine edit

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

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

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

Comments from Aoba47 edit

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

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

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

Source review - spotchecks not done

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

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

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

czar edit

  • Oppose. The nominating statement is really disingenuous. Here are a list of my outstanding concerns readily available on the article's talk page, any of which I would consider significant and insurmountable enough to not pass this for FA, but feel free to override my opposition if you disagree.
@Czar: You weren't pinged to this FAC because it became abundantly clear you stopped engaging. Instead, you repeated many of the same points over and over again without any specificity. Your repetition here of out-of-date criticisms which were already responded to tacitly proves you stopped reading my responses at the talk. If FAC coordinators want more detail on any of the specifics Czar has mentioned, please find it there. Otherwise, I've tried my best to succinctly paraphrase below. Homeostasis07 (talk)
? I made these same points on the talk page, which you saw as either minor or non-issues. That's your prerogative, but don't mistake it for my disengagement. You chose and choose not to address those issues, which leaves other reviewers to determine their validity. czar 23:13, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Reception & legacy (R&L) reads as a string of facts/claims rather than a cogent whole—it's not brilliant prose. I rewrote portions of it (example) to show how a more synthetic structure would appear and what low-quality info should be removed for the sake of the reader, but this method was not applied to the rest of the section. Successive sentences feel disjointed, with long-drawn-out sentiments. Why are separate sentences needed for each of the character's superlatives and what does it even mean to say that JV was "the most consistent" as a superlative? Consistency between what and for what? If it's descriptive, why is it in the Reception paragraph? c
The diff linked to here is of a minor edit from June, and the entire article has been significantly re-written several times over since then, with the requested method applied throughout. And BTW, the article had additional context to illustrate the use of the word "consistent", but this was removed after FAC3 due to comments you made there about that text being "factoid"-like. You can either have context or not. I've tried both ways already, and you've criticised either way. And in the absence of you providing any actionable alternative, I believe that "nothing can be done in principle to address [this] objection, [so] a coordinator may disregard it." Homeostasis07 (talk)
The diff was an example of how the Reception could read as a more synthetic whole. The "action", as mentioned below, is to rewrite the Reception such that successive sentences flow into each other. czar 23:13, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Which has been done. Homeostasis07 (talk)
I see some sentences shuffled in late October but otherwise, as of this edit, no, the sections on sexualization have not been rewritten to synthesize between claims as modeled in the above diff. czar 01:58, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Look close-lier (BTW, multiple users): [7], [8] [9], [10], [11], [12]. And you've still to address the primary point of my response (as per usual): that the very essence of what you're complaining about above was actually done at your behest during FAC3, and that your continuing argument about such is in itself a contradiction. Homeostasis07 (talk) 02:39, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Right, those edits from October shuffle sentences but do not synthesize between claims in the sexualization paragraphs. No, this wasn't addressed in FAC3, October, or now. I wouldn't have written a paragraph about it here had I felt the issue was adequately addressed. czar 21:55, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The linked diffs span from August 9 to October 21, and consist of either substantial rewrites of the paragraphs in question, or rewrites of relevant prose from individual sources contained within those paragraphs. Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:47, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The interplay of the sources on her sexualization is nonsensical. It starts by saying that JV is professionalized and the game series is progressive in its treatment of women, among the least sexualized, and then simply pivots to say that game publications rank JV highly for her sex appeal, "one of the hottest female character designs ever", "an example of female characters who walk in an overtly sexualized manner"—this isn't just differences of reviewer opinion, but are we talking about the same character whose costuming is both tame and sexually suggestive? So my suggestion (see the talk page) was to specify: If her sexualization varied, how did it change between periods? If critics are mixed, show that sources disagree rather than listing polar opposites as facts in separate paragraphs and expecting so little of the reader to not realize that they're being fed a contradiction. c
This was discussed ad nauseam at talk. First off, "one of the hottest female character designs ever" is not used in the article in the way he's ascribing; it's a direct quotation from a notable writer, with additional content both preceding and succeeding the quote to provide proper clarity and context. But another substantial point which needs making is that the character is not identical in each release. Her appearance/outfits/personality has changed and developed as the series progressed, with indeterminate reaction to each incarnation. The disparate sources establish this. Of course, it's Czar's prerogative to determine if this is what the disparate sources establish, but, like I said, this has all been discussed previously, and changes have been made to the article with respect of this. Homeostasis07 (talk)
This is a matter of forest and trees. There are simultaneous claims that the character was both sexualized and not sexualized with no contextual explanation for the discrepancy. I've read the article multiple times and I cannot discern whether or why there would be conflicting accounts. These are not questions a FA reader should have. czar 23:13, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But I've just explained how there is contextual explanation for the discrepancy. Homeostasis07 (talk) 23:34, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I find the contextual explanation in the article inadequate, hence my above comment. czar 21:55, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But you've started this argument from a skewed point, by [seemingly] intentionally misinterpreting direct quotations. I fail to see how anything here is in contradiction of the FAC criteria. Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:47, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Atop this is the 2014 Mikami comment, which generates more questions than it answers: If he is opposed to sexualization of women characters, why do we have this significant commentary about JV's sexualization? This again reveals that in this article, which puts such great emphasis on her sexualization, we don't understand why there is such a difference in opinion. Did the character design change after his involvement? Or did he mean well but still design a sexually suggestive character? Or is this comment, made in 2014, not reflective of his original designs? My advice for all of these points was to rewrite from scratch from the source content rather than trying to massage the discordant ideas. c
Mikami's original intention cannot be conflated with what subsequent directors have done with the series, nor with the character's general reception. It's an aspect of the development which specifically relates to a major aspect of the reception. I'd like to point out that another user has also fundamentally disagreed with what Czar is asking for with this specific reference, so I don't know what else to do except politely suggest you just drop the stick and walk away. Homeostasis07 (talk)
The linked tirade doesn't actually address any of the substance of my questions, so not sure what you want me to glean from reading it again. The point is that I had these questions as a reader from prose that does not follow. czar 23:13, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hardly a "tirade"—more like a genuine response to what you're asking for from this reference. Homeostasis07 (talk)
  • There's also just basic prose stuff. The first section (Concept & design) almost immediately dives into why JV didn't appear in the sequel but returned in Resident Evil 3. The basics of the character haven't been established for the reader and already we're mired in details irrelevant to a general audience. I suggested to cover the character's conceptualization and design before going into these details, which honestly appear to fit just fine in the "Appearances" section. I disagree that the reason why JV wasn't included in RE2 is a matter of "design" details, especially with some paramount importance to be featured in the first body paragraph of the article... c
If it weren't so frowned upon, I'd have taken the liberty of highlighting a key phrase you used above: I disagree. For posterity, my original rationale was: "The overall point of mentioning that Valentine did not appear in Resident Evil 2 is to illustrate the intention of designers "to retain the level of fear found in the original game by introducing similarly inexperienced characters." So this can be seen as relating to design in general." So there's nothing "wrong" per se with that, just your interpretation of what should be done here. And, again, a lot of this is a continuation of long-held misunderstandings of the MOS for VG characters: "Concept and design" versus "Appearances", and what both sections can and actually should consist of. 'Appearances' "should list any games or related media that the character appeared in and briefly discuss their role in the game." So with this in mind, the sentence is referring to why designers opted not to have her appear in a game, and their intention (her role) in doing so, so this would be unsuitable for 'Appearances' (since it's a non-appearance). I've said all this at least four times. And the first two sections of the article are chronological, hence why RE2 is mentioned after RE1.
It's not what I would deem FA-quality prose, which should not induce questions of sequential logic while reading. czar 23:13, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the MOS for Video Game characters. You've still clearly not done so. Homeostasis07 (talk)
I authored large swathes of that MOS. Please do not patronize me. czar 21:55, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the case, then you should know what information should go in 'Design' and what should go in 'Appearances'. And there's another issue to what you've written here: you seem to be taking this personally, which isn't a good idea. I'm not being personally insulting or demeaning here, I'm just contending that this nomination meets the FAC criteria. Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:47, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I shouldn't have had to write these out a second time, but it's indicative of this article's journey. Lots of pushback and not a lot of listening. Most of the editors contacted for feedback since the last FAC were simply exhausted. But "I believe I've addressed all of their concerns"? Let's not kid ourselves. I've made my points crystal clear and reasonable on the talk page. Whether they stand out as concerns for you as well, dear FAC reviewer, is your debate, but don't pretend there were no outstanding concerns. A more minor but relevant note is how "only users who expressed even the slightest bit of interest in commenting here" were pinged, but somehow despite participating in the last two FACs and its talk page, I was not. Perhaps it was because it would require reposting the above, unresolved issues. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 17:12, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nor should I have to repeat myself. For the fourth time, in some occasions. Nothing here is "insurmountable", and I believe I've demonstrated that the majority of Czar's arguments above are either inactionable, or had been explained/addressed prior to nomination. And I'd like to point out that I addressed the concerns of the vast majority of editors who responded—I thought that went without saying. This included the majority of Czar's concerns also. "Reviewers who object are strongly encouraged to return after a few days to check whether their objection has been addressed." I'm pinging you this one time. If you have no genuine desire to see any of these criticisms addressed or – more tellingly – if you believe these criticisms to be inherently inactionable in the first place, then I believe your commentary can be moved to talk, per FAC template guidelines. Additionally, Freikorp/Damian raised a good point below: between the peer review and the extensive discussion on the talk page, you've been actively involved in editing this article for exactly 14 weeks (3 and a half months) over the past year. You're the #13 'Top Editor' on the article, with a 3-year+ editing span. It was your responsibility to declare yourself as a major contributor prior to commenting. Homeostasis07 (talk) 22:40, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please. All I have to declare is my time spent as a reviewer and copy editor, as you continue to demonstrate how difficult you've made either task. Do not confuse actionable and prescriptive—my comments are the former. (not watching, but {{ping}} as needed) czar 23:13, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's not very conductive to a collaborative environment. Will you please strike this? Homeostasis07 (talk) 23:34, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • A note to closer that I believe the above discussion is at an impasse. I believe I've made clear points on 1(a) and while the nom considers them rebutted, I disagree. Your call how to weigh my opposition, but I see no good in going in circles above. (not watching, please {{ping}} as needed) czar 03:19, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hope the closer genuinely takes the time to read all of this. Your first point was inactionable, the second consisted of a misrepresentation of what's actually found on the article, multiple editors have previously objected to your third point, and your fourth seems to be your personal preference on the MOS. None of which – either individually or combined – illustrates any divergence from 1a. Homeostasis07 (talk) 23:56, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've been asked to comment on this FAC, but since I am not too familiar with the series or the character, much of the discussion is over my head. But I have tried to look more closely at the sexualization issue, and as someone who occasionally works in character designs for games in real life, I know how different people have vastly different interpretations of even the same designs (I was asked to design a female pig for a kid's game once, who was supposed to be both cute, powerful, and sexy at the same time, and it of course didn't work out because it went in too many directions at once). Since the discrepancy seems to be between how the character here was originally envisioned, and how it was later portrayed, I would be more precise in giving dates for each statement, and state which version of the game it was in relation to. If a statement is about the character overall, but specifies distinct attributes found in specific games, this could be stated as well. To me, it would make it clearer that the various views are not necessarily in response to the same portrayals. FunkMonk (talk) 02:56, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the feedback, FunkMonk. I've re-arranged certain sentences of the 'Reception and legacy' section to address your concern: most of the criticism the character received was for her Revelations incarnation, with one source criticising her RE3 outfit. I reworded that whole paragraph to make this clearer. It was cool to get perspective from an actual character designer. Cheers. ;) Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:21, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I think it reads clearer, let's see if Czar has further input. FunkMonk (talk) 02:45, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Adityavagarwal edit

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

Coordinator comments edit

Just FYI I'm spending some time this weekend to go through everything that's been said here, in the previous FAC, and on the article talk page. Some of the threads are difficult to follow because replies have been inserted in such a way that the original comments are broken up and unsigned so I can't tell who said what. Pinging Czar in case you're not watching the nom. --Laser brain (talk) 14:55, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Just thought I'd let you know that I signed every paragraph I wrote at Jill's talk page. User:SNAAAAKE! wrote one additional message at the very end (which he signed). So everything else was written by Czar. Hope that helps. Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:21, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
After a lot of contemplation and review, I've decided to archive this. I think Czar's feedback here and on the article Talk page are good exemplars of our operational concept of providing broad valid feedback with examples. I'd have to see a lot more support that indicates explicit examination of the article against 1a and the general themes in the article before I'd be comfortable promoting over the existing opposition. --Laser brain (talk) 17:03, 27 December 2018 (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) 22:41, 23 December 2018 [13].

Festivus edit

Nominator(s): Pastorma (talk) 22:37, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a holiday that is celebrated on December 23rd. The Festivus article has been nominated 3 times in the past 14 years and I believe that the past 2 years of revisions to the article have significantly improved it enough to a point that it could be showcased for other readers to see. I hope that you accept this nomination quickly and we can get this out to everyone on Festivus! Happy Festivus Pastorma (talk) 22:37, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose There are some unreferenced areas and the prose is too clumsy in places. This is also a procedural oppose. Pastorma, you should read the FAC instructions: "Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article before nominating it". You have only edited this once, and I don't see any evidence that you have contacted any of the regular editors. - SchroCat (talk) 23:00, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This feels a good way short of FA status. The reference formatting is all over the place, and while some of the references are good (decent newspapers, scholarly publications), some of them really aren't. A quick glance at Google Scholar suggests that there are other research articles that could be incorporated. If you are keen to improve this article, it may be worth taking it through GAC first. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:34, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- Per SchroCat, this could be simply removed on procedural grounds owing to lack of nominator involvement; because we have some comments that could aid improvement of the article, I'll archive it the normal fashion. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:40, 23 December 2018 (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) 08:16, 22 December 2018 [14].

Compulsory figures edit

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

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

Image review

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

Source review –

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

Coord note -- With no activity since last month, I'm afraid this nom has well and truly stalled, so I'll archive it shortly. Because of the lack of general commentary (welcome though early image and source reviews are) I'd have no objection to waiving the usual two-week waiting period before a re-nom, though I'd suggest you might be better off waiting until the New Year to bring it back. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:16, 22 December 2018 (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) 00:48, 22 December 2018 [15].

Deseret alphabet edit

Nominator(s): Psiĥedelisto

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

  • Tentative Support The article certainly looks the business, but I know nothing about the subject, or linguistics/phonetics/orthography in general, and won't even claim to have read the technical parts through very thoroughly. Needs more specialized eyes. Johnbod (talk) 14:54, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- I agree with Johnbod that this needs specialised eyes, but that's not been forthcoming after sitting here a month, so I'm going to archive this. I know the article had a desultory Peer Review in 2017 but if perhaps you could try that again, actively seeking out commentary from related wikiprojects or editors who have worked on language-related pages, it might help gain some momentum for a more satisfactory re-nomination here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:47, 22 December 2018 (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) 00:58, 22 December 2018 [16].

Planet Nine edit

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

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

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

Cas Liber edit

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

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

more later.

Comments by Dunkleosteus77 edit

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

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

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

Planet X edit

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

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

Image review

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

Comments from Jens Lallensack edit

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

  • Then comes the section "Extreme trans-Neptunian objects". Seems to contain general info on these objects. But why this section in this place? Extreme trans-Neptunian objects were discussed earlier already.
  • Section "Dynamics: Effect on other objects in the Solar System" – Not sure why this is a separate section, it only seems to be based on observations or simulations (the previous two sections)? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:46, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fair points. Since this grew organically as discoveries were made, it needs a top down reorganization of the content into logical sections. Jehochman Talk 09:04, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm having a friend read the article and give me ideas on better organization. It's helpful to get an outside view. Jehochman Talk 22:10, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've done a fairly major reorganization. Is the order now more logical? Jehochman Talk 15:01, 10 December 2018 (UTC)  Done[reply]
Thanks, reading again now. Looks good so far! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:13, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Round Two edit

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

If there are no further questions, how about we promote this article? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Jehochman Talk 00:18, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, I barely read halfway through the Evidence section before I had to stop because I was getting nothing. I’m not well versed in astronomy and this article is still pretty hard for me to understand, so I’m worried about its readability   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:44, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • What’s a semi major axis?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:44, 14 December 2018 (UTC)  Done[reply]
  • Could you say in numbers what the mass and diameter of the planet should be rather than saying it’s some measure bigger than Earth’s (which I don’t know)?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:44, 14 December 2018 (UTC)  Done[reply]
  • I don’t understand why any of the peculiarities of the solar system are weird. Are eTNO’s supposed to have parallel orbits with the planets? What’s their semi major axis supposed to be? I don’t understand what’s going on with obliquity   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:44, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The explainer in parentheses for arguments of perihelion just confuses me   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:44, 14 December 2018 (UTC)  Done Unfortunately, this is a complex parameter with no simple explanation. Jehochman Talk 15:03, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • What’s the alignment for eTNO’s supposed to be?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:44, 14 December 2018 (UTC)  Done[reply]
  • I still don’t know what the Kozai mechanism is   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:44, 14 December 2018 (UTC)  Done - I've tried again, but no super-simple explanation exists. In science you sometimes need to learn the terminology by reading a lot of background. Jehochman Talk 15:03, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”with objects having perihelia opposite Planet Nine's perihelion, beyond 250 AU, weak alignment between 150 AU and 250 AU, and little effect inside 150 AU,” I think I’m not understanding this because there’s something wrong grammatically but I don’t know what it’s trying to say so I can’t fix it   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:44, 14 December 2018 (UTC)  Done I've broken that down to three sentences for clarity. Jehochman Talk 15:03, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the end of the Simulations section you need a really simple and clear sentence as void as possible of astronomy jargon explaining what just happened   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:44, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • You need to put the Dynamics section before the Observations section because it explains why you’re even looking at eTNO’s   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:44, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • What’s apsidal?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:44, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • You need to go over this article again and ask yourself if the average high school graduate could understand what’s going on   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:44, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I wouldn't be that drastic and definite. The article should ideally be useful for lay people and experts alike; and people without any pre-knowledge may be asked to follow the wikilinks for basic geometrical terms such as semi-major axis. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:13, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

I still go to the links and I have no idea what’s going on because they’re all written for an audience that already has a good background on astronomy, and it is good practice to explain jargon in-text regardless if it’s wikilinked or not   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:05, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. I've made a bunch of changes, including removal of the excessive and intimidating detail in the dynamics section to a daughter article. Those who want to know all about it can click in. Otherwise, the casual reader can consume a short summary and move on. Jehochman Talk 15:03, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Round 3 edit

We’ve addressed all concerns above. The article is not perfect and never will be, but I think it is now very high quality. Through this process we have improved readability. It is not only complete and accurate, but reasonably accessible. Please let us know about any further concerns or whether it can be promoted now. Jehochman Talk 00:57, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More comments from Jens Lallensack

  • ecliptic is explained, but I would move this explanation up to where the term is first mentioned.
  • Upon further analysis, Trujillo and Sheppard observed that the arguments of perihelion, the angle between where the orbit crosses the ecliptic plane and where an object makes its closes approach to the Sun, of 12 eTNOs with perihelia greater than 30 AU and semi-major axes greater than 150 AU were clustered near zero degrees. – I'm confused. The linked article "arguments of perihelion" tells us that An argument of periapsis of 0° means that the orbiting body will be at its closest approach to the central body. This means that the eTNOs are closest to the sun when they cross the ecliptic (and the orbital plane of the planet they want to avoid). How does that fit with passing "well over or under the planet"?
    (1) Trujillo and Shepherd's analysis was tainted by including objects influenced by Neptune. (2) Planet Nine is inclined. Jehochman Talk 02:52, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upon further analysis, Trujillo and Sheppard observed that the arguments of perihelion, the angle between where the orbit crosses the ecliptic plane and where an object makes its closes approach to the Sun, of 12 eTNOs with perihelia greater than 30 AU and semi-major axes greater than 150 AU were clustered near zero degrees. – Again this one; perhaps add what this means in easy words (e.g., "meaning that they cross the ecliptic when they are closest to the sun"), perhaps instead of the explanation for the term "arguments of perihelion"? Not sure.
  • so that they would pass well over or under the planet when at the same radius from the Sun – radius of what? I would have expected the word "distance" instead of radius.
  • resulting in a clustering of their longitudes of perihelion, the directions where they make their closest approaches to the Sun – why "directions", why not "locations"?
  • have argument of perihelion 0–40° – "have arguments of perihelion between 0 and 40°"? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:49, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • and sorry for asking these probably stupid questions, but I think it helps to know what a lay reader like me does not understand. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:08, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it does. Thank you. I will work on them. Jehochman Talk 13:55, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • semi-major axis scattered disk objects – that means scattered disk objects with large semi-major axes?
  • I would link and explain "scattered disk objects" at first mention.
  • same with "anti-aligned".
  • co-planar groups – link to coplanarity? Or couldn't we even find easier words for it, such as "with similar inclinations" or something?
  • sculpted into roughly collinear and co-planar groups of spatially confined orbits – Being collinear and co-planar already means they are spatially confined, right? Why then stating "spatially confined"? Are they confined in yet another way?
  • Objects beyond 250 AU semi-major axis are strongly anti-aligned – I guess, "Objects with semi-major axes beyond 250 AU are strongly …"?
  • If Planet Nine was on this orbit during the planetary instability described in the Nice model these objects would form a roughly spherical cloud centered on Planet Nine's semi-major axis with a current mass of 0.3–0.4 Earth masses, roughly 10 times that of the Kuiper belt. – I tried, but this is incomprehensible to me. Not sure what "these objects" is referring to; are you talking about the initial configuration assumed by the Nice model? How is "centered around the semi-major axis" to be understood? Maybe briefly explain "Nice model"?
    I judge this to be a non-sequitur sentence and have removed it. It's just not helping and very likely to confuse. Jehochman Talk 02:52, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other possible orbits were also examined – this paragraph lists the results of various studies. I get an idea, but I lack the background to guess what that could mean for the Planet Nine hypothesis. I mean, I was not able to get anything from this section. Perhaps add some explanation?
  • that the population captured was smaller in simulations with a planet in a circular orbit – what do you mean with "population captured"? These are simulations, one controls the population anyways?
  • Simulations have shown that the Planet Nine hypothesis successfully predicts the observed configuration of objects in the Solar System. – maybe a slight article structure problem here. This would include everything, also the tilt of the sun, which has not been discussed yet. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:21, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for these detailed comments. They are very valuable for improving the article. I have addressed each one. When you have time, please check and see if the article is now easier to understand. Jehochman Talk 02:58, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, did read the two sections again:

  • For similar semi-major axis objects – again, sounds like "semi-major axis object" is a term
  • This was out of alignment with how the Kozai mechanism would align these orbits, at c. 0° or 180° – but the Kozai mechanism also assumes an unknown planet? How the Kozai mechanism would align the orbits would simply depend on the orbit of that unknown planet?
  • However, Trujillo and Sheppard's theory has been supplanted by further analysis and evidence. – maybe "hypothesis" is more accurate? And what exactly has been supplanted? The idea that there is an unknown planet (but that would be Planet nine by any definition?). The existence of the Kozai mechanism? This is still not clear to me.
  • the plane of the Solar System – I would decide whether to use "ecliptic" or "plane of the Solar system", and do it consistently. Do not use different terms if you mean the same thing, as the reader assumes that different terms have different meanings.
  • I would link first appearance of the word "co-planar"
  • Investigations by Cáceres et al. showed that a planet with a lower perihelion led to a narrower confinement of orbits of the eTNOs, with a perihelion of 90 AU or higher being consistent with the distribution of the classical Kuiper belt objects. – first "lower perihelion", then higher perihelions: Somehow contradictory, so are these two alternative hypothesis, how do they relate?
  • I would link "resonance" at first mention, and maybe "orbtial resonance" a second time. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:22, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Thank you. Jehochman Talk 20:54, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Round 4 edit

Please support or identify any remaining issues. Jehochman Talk 21:03, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hey Jens Lallensack, what do you think of the lead? It seems kinda small for an article of this size but I don't wanna recommend increasing it if there's really nothing much more that should be said. I haven't even read beyond the Evidence section so I wouldn't know very well if the lead's a good summary right now or not. I notice there's nothing about alternate hypotheses   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:31, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The alternative hypothesis could be summarized in the lede. I'll look at that. Jehochman Talk 14:06, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you sure quotes are the best way to go in the Reception section? I feel it reads like a news article, but then again that just might be me and my personal preferences. My brain automatically skips over anything in quotes   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:31, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There section is about reactions. Rather than paraphrase and possibly alter them, it seems least risky to use quotes. Jehochman Talk 14:06, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Naming can't happen until there's a discovery. Naming should probably be last until a name is chosen, at which point it will get merged into history. In essence, past things come first, and future things come last. I had considered placing Origin earlier, but it didn't read right. I will look again. Jehochman Talk 14:06, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I will consider merging those. Jehochman Talk 14:06, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've reorganized it a bit. Please check again. Thank you. Jehochman Talk 14:17, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note edit

I realise this nom is still getting attention but after more than a month without any support for promotion, it's effectively become a Peer Review and really I think that's where it should continue, rather than at FAC, so I'm going to archive it. When the remaining points have been worked through, when Cas and perhaps others have had a change to add further commentary, it can be brought back here as a re-nom and the reviewers invited to return for another look. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:57, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, could you move this instead of disabling productive ongoing discussions? Have you ever heard there is no deadline? This is a bit of a catch 22. Questions were raised and addressed, fully as of Dec 17. Things are a bit slow this time of year due to holidays and year end business that all of us have to deal with. Jehochman Talk 03:35, 22 December 2018 (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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 15:07, 20 December 2018 [17].

Melodrama (Lorde album) edit

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

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

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

Comments by Aoba47 edit

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

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

  • @Aoba47: I apologize for never responding to these suggestions. At the moment, I am completing college finals which has derailed any progress on the article. After next week, I will devote my attention to polishing it and making it finer. Thank you for your comments and input. De88 (talk) 20:12, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No worries. I just wanted to check in with you about it. Good luck with your finals! Aoba47 (talk) 20:25, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just finished polishing the article. Thank you again for your helpful suggestions! De88 (talk) 09:36, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by MaranoFan edit

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

  • "The album, which was recorded after Lorde's relationship with her long-time boyfriend James Lowe broke down in 2015" -- Why is this in the lead? It would make sense if the followup sentence said it revolves around the themes of love or relationships but currently it just talks about a party
This piece of information is vital to the article—particularly the lead—because Lorde cited this as one of the main inspirations for writing this record. It serves to provide context about its description of solitude.
  • "During her writing sessions," -- Should be changed to "During the album's writing sessions" or "During the writing sessions"
  • "Interviewed by the publication, Lorde says Melodrama is not simply a "breakup album"" -- "says" is present tense but the interview happened in the past
  • Why is the songs section split up randomly into two sections?
I felt it was necessary to split the section as there was a substantial amount of information in place. Splitting it let the article breathe and create a balance. It also helps the reader know the midway point.
  • "The website featured a short clip of Lorde sitting in a car eating and drinking while a piano-backed track played in the background" -- There are about four missing commas in this sentence
I fail to see where these four commas need to be inserted. I will admit that the sentence itself sounds awkward but commas do not make sense in this context.
  • "According to Fact magazine, the clip was also broadcast on New Zealand's major television channels." -- This is not a subjective opinion, its a fact. We do not need it attributed to the magazine.
  • "It was commercially successful, earning platinum in the United States and a triple platinum certification in Australia" -- You should remove that it was commercially successful, because its a subjective opinion. Also "earning platinum in the United States" should be changed to "earning a platinum certification in the United States"

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

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

Coordinator comment - This has been open for many weeks without any declaration of support for promotion. Therefore, I will be archiving it shortly and it may be re-nominated after the customary two-week waiting period. In the mean time, please action feedback as appropriate. --Laser brain (talk) 15:07, 20 December 2018 (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) 20:41, 18 December 2018 [18].

Jawaharlal Nehru edit

Nominator(s): Akhiljaxxn (talk) 04:37, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because Jawharlal Nehru was an influential leader in the Indian freedom movement and the first Prime Minister of independent India. The article has been thoroughly researched and is a comprehensive and well written... Akhiljaxxn (talk) 04:37, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose: I'm afraid this one is a long way off from being FA quality. Unreferenced information, poor quality referencing, and quite messy. Not even GA quality at present. Sorry! Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:27, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coord note: The above comment re. unreferenced info tallies with my own quick glance at the article -- as a general rule all paragraphs must end with a citation and around 20 in this article do not. This is an important article on a well-known figure about whom much has been written, and it will take more time to get it to FA level, so I'm going to archive this nom. I'd recommend that after addressing the general points already raised, you take it to Peer Review, where things can be thrashed out without the pressure of the FAC process. After that it should be in better shape for a re-nomination here. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:41, 18 December 2018 (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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 13:50, 16 December 2018 [19].

Luka Dončić edit

Nominator(s): Runningibis (talk) 20:50, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about professional basketball player Luka Dončić of the Dallas Mavericks. In 2017 and 2018 with Real Madrid, he grew into one of the most promising international NBA draft prospects of his generation, being named most valuable player in both the EuroLeague and Liga ACB. The first featured article nomination of this article was mainly struck down because the nominator wasn't a primary contributor. However, I have made numerous more edits to bring this article to stronger FA consideration, enough to become one of this article's main contributors. Runningibis (talk) 20:50, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hoping to post comments today. ceranthor 19:43, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources
  • What makes The Smoking Cuban a reliable source?
  • Same with Mavs Moneyball?
  • Same with Eurohopes.com?
  • Think it would be helpful to get someone familiar with FAC who can vouch for the Serbian and Slovenian language sources. Will try to run through the prose in the next day or two. ceranthor 23:57, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ceranthor: I have removed the citations to The Smoking Cuban and Mavs Moneyball, which mostly referred to trivial information. Eurohopes is a reliable source in my opinion, with many of its former writers (including its founder) working for NBA, NCAA, and European teams. Runningibis (talk) 20:34, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – I can't speak for the other commenters, but my concerns weren't only about the nominator not being the primary contributor. My other real concern, which no nominator can really address yet, is that Doncic has just began his NBA career and the article will require regular updates that threaten its stability. Are you planning to keep this page updated so any changes don't degrade the article after this review? Giants2008 (Talk) 23:06, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Giants2008: Yes. The fact that his season is starting won't require his page to be updated on a daily basis... only when he has a notable performance. Runningibis (talk) 23:35, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Concerned that the nominator is only a borderline primary contributor, starting on this article recently in July 2018 and inactive on this article—and Wikipedia in general—over the last month. Not a criticism of the editor, as Wikipedia is not compulsory, but neither are FA designations required either. We need some indication that the article is likely to be maintained, especially since Doncic has only started his career in the NBA, generally recognized as the highest level of basketball in the world. I'd have less doubts if he had played more years in the NBA. I would also suggest this article go through a peer review. The first nomination also suggested copy edits to bring the article up to FA quality. Just doing a quick read, I find that the lead is repetitive in mention of "Slovenia", and "Slovenian international" is ambiguous if it's referring to his nationlity or national team involvement. Not only the NBA prose, but his earlier career achievements seems to be predominantly random individual game stats, many without context as to their significance (WP:NOTDIARY). I would expect an FA to have a wider scope than individual games with some analysis of his play over a wider stretch of time (months or even years).—Bagumba (talk) 10:11, 10 December 2018 (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) 01:39, 11 December 2018 [20].

George Washington edit

Nominator(s): Gwillhickers (talk) 21:07, 17 November 2018 (UTC), Cmguy777 (talk) 02:17, 18 November 2018 (UTC), Shearonink (talk) 02:04, 19 November 2018 (UTC) [reply]

An FA nomination/review is being requested for the George Washington (main) article, now stable after months-long focus on grammar, context, citations, and sources. The Washington biography is an extraordinary article and very involved in early American history with numerous topics to cover, including his early life, the American Revolution, the Constitution, two terms as president, and more. Hence a well written, comprehensive and self-contained summary has by necessity proven to be rather long but appropriate.

Gwillhickers (talk) 21:07, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cmguy777 (talk) 02:17, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Shearonink (talk) 02:04, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maile66
References needing formatting.
  • Citation # 28 "Real Estate Investment" -- fixed Gwillhickers (talk) 22:04, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citation # 180 Ferling 2000 pp 146-147 -- fixed Gwillhickers (talk) 22:04, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citation # 321 Waldman & Braun p 149 -- fixed (sfn anomaly with dual authors in a consolidated citation: split into separate citation: cite 321 now 315) Gwillhickers (talk) 22:04, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above citations need formatting. When clicked, they do not point to anything. — Maile (talk) 20:37, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose until the citations are fixed. The main problem is that the list says Ferling 2002 but the source is given as Ferling 2000. Also, citations 365, 383 and 392 do not link to a source. And there are numerous sources given which are not cited in the text, eg, McCullough, David (2001), Callahan, Charles H. (1998), Cohen, Sheldon S. (April 1991), Crowder, Jack Darrell (2017),Smith, Joseph (1991),Weber, John (2009), Gragg, Rod, Irving, Pierre M. (1862),and others in the online sources section. These should be deleted. Graham Beards (talk) 20:21, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your post Graham Beards - I will work on what I can get at but some of the other nominators might need to fix these various cites.
I have to ask...is there a Wiki-tool I could download that does a automatic/mass check of the cites in an article? If I had access to such a tool it would be awesome - I could check all the references in an article without manually going over every. single. one... Shearonink (talk) 20:56, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Before I saw your post below I manually fixed all the Ferling|2002 -> Ferling|2000 . Shearonink (talk) 21:12, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Shearonink paste this in your

common.js subpage and after saving flush your cache (probably hold down control key and then press F5 key). Graham Beards (talk) 21:09, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

importScript('User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js');

Thank you Graham Beards - that will be a big help moving forward. Shearonink (talk) 21:12, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed — Much thanks Graham Beards. I have removed the unused sources from the Bibliography. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:53, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed — So did I, I think we have them all now. Shearonink (talk) 03:04, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, looking much better now, thank you. There seems to be a few page numbers missing eg. 327 and 360. Could you check? Graham Beards (talk) 08:23, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Recent edits have introduced more errors; refs 2, 215, 232, 235, 242, and 359. Someone doesn't understand how the template works. Graham Beards (talk) 08:59, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed them all. G'night. Shearonink (talk) 07:46, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Beards & Maile66 - What are your thoughts now? Shearonink (talk) 18:02, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Does reference 411 need a page number? Graham Beards (talk) 18:57, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Graham Beards I could not get at that particular reference to check the page # since 1)I do not have a copy in my possession and 2)there are no Google previews of any of the many many editions of that book. To safeguard this statement from being one of those factoids that "everyone knows to be true" I've removed the Kloetzel/Scotts ref, adjusted the wording and changed the sourcing to an official Smithsonian/National Postal Museum blog. Shearonink (talk) 20:58, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Partial source review by Factotem edit

Unfortunately I've uncovered a number of issues:

  • More than one item of information in the infobox not directly sourced or supported by text in the main narrative. Examples (I have not checked every detail) include:
  • The award of the Congressional Gold Medal; — Fixed
  • Dates of office for Senior Officer of the United States Army and for Delegate to the Continental Congress from Virginia (at least, a search for the text "June 15" shows that it appears only twice in the article, both times in the infobox in respect of these two offices). -- Fixed - Change info box date to June 14, consistent with text, Per Chernow, 2010, p. 186 -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:34, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Last sentence of the 4th para in the Early years (1732–1752) section is unsourced; — fixed
  • The text in the last para of the Crossing the Delaware section which begins "...by 4:00 A.M...." to the end of the para is unsourced; -- Fixed
  • Last para in the Sullivan expedition and Hudson River section is unsourced; -- fixed
  • Last two sentences in the Resignation section are unsourced; -- Fixed — (also clarified that it was the 'Continental Congress') -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:23, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Last three sentences in the Whiskey Rebellion section are unsourced; Fixed — Item was sourced before prgh was split. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:46, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The quote at the end of the Farewell Address section is unsourced; -- Fixed
  • There are two instances of sentences being sourced only by footnotes (fn 's' and fn 'u'). Whilst those footnotes reference sources, I'm fairly sure the main text should also be referenced; -- {Not sure what you mean with 's' and 'u' -- Could you specify which sentences?-) -- Fixed Cmguy777 (talk) 03:01, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the subject of footnotes, a number of them are unsourced, for example fn 'e', fn 'q' and the last sentence of fn 's'. I would also suggest that the text "cited by Unger, 2013, p. 76." at the end of fn 'p' be formatted as a reference;
  • The ISBN reference provided for Graff's The presidents: a reference history appears to relate to the 815-page 2nd edition published by Simon and Schuster in 1997. There are a number of Worldcat entries for a 2002 edition published by Scribners. All of them have the same basic information as this one, i.e. ISBN 9780684312262, 817 pages and 3rd edition (not 7th as given in the article). Same issue later for Cooke; -- Fixed
  • The ISBN provided for Alden's George Washington, a Biography does not appear to be valid. Worldcat lists a number of entries for this book, only two of which were published in 1993 by Easton Press, neither of which g publication. publication ********************ive an ISBN number; -- ISBN number is the same as the one listed here -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:32, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That Gbook link is for a 1984 edition published by Louisiana State University Press, yet the article bibliography specifies a 1993 edition published by Easton Press. This is one of those cases where it is perhaps not such an issue because the pagination appears to be the same for both editions. Factotem (talk) 21:51, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed Cmguy777 (talk) 08:33, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ISBN provided for Bassett's The Federalist System, 1789–1801 appears to be a copy/paste error. It's the same as that given for Banning's Responses of the Presidents to Charges of Misconduct immediately above it; -- Fixed Removed ISBN number. This is an old publication with no ISBN number. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:20, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You can use the OCLC ref for this, which is 586531, according to Worldcat. Factotem (talk) 20:27, 20 November 2018 (UTC) -- Done[reply]
  • Check the OCLC link given for Cunliffe's George Washington, Man and Monument. It links to an untirely unrelated Finnish publication; Done — Also added the ISBN number, previously missing. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:51, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You're repeating the same mistake of mixing details from different editions. It makes it very difficult for anyone to verify the sources. In this case, that ISBN relates to the 196-page, 1982 edition published by New American Library, while the rest of the details provided in the bibliography refer to the 234-page, 1958 edition published by Little, Brown. Factotem (talk) 09:49, 21 November 2018 (UTC) -- Added oclc number (564093853) for 1958 publication. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 07:38, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This book would not have an ISBN in 1958 since ISBN was introduced in 1970. Unless someone has an original copy, such as at a library, why put in an ISBN number? It is confusing to have an ISBN number and OCLC number. The source/information should either be removed or the ISBN/OCLC numbers should be removed. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:43, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. The ISBN number currently provided is just plain wrong and should be removed. The OCLC ref does the job fine. Factotem (talk) 17:48, 22 November 2018 (UTC) -- Done -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:27, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Now the title and ISBN link in the bibliography both relate to the 576-page 2006 edition, but the 2004 edition that you are now citing has 564 pages and ISBN 9780195170344??? Factotem (talk) 22:09, 20 November 2018 (UTC) -- Fixed[reply]
  • On a general point about linking to GBooks in the bibliography, this is not necessary for FAC, and can lead to inconsistencies. In addition to the above, the GBook link for Ferling's The Ascent of George Washington: The Hidden Political Genius of an American Icon leads to a 464-page edition with a different ISBN than the one provided in the article's bibliography. The ISBN number provided in the article's bibliography relates, according to Worldcat, to a 438-page edition. -- 'Fixed' -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:33, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. I'm not likely to be supporting this on sourcing. It's a huge article, with some basic errors in unsourced text that really should have been spotted and fixed before coming to FA. I've also found a number of inconsistencies just checking ISBN references in the first column of (on my screen) four. My suggestion is first, to remove all the GBooks links. You don't need them, and they lead to inconsistencies. Then check every ISBN/doi/etc link in the bibliography and make sure that the information provided against them by external authorities (I tend to use Worldcat for ISBN checking) matches the information provided in the bibliography. Minor inconsistences in editions are not such a problem, but if there's a difference in page numbering, than that could invalidate the page numbering in the references sourced to those publications. Factotem (talk) 16:51, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Factotem, thank you for your in depth review of sources and cites. (Unbelievable analysis!) Yes, so many sources and cites. I have a feeling there are some loose ends to deal with. I am not one for scripts and such, so if and when, please let us know of any lingering issues to deal with here. Many thanks. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:18, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any FA criterias that need to be addressed ? Cmguy777 (talk) 18:20, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have checked four more entries in the bibliography and found in two cases that the GBooks links refer to different editions than those found by following the ISBN links to the relevant Worldcat entry. In both cases there is a difference in pagination between the two editions that may well impact readers' abilities to verify statements sourced to those works. I've already identified this problem with examples, and whilst the noms have fixed those specific cases, it would appear they have not taken the underlying issue on board and either checked all details in the bibliography or simply removed the GBooks links. Factotem (talk) 10:55, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Gwillhickers, Cmguy777, & Hoppyh - Factotem has an extremely valid point here. Is anyone else starting to think the GBooks links might be more trouble than they're worth? Frankly, the prospect of having to sift through every single link to check the edition cited is quite daunting to me (especially if I am the editor who ends up having to do it all lol). Any of the other nominators have thoughts on this? I'd like to help out but I just don't know when I will have the time to personally check every single one of the (at least) 126 Print & Primary sources...
In my opinion, if we are going to keep the GBooks links (and actually, as a reader, I love having a source URL for me to go to - it's all about education and reading further to me) then Every. Single. One. must be checked. And. If we agree that they all should be checked then we should probably set up something like a separate "GBooks' URLs Checking" section here on this page and the nominator who checks the URLs has to sign their name to each individual GBooks' edition-link that they have personally verified. Shearonink (talk) 18:32, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would remove the G links on books that have an ISBN link. Books that are on Archive.org should be linked to the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:32, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
ISBN numbers are taken from the same page that the URL links to. Whether this is consistent with the number 'World Cat' offers seems to be inconsequential, imo, because, the reader can always go to the book the URL links to, regardless of any ISBN number. From my experience virtually all reprints are of the same book, page for page. This also begs the question, whose ISBN number is correct? i.e.The one found in the google (or Amazon) book listing, or the one at World Cat? If the number found at World Cat is not consistent with the one found at google, how do we know which one is 'correct'? The important consideration is that the citation in question points to the correct page in the book linked to. URL links exist in many historical bibliographies here at WP, so I really can't see wiping them all out here because of a few inconsistencies with World Cat. Having said that, I would be more than happy to deal with any specific issues that are brought to our attention, as we have been doing all along. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:44, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In the case of discrepancy, whichever ISBN is listed in the book itself - and importantly, in whichever version of the book itself was actually consulted in the editing of this article - is assumed to be the correct one. Having an ISBN for one edition and a GBooks link for a different one should be avoided. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:01, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the ISBN number should be the one used for the book that the URL links to. This is the convention we have been trying to use all along here. Again, will be happy, and eager, to deal with any such errors. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:42, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We at least need to id the two refs mentioned as having an actual problem. I am happy to assist as needed. Hoppyh (talk) 21:36, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Spotchecks edit

I would normally aim to spotcheck some 10% of the cites, which in this case would be around 40, so the following is just a sampling. First off, though, I notice that there are multiple instances of hyphens being used in citation page ranges. Per MOS, they should all be endash.

Note : Ref numbers have shifted up one in this section. i.e.former ref#341 is now ref#342.

Irving's Life of George Washington, Vol. 5 (which, according to the details provided at the archive.org page, was published "c1857", not 1869 as stated in the article bibliography): -- Fixed -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:31, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ref #341 (pp. 372-373) The assertion "in order not to be entombed alive" is not supported in the source; Actually, Irving covers this well on pp.372-373 Regarding Washington's death coming swiftly, Ferling, 2009 covers this on p.365. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:31, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref #342 (p. 359) The statements in the article are not supported by anything on the page cited; -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:31, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref #344 (p. 338) The statements in the article are not supported by anything on the page cited. -- 'Fixed -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:31, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Breen & White's A Pretty Considerable Distillery: Excavating George Washington's Whiskey Distillery

  • Ref #325 (209–20) I can't see any support in the source for the statements "Washington retired from the presidency in March 1797 and returned to Mount Vernon with a profound sense of relief. He devoted much time to his plantations and other business interests...". It looks to me that the source supports only the statement that the distillery produced its first batch of spirits in February 1797. Also, there are some four specific statements in that sentence, but they are cited to an 11-page range. I think the ref should be narrowed down to the specific page(s) which source those statements.

Vadakan's A Physician Looks At The Death of Washington

  • Ref #352 I'm not sure the source supports any of the assertions about cause of death. It's possible that Vadakan discusses the complications, but he says nothing himself about the cause of death, and instead only reports the findings of other studies.

Pogue's Shad, Wheat, and Rye (Whiskey): George Washington, Entrepreneur

  • Ref #91 Where in the source is there support for the statements that Washington reduced imported luxuries and diversified into weaving?

Fischer's Washington's Crossing

  • Ref #96 (p. 14) Where in the source is there support for the statement "Washington became a political figure and soon emerged as a leader among the social elite in Virginia"?
  • Ref #157 (p. 254) The source states 896 captured, not 850 as stated in the article, and says nothing on that page about Washington retreating across the Delaware.
  • Would have checked more of the Fischer cites, but GBook previews started limiting the pages it would show me.

OK

  • I also checked refs #150 (Fischer p. 216) and #405 (Willard 2017); both checked out OK. Factotem (talk) 21:10, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comprehensiveness and reliability of sources edit

I think this is a very difficult task, given the huge amount of literature on the subject, and would require a subject-matter expert to do full justice to it. The following is the best I can do, but I don't pretend for a minute that it is a thorough review:

  • I had a very quick scan through the sources last night. I did not see much to take issue with in terms of publishers; they generally seemed to be reputable, and there were no WP:SPS that I could see.
  • There is one source that does raise a question: Freedman's Washington at Valley Forge is listed as "Juvenile Nonfiction" and, at 100 pages, does not seem to me to be the type of scholarly, high-quality source that is generally expected at FAC. This is perhaps borderline; I wouldn't object to it on a lesser subject, but given the amount of scholarly attention Washington must surely have received in the literature, I wonder if there aren't better sources that could replace the three refs cited to this work.
  • The first three pages of a GBooks search for "george washington" reveals the following works have not been used as sources:
  • The article Bibliography of George Washington might be a good place to check for sources that are not used in this article, but I don't really have the time to sift through that.
  • Another useful resource might be a reading list from a university that includes Washington studies in its curriculum. Haven't found anything yet, though. Factotem (talk) 14:40, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Upon reading this, I checked and saw that McDonald's American National Biography article on Washington is not listed. ‎Gwillhickers, could you send me an email, and I will reply with the text of it? It includes instructions on how to cite it. It is compact and includes discussion of bibliography, and I think you will find it useful in shoring up soft spots.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:41, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Factotem: It seems we have plenty of top grade sources that are currently used in the Washington Biography. In regards to all of these 'unused sources', none of the books you listed above are in the Bibliography for this article. The Bibliography of George Washington is a separate article with various books that are no doubt not used in the many articles for Washington. Am not sure what the issue is here. Are there specific details regarding the narrative that need to be added and cited with the above sources? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:46, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Wehwalt: -- Likewise, since American National Biography is not used in this article I am not clear about your request. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:57, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt edit

This is likely to be a very fragmented review as I am traveling and it is hard to find time to review.
  • "He commanded Patriot forces in the new nation's vital American Revolutionary War and led them to victory over the British and their allies." What allies? The "Hessian" soldiers were leased soldiers, GB did not contract an alliance.
done Hoppyh (talk) 13:10, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • " During the Revolutionary War he was a delegate to the Continental Congress which unanimously appointed him commander-in-chief of the Continental Army , leading an allied campaign to victory at the Siege of Yorktown which ended the conflict." I might pipe "Continental Army" to "the Army", and note the comma issue following.
done Hoppyh (talk) 13:18, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "His seminal Farewell Address strongly warned against political partisanship, sectionalism, and involvement in foreign wars." I might cut "seminal"; seems to me to be puffing a bit.
done Hoppyh (talk) 18:20, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the description of where he was born, I might add which county.
done Hoppyh (talk) 18:38, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "reported by Parson Weems, based on the memories of people who knew him as a child,[10]" I might change "memories" to "accounts". Do we need Weems at such length? -- Done (Trimmed lengthy footnote)
I like what you've done there, except I would find a way to insert the word "father", rather than have two first names like you do. Possibly "when George's father asked him". And if the source will support it, I'd say "chopped down" here. That is what the reader expects to see, at least in my view, since I've never heard it termed any other way than "chopped down".--Wehwalt (talk) 02:43, 29 November 2018 (UTC) -- Note : "Chopped down" is a later day distortion. The author of this account, Parson Weems, said that Washington had only "barked" the tree (removed some bark) with his hatchet, so I added a foot note to this effect. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:22, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "11 year-old" I think "11-year-old"? -- Done
  • "His half-brother Lawrence in 1743" I might cut "His half-brother". We know who he is. -- Done
  • "middle income investors, " probably should be "middle-income" -- Done
  • "Washington's brother Lawrence" I would shorten to "Lawrence". See comment two places above. -- comment. Since this is the beginning of the section I would leave "brother" in place for those readers who jump from the TOC to a given section. Will change if you still feel it should be. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:55, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and this inspired Washington to begin his own pursuit of a military life.[36]" "begin his own pursuit" seems a bit wordy. Why not say "and this inspired Washington to pursue a military career". -- Done
  • "(in "Ohio Country") I think you need a "the" before "Ohio" I'm dubious about whether quotation remarks are needed around the term. You also link and explain the term early in the French and Indian War section, possibly de-link the second one and also move the explanation to first use. -- Done
  • "On March 15, 1754, Governor Dinwiddie commissioned Washington Lieutenant Colonel in the newly formed Virginia Regiment at age 21" He was 22. I don't mean to be hard, but I flagged this in my talk page comments, at which time it read "20". -- Fixed
  • Re the above, I had to go to some effort to find my previous comments because there are very few topics per talk archive page. I doubt it's an FA criterion, but I've changed the archiving henceforth (no point in changing the past ones) to about 250K per archive. If you disagree, feel free to change it, but I'd look at other articles first.
  • You misspell "Loudoun" as "Loudon". -- Fixed
  • " in charge of defending 300 miles " suggest adding "of frontier" after miles. You should probably have a conversion into kilometers. -- Done
  • "honorary Brigadier General". Is this like a brevet? Added piped link
  • "friendly-fire" friendly fire would seem more usual. -- Done
  • ".[49][f]" vs. ".[67][h][69]" I think you are inconsistent in how you deal with footnote strings like this. -- Fixed
  • Consecutive sentences in the first paragraph of "Marriage" begin with "They".
Fixed Hoppyh (talk) 21:53, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
More in due course.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:29, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He won election with roughly 40 percent of the vote, defeating three other candidates with the help of several local elites." Weren't there two burgesses from each county?
  • The first two sentences of American Revolution make it sound like Washington joined the revolutionary cause out of spite. -- Agree : I add a better opening statement placing emphasis on why Washington assumed leading role. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:46, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "after it's appeal" surely you mean repeal and it should be "its" not "it's". -- Fixed
  • "Parliament repealed them in 1770.[104]" suggest this be merged into the previous sentence, perhaps as ", which they were in 1770." -- Done -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:37, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Parliament sought to punish the Boston Tea Party in 1774" Possibly they sought to punish Boston, or Massachusetts, or those who committed the Tea Party, but they could not punish the Tea Party itself. -- Fixed -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:55, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why does "blacks" in the quote from Washington just below the text which I just commented on pipe to Atlantic slave trade? -- Fixed Piped link out of place in Washington's quote. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:41, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Under Fairfax Resolves, you link Fairfax County which is probably unnecessary as you link it earlier. -- Not found : I did a thorough checking and found Fairfax County is only linked once. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:59, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The text about the Declaration and the toppling of the equestrian statue seems rather out of place. -- See GW Talk. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:11, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I will keep plugging away at this, and hope to finish it this weekend.. I regret my tardiness, and my efforts to prevent strife, have led to the withdrawal of Hoppyh, and I hope they reconsider.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:40, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We have been going along with reviewers requests from the beginning, regardless of any difference of opinion, appeals and civil discussion with reviewers. We have been making steady progress all along. You had nothing to do with this particular incident. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:11, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He declined a salary in his acceptance speech but received reimbursement of expenses for which he fully accounted.[113] " If I recall, this was quite some time later. Perhaps the word "later" should be added after "but" -- Done -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:50, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and upon Adams' urging," Which Adams? You've just mentioned two of them. -- Fixed -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:50, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As the apprehensive Washington and party" suggest adding "his" before "party" otherwise it is unclear whether the adjective "apprehensive" is meant to apply to "party" or just to "Washington". -- Fixed Chernow clearly indicates Washington's feelings only. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:50, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He transported them" He, I assume, is meant to be Knox. -- Fixed. Yes it was Knox who made the journey. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:50, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:45, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

Comment — It's astonishing that so many images used in so many articles all this time have gone unchecked. Our apologies for taking these images for granted. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:25, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]


  • Don't use fixed px sizes -- Done (only found one instance of 'px'. All images used the 'upright' parameter for size control. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:54, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest adding alt text -- Done
  • How does the gallery of portraits meet the terms outlined at WP:IG? --Fixed-- Removed gallery format; reduced or removed photos Cmguy777 (talk) 18:49, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Washington_Pennsylvania_Mapb.jpg needs a US PD tag -- Fixed
  • File:The_Night_Council_At_Fort_Necessity_from_the_Darlington_Collection_of_Engravings.PNG: when/where was this first published? -- Fixed Cmguy777 (talk) 20:34, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This engraving apparently was part of Washington Irving's 5 Volume Series Life of George Washington Vol. I I could not find the photo in the Vol One, that covers the event. It may have been printed seperately. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:52, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Destruction_de_l'armée_de_Braddock_en_1755.jpg needs a US PD tag, and if the author is unknown how do we know they died over 100 years ago? -- Fixed Added 'US PD' tag. Removed 'PD-old-100' Image created in 1880 and is in the PD regardless of date of death of the unknown author. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:14, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:FortDuquesne.jpg needs a US PD tag. -- Fixed
  • With that tag we'll need a publication date. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:16, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same with File:Martha_Dandridge_Custis_crop.jpg, -- Fixed
  • File:Couder_Yorktown_Versailles.JPG, -- Fixed
  • File:The_Capture_of_the_Hessians_at_Trenton_December_26_1776.jpeg, File:Philadelphia_Presidents_house.jpg, all other images using either a life+70 or life+100 tag (PD-Art) alone. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:16, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Culper_Ring_code.jpg: when/where was this first published? -- Removed image from article Information regarding the place of first publication not available. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:31, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:General_George_Washington_Resigning_his_Commission.jpg: given tag is incorrect. -- Fixed
  • Same with File:Constitution_Sesquicentennial_1937_Issue-3c.jpg --Fixed
  • File:Washington_Masonic_print.jpg: when/where was this first published? -- The image is of a reproduction of a painting and was not "published" in a book or journal. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:00, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:MtRushmore_GW_close.jpg should have an explicit tag for the original work. Same with File:George_Washington_statue.JPG, File:Virginia_State_Capitol_complex_-_Houdon's_Washington,_seen_from_the_front.jpg, File:BaltWashMonument.JPG, File:Washington_Indy_Hall.jpg
Removed all of the images named in this group from the article. I simply can't go on doing all the work many editors were supposed to have done originally. Please accept our apologies for any issues these images have created. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:08, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also still seeing a number of issues with referencing, so will oppose at this time simply because of the amount of work still required to get this ready. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:13, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment :  We have been working on cites and sources all along. There are hundreds. If you see a specific item needing our attention please let us know. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:59, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria This is such a massive article with so many individual editors making various contributions recently and over the years...if we could have some of the individual problems that you are seeing so those errors/problems.issues could then be fixed...it would be a big help. I'm not giving up yet. Shearonink (talk) 03:03, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Round 1: edit

  • FN324 is broken
Fixed. Shearonink (talk) 05:16, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quotes should be cited in the lead even if cited later
Fixed Cmguy777 (talk) 05:52, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the infobox details don't appear to be cited anywhere
Are you asking that every item in the info-box be cited, or saying that such details in the text are not cited? We are using a 'no citations in the lede' convention, so long as these items are covered and cited in the text. Would this not also apply to the infobox? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:01, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It would - anything covered and cited in the body does not need to also be cited in the infobox. However, there are some details that don't seem to be cited anywhere, such as his predecessor for senior officer. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:36, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria — Added mention of James Wilkinson, Washington's predecessor in the US Army, in the text, and provided citation. Original reference in the info-box was to the Regular US Army, not the Continental Army, as I had wrongly assumed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:59, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's some odd formatting in the third para of Early years
Fixed Reformatted third and fourth paras of Early years.
  • What source is being used for inflation calculations?
If you are referring to the last paragraph in the Retirement (1797–1799) section, the source used is Dalzell & Dalzell 1998, p. 219 (citation #331) -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:07, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There are several places where a dollar amount "in 2018" is reported, but the following citations (as in the case you mention) are older. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:36, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • A couple of the Notes entries don't appear to be sourced.
Fixed (a). Shearonink (talk) 05:16, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria: (b) does not seem to need to be sourced since it is a simple mention of Old Style/New Style. I think at one time the article did use Template:OldStyleDateDY or something similar but am not sure that going back to this template (or whatever else might be available): {{OldStyleDateDY| 22 February|1732| 11 February 1731}} which would render as: 22 February 1732 [O.S. 11 February 1731] is warranted.Shearonink (talk) 17:36, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not too fussed about that either way, more concerned about examples such as note e. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:36, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Looks like Note "e" had been sufficiently referenced at one point in time but that source had been removed/misaligned. Shearonink (talk) 02:03, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Removed Note "q" as it seemed to be an observation not so much about GW and his life as comparing him with a following President. Shearonink (talk) 02:16, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Publication titles like Slate should be italicized --Done -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:35, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN306 has formatting issues
I'm sorry, I tried to fix the possible issues but i think I mistook 306 for 305? (Korzi for Peabody?)...I'm giving up for now and will take another stab tomorrow. Shearonink (talk) 06:10, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria Sorry to bother you about this again but which FN is this now please?... Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 02:46, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
311. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:19, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Shearonink (talk) 04:16, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • 349 and 405 need page numbers
Nikkimaria: Ref 349 ("Boorstin 2010, pp. 349–50") has page numbers. Ref 405 and Ref 404 both point to "The Papers of George Washington" which is an entire archive so page numbers seem unnecessary. Shearonink (talk) 17:47, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The numbering has changed since my comments - now 353 and 407. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:36, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - will take a look. Shearonink (talk) 02:16, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
353 & 407 - Fixed. Shearonink (talk) 02:38, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anderson 2006 link goes to a different edition. Same with Bell 2005, Boorstin 1965, check for others -- Fixed -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:45, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is now a stranded ref for Anderson 2006 of Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFAnderson2006. There are 2 different Anderson books that are cited in the article - Ref 49 ("Town Destroyer") and Ref 54 ("and war was formally declared in 1756") both now point to Anderson 2007. Someone who has access to both those books and can check the ref page numbers needs to do so. Shearonink (talk) 16:14, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I checked for the occurrence of 'CITEREFAnderson2006' in the bibliography mark-up and didn't find it. Nor did I find any "harv-error" warnings, once again. This is odd, as I've no doubt you've seen the warning. Perhaps it's a browser issue? In any case, Anderson, 2006 isn't used in the article so I removed it. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:50, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Gwillhickers There are some issues with what you just did.
There are two different books on GW & the French/Indian War by Fred Anderson.
You just changed the refs to both point to Anderson 2007. BUT did you actually check the refs? How do we know which pages of which Anderson book the ref/s actually pointed to?
As to the missing warning, I think you should be able to see it if you do the following:
Go to this version of the article
Do a page search for the following words: Harv warning
You should then be able to see the following after the (maybe)errant Anderson 2006 cite in the Bibliography Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFAnderson2006. CITEREFAnderson2006 will not show up in the Bibliography mark-up as it is a warning generated by the Wikicode that something is wrong with the way things are written and something needs to be fixed.
That's all. Thank you. Shearonink (talk) 23:33, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Still no harv warnings. There were only two refs for Anderson, 2007. None for Anderson, 2006. I didn't change anything other than to remove Anderson, 2006, from the Bibliography. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:38, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I know you removed the Anderson 2006 but my point is that there were two books by Anderson, I just want to make sure that the two refs in the article for his work are from his 2007 book, that the two works haven't somehow gotten co-mingled. I've seen it happen before with refs around Wikipedia. I don't have access to these books, I can't confirm the pages & referencing.
Checking for "Harv warning" and "Harv error" has personally saved me many times from publishing my referencing errors on articles that use Harvard referencing. Maybe it's some gadget I have enabled?...I don't know why it's showing up for me and not you - not trying to beat a dead horse here just trying to be helpful. Shearonink (talk) 16:27, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Never was any doubt of that -- you've been a tremendous help. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:15, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not all of the entries in Book sources are books -- Which?
Fixed. I found eight errant entries. Rather than creating a separate "Magazine/Newspaper" section, I have altered the "Book sources" header. Please adjust if needful. Shearonink (talk) 16:32, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "George Washington, Presidential Term Limits, and the Problem of Reluctant Political Leadership" is missing author
Fixed. Added Bruce G. Peabody as author. Shearonink (talk) 18:28, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is there an ellipsis in the midst of the Book sources list? Not clear as to what you mean.
  • Between Newton and Palmer there is a blank space with three dots - wondering why. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:37, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. The ellipsis was a placeholder for sources whose authors start with the letter O - have removed it. The hidden comment for "O" remains. Shearonink (talk) 15:41, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Newton et al is a journal article - should be cited as such -- Fixed -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:26, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Author listed for George Washington's War on Native America appears to be incorrect, Fixed
  • same with George Washington the Christian, check for others -- (Johnston work has correct name)
  • Looking at this more closely, there seems to be some inconsistency in whether the author is credited as Johnson or Johnston or Johnstone. You say Johnston here, the article says Johnson, which is correct? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:37, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This author's name is misspelled all over the internet and is even pencilled in incorrectly - apparently by various librarians - on Google Book printed source-books as "Johnstone" and that error is then repeated in Google Books listings, etc. The man himself spelled his name as Johnson as evidenced by the signed "author's statement" found here. Shearonink (talk) 16:53, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Tobias Lear work is a letter from an edited compilation - formatting is inconsistent
Nikkimaria Tried to fix it but can't get the coding - publication-year, publication-date, origyear/orig-year - as set out in Template: cite book to work. The letter was written in 1799, this Volume of the "Writings' was published in 1893. Shearonink (talk) 22:33, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I used the Washington Irving 1869 Life of George Washington Vol. 5 source and made changes to the Tobias Lear section. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:52, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria I would like your expertise on this particular cite. Tobias Lear wrote the letter about GW's death in 1799, but it was published in 1893 in a book written by Washington Irving - is there any way to make the reference say both things? I tried and tried and couldn't figure out the coding...
Right now it reads as
Lear, Tobias (1799). "Tobias Lear to William Augustine Washington December 15, 1799(The Writings of George Washington, Volume 14)". In Ford, Worthington Chauncey. The writings of George Washington; collected and ed. by Worthington Chauncey Ford. G. Putnam & Sons. p. 247.
I have the publication date hidden in the code, it looks like this
* {{cite book|last1=Lear|first1=Tobias|editor-last = Ford |editor-first=Worthington Chauncey|title=The writings of George Washington; collected and ed. by Worthington Chauncey Ford|year=1799|chapter=Tobias Lear to William Augustine Washington December 15, 1799(The Writings of George Washington, Volume 14)|publisher= G. Putnam & Sons|<!-- publication-year: 1893|-->url=https://books.google.com/?id=XqE3y9LZmfgC&pg=PA257|page=247|ref=harv}}
If you could figure out which cite template & which coding that would be used to say both years - the year the letter was written and the year it was published - that would be awesome. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 01:49, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
One option would be to use multiple templates - have the ref be "{{cite letter}} In {{cite book}}" (appropriately filled out). Nikkimaria (talk) 02:06, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks. I'll play around putting those two templates together. By the way, is there any kind of WP page that lays out this type of situation, maybe with examples? I've looked but sometimes I just cannot find things around here... Thanks again, Shearonink (talk) 02:17, 29 November 2018 (UTC) \[reply]
If it won't keep it out of FA, you might consider using a citation template for contributions within books. Usually we don't mix formats, but I've found citation seems more flexible than cite when it comes to contributions.--02:35, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Wehwalt, I'll take a look at that tomorrow. Shearonink (talk) 03:21, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. THANKS Wehwalt - that worked. See this edit - I had to use "citation". Left a hidden note behind so folks will know *why*...frankly, I spent quite a bit of time trying out various cite template and I just don't see any other way to do it. Shearonink (talk) 05:59, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kazin: should cite specific entry
Fixed. Yes, Kazin was the editor of the entire Encyclopedia but Genovese was the entry's author. Shearonink (talk) 18:10, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in whether page numbers for journal articles are presented in the footnotes or sources list. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:16, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Brumwell book gives a publisher's location and most others do not. You should be consistent one way or the other. "Great Britain" seems a bit general to be listed as the location of a publisher.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:51, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Brumwell, 2012, is among my collection of books, and it lists the location as London, Great Britain. However, the inclusion of locations in the source listings were indeed exceptional and were recently removed by another nominator. Upon double checking I found two other sources that still had the location listed, so along with the location in Brumwell's listing they have been removed also. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:13, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I did make a concerted effort to remove locations from the sources. Hoppyh (talk) 19:52, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Other FA criteria edit

Is the George Washington article comprehensive, well-written, neutral ? Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:27, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think we've all dealt with and fixed the various issues put forth on this page so far. I am sure there are other improvements that could be made - looking forward to further posts from reviewers. Shearonink (talk) 17:52, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I obviously can't speak for other reviewers, but there do appear to be a few of my points so far unaddressed - for example, the sourcing for inflation calculations, or a missing US PD tag on

File:The_Capture_of_the_Hessians_at_Trenton_December_26_1776.jpeg. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:05, 2 December 2018 (UTC) -- Done -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:25, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: -- Could you be more specific about "inflation", and overall, so we can get right to it? Many thanks for your 'X-ray' vision. :-)  -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:34, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There are several points in the article where you say "$X in 2018" but where the following ref is from some point before 2018 (eg. "worth about £40,000 in contemporary currency (or about $10 million in 2018)" has a 2003 source); this suggests that either there is some 2018 source omitted, or that the date presented should be amended. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:24, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria Just wanted to say "Thank you" for all your time and attention to this FA Review - it is muchly appreciated. Shearonink (talk) 18:09, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a source link for the US Dollar: Seven Ways to Compute the Relative Value of a U.S. Dollar Amount - 1774 to Present Cmguy777 (talk) 19:37, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a source link for the UK Pound: Five Ways to Compute the Relative Value of a UK Pound Amount, 1270 to Present Cmguy777 (talk) 19:40, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The relative value for currency should be US Dollar to US Dollar and UK Pound to UK Pound, unless there is a source that goes from UK Pound to US Dollar or US Dollar to UK Pound. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:42, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Since this is a historical narrative, perhaps we should just leave inflation and conversion figures out of the narrative altogether and spare ourselves all the business and math issues involved. Now we have an unconventional citation and a URL stuck in the text. Palmer, Flexner and Rose, the sources used for the narrative at this juncture, mention no inflation figures, so perhaps we shouldn't either. It's generally understood that dollar rates have inflated over the last 250+ years. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:47, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is a first, I agree with you! Also, IMHO it be would wise to delete the links to Google Books; I have tested several here and the editions and page numbers do not match. There is nothing wrong in just using reliable paper sources for our articles; they are almost always more scholarly than websites. If the nominators insist on keeping the Google Books links, I think that this nomination will be archived because of the amount of work that it still needs. Graham Beards (talk) 21:27, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree as to both. Hoppyh (talk) 22:28, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I gave the reference that asked for. I am for editor concensus. It is called the relative value of money. It gives a good impression on how much Arnold got, probably almost 1 million dollars by today's money value. The reference I suppose could be put in an SFN format, but it looks like the concensus is not to have real value of money in the narration. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:24, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Google links issue edit

We appear to have two FA reviewers suggesting removal of these links. I’ll be happy to assist with this removal. I suggest we split up the alphabet using the authors’ last names. I could take t - z. Please advise. Hoppyh (talk) 22:48, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It seems we're over reacting a bit here. If we simply use the ISBN number on the page that the URL links to there should be no problem. At this point I believe there are only a few source listings that need tending to (no one has pointed to anything specific lately), so let's just fix anything that still may need fixing and move on. This should not be a big deal. I certainly hope that the nomination won't be torpedoed simply on the basis of a few remaining URL/ISBN issues -- we have come this far. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:44, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Two reviewers have spoken, and IMO we should address their objections, so that the nom is not archived. Hoppyh (talk) 01:01, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
One last appeal. The greater bulk of the url links are fine. They are a great aid to both readers and editors. There is no call for a major change in the article based on any url issues that may be remaining. We should at least try to fix any remaining links before we make a major change like this. What about web-site sources (i.e. non-book sources) -- they all have URLs. Let's not take the quick and easy way out and try to fix any remaining URL's before we go so far as to gut the bibliography of all links. I will of course abide by the consensus of all reviewers, but no one has actually said, remove all URL's or else. If the effort proves to be an impossible uphill battle, then okay, we'll just wash our hands of the whole business. We should make one last effort before we resort to making major changes. Are there that many specific URL issues actually remaining? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:17, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The reviewers have specifically objected to the use of Google books links. IMO, we need to respond to that objection. Hoppyh (talk) 01:40, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria, Maile66, Factotem, Wehwalt, and Graham Beards: As I said, I will abide by reviewer consensus. They did not make demands or ultimatums. I am hoping they will consider the fact that most urls have no issues and are willing to let us fix any remaining URL/ISBN issues. If not, then okay, we'll just remove all the urls and move on. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:55, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not aware that anyone is suggesting all URLs be removed. I have suggested removing the GBook URLs on the basis that they are not a FAC requirement and often generate the inconsistencies I have identified. It's not a problem if you retain them. It is a problem if they link to different editions of the book than the rest of the bibliographical information relates to and those editions have different page numbers. And as far as I am concerned there will very definitely be a problem if you "simply use the ISBN number on the page that the URL links to". Presumably the bibliographical information came from the actual, physical books used to research this article. We've established that, for whatever reason, the GBook URLs don't always match that information, so the idea of declaring them to be the authoritative source is completely wrong, and somewhat worrying. Retain the GBook URLs by all means, but if you do the information they provide really needs to be consistent with the bibliographical information presented in the article, and someone needs to go through every link and check that is true. Factotem (talk) 01:57, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am willing to do whatever is necessary. We've already dealt with a number of these issues successfully, and I am willing to continue dealing with any others that may remain. Again, at this point the greater bulk of URL/Gbook links are fine, so dealing with any remaining ones hopefully is not a big issue for anyone. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:02, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm kind of lost here on why I got pinged. A lot has happened here since I originally posted about a handful of citation formats that I believe got fixed. Whatever the other issues are, others can deal with. Gwillhickers I'm all for giving you the time to correct what you need to correct. In whatever way it needs to be corrected. Just scanning this page, it looks like you ran into some conflicting sourcing info. For future information (or here, if it helps), one of the sources I really like for old books is HathiTrust. Maybe you already know about it. Sometimes they have the same books as Google, but my personal preference is HathiTrust, just for accessibility on my end. Don't know if it helps you, but it looks like even they are confused. They list the author as William J. Johnstone, but the scanned book clearly says it's Johnson. — Maile (talk) 02:23, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Johnstone, William J. (1919). George Washington, the Christian. The Abingdon Press.
Insert :Yes, both Hathi Trust and Google got the spelling of Johnson's name wrong. Our Bibliography, however, is consistent with the spelling in the actual book. Not a perfect world, but no call for radical changes in our Bibliography. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:56, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Sorry to ping you to this discussion again Maile66, just wanted to get this on-record so I am re-posting what I posted above in the Round 1 section (plus some additional info):
"This author's name is misspelled all over the internet and is even pencilled in incorrectly - apparently by various librarians - on Google Book printed source-books as "Johnstone" and that error is then repeated in Google Books listings, etc. The man himself spelled his name as Johnson as evidenced by the signed "author's statement" found here."
These pencilled-in William Jackson Johns[t]on[e] additions by an anonymous person or anonymous persons are not verifiable but the following is:
  • The title pages of the book have "William J. Johnson" as the author
  • the signed author's statement found on page 15 of this book clearly has the signature of W.J. Johnson and
  • The Catalog of Copyright Entries: Books. Part, group 1, Volume 16, Issue 2 published by the Library of Congress Copyright Office in 1919 says on Page 754 that the author's name is: "Johnson, William Jackson".
I think maybe we should not rely on a single source that contradicts the name that is available in all the other sources. Shearonink (talk) 03:19, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Lol, I have just now done some deep-diving on the spelling issue of Johnstone vs. Johnson.
NEW news and the laugh is on me:
Sometime between 1913 and 1928 Johnson changed the spelling of his name from Johnson (in the 1913 edition of his Lincoln book) to Johnstone (in the 1928/Sixth Printing of his Lincoln book), see this link. Cripes, I had to do a LOT of digging to get to that. So. Both spellings are right and wrong! It's a perfect world! All kidding aside, yes, his name is both, but we should probably rely on the last/best information. Johnstone was this author's preferred spelling of his last name. Case settled, I'll fix it in the article. Now g'night Gracie. Shearonink (talk) 04:03, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The FA reviewer above has repeated the complaint. IMO, we need to address this by removing the Google books links. Hoppyh (talk) 02:29, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The FA reviewer above said '"Retain the GBook URLs by all means, but if you do the information they provide really needs to be consistent with the bibliographical information presented in the article, and someone needs to go through every link and check that is true." I am more than willing to do this, hopefully with the same enthusiastic help we saw dealing with ALT statements. Again, the bulk of url/Gbook links are fine. Another reviewer has just said he/she is willing to give us the time to correct any remaining issues. Let's do this, aye? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:49, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, yes. I am willing to do my part to review the Gbooks URLs - I actually think it is cool to be able to read the source material for an article's content - not everyone has access to a physical library of books & GBooks are a way to introduce readers to another source of information. However, I cannot get around to doing anything on this until maybe sometime Tuesday. Gwillhickers if you can start in on this and maybe set up a section so we can all see the progress and not duplicate each other's efforts that would be awesome - I have to sign off for a while - Real Life interferes. Shearonink (talk) 03:19, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What? Wikipedia is not real life?   :-)  Yes, I have been going through the sources, and upon encountering any issues I will knock them off in due course. Anyone that has found specific issues/sources that need our attention, please inform us. Many thanks for the patience that our reviewers have extended to us. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:22, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you could list out the GBooks links you've fixed in a section on this page that would help other editors doing work on the article after you. I'll list out any I fix or check when I can sit down and work on the links for a decent length of time - I don't think any of us want to duplicate another editor's efforts... Shearonink (talk) 06:28, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify: based on the responses when I asked about this issue on the FAC TP a while ago, the problem is where different editions have different pagination. There are instances where the ISBN in a GBooks URL differs from the ISBN given in the article bibliography, but the two editions have the same pagination. Personally I think this is an unacceptable discrepancy that should be rectified, but the consensus was that it's no reason to oppose a candidate, and can be allowed to stand. Factotem (talk) 11:50, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It would be my desire to fix these discrepancies, or get them out of the Bibliography of a FA, but at the same time, I don't see that this by itself is a reason to oppose a nomination, all things considered. It seems all we need at this point are any specific listings with such a (or any) problem that may remain in the Bibliography. If a given listing presents us with a problem we can not fix, (unlikely) we can always eliminate it and find another source to take its place. As I said before, I am not one for scripts, so I have been checking the individual listings one by one, making sure urls link up to the correct version. Needless to say, help along these lines has been greatly appreciated and welcomed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:12, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus at FAC TP is a reasonable reading of current FA criteria. I am happy to help remove the discrepancies on an as-identified basis. IMHO, removal of Google books links is preferable to an “isbn audit”. Hoppyh (talk) 20:14, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate your concern here but several reviewers have given us much of their time and effort finding URL/ISBN issues while other editors have likewise given much of their time and effort fixing them, so it would have seemed very inappropriate to throw all this work out the window over a few remaining sourcing issues. I am currently going through the source listing and have found and fixed one issue, while removing another single use source (w/ two printings / isbn numbers) used to cite a simple statement already covered by two other well noted sources. Between the lot of us we should be able to clear any remaining issues up in little time. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:38, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Any Google link and ISBN generated link(s) should match. Why have two links to the same book in the article ? I think all books found on Archive.org should have a web link. Books dated before 1970 have no ISBN. A Google link or Archive.org link for books that have no ISBN generated link(s) would be acceptable. There apparently is no editor consensus on this matter. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:45, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't know of any listing that has two URL links for one book. Since most of us have been working with reviewers to fix linking/ISBN issues, and since the Washington article became a GA with most of these links, there has been a long standing consensus to keep them. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:13, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Starting at the beginning of the Bibliography I have been inspecting and fixing any ISBN issues. I am currently up to the 'F' section of the alphabetized listing in our Bibliography. I should point out at this time that some books have different ISBN numbers for paper-back and hard-cover. e.g. I own Chernow, 2010, Washington, a Life. In the front of my hard-cover issue are two ISBN numbers: one for paper-back and one for hard-cover, but it's the exact same book. Most goggle listings do not specify hard-cover or soft-cover. Linking to either one of these books should not be an issue, so long as our citations correspond with page numbers used. Having said that, we still should make efforts to make sure the URL used in our Bibliography links up to the google listing that matches the ISBN listing. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:13, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Multiple ISBN numbers edit

Upon reviewing the Bibliography I am encountering various Google pages that ofter multiple printings of various given books, with a different ISBN for each. Here's an example. Page down to Other editions: There are six other versions, with four different ISBN numbers. Further, when you go to the copyright page of any given book you'll find yet another ISBN number for the paper-back version. At this point it's little wonder why there were so many discrepancies. I believe all that most readers expect of us is that we get the author's name, year date and citation page number right. Perhaps a solution to our 'situation' is to not bother with ISBN numbers, and simply keep the URL to the book that was used to cite a given statement. This way when the readers go to the google book/page, they will encounter Other editions and they can look into the different versions with different ISBN numbers — that is, if they're even inclined to mull through all the different printings. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:56, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit you've changed the ISBN ending 21148 for Dalzell's book in the article bibliography to the one given in the GBooks URL that ends 36289, but:
  • The year of publication given in the bibliography is 1998.
  • The 300-page 1998 edition is listed by both Worldcat and GBooks with ISBN ending in 21148, i.e. the information before your edit.
  • Now, following your edit, both GBook link and ISBN links relate to the 320-page edition published in 2000, yet the bibliography still gives 1998 as the year of publication.
Can I ask why you have chosen the GBook ISBN ending in 36289 for the 2000 edition in preference to the original ISBN of 21148 for the 1998 edition, rather than change the GBooks URL to point to the 1998 edition? Given your previous question of "If we simply use the ISBN number on the page that the URL links to there should be no problem", I'm a little concerned that this is what you have done here. Please tell me I'm wrong about this. Which of these editions was actually used to research the article? As for your statement that readers expect the citation page number to be correct, information in this article is cited to p. 219 of that source, but given that there is a 20-page difference between these two editions, can you guarantee that p. 219 is the same in both editions? Finally, I believe ISBN numbers (or OCLC refs or other, appropriate identifiers) are mandatory for FAC, whereas GBook links are not. Factotem (talk) 00:43, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Struck last sentence above – it's not clear that ISBNs are in fact mandatory/expected. See discussion on the TP. Factotem (talk) 15:25, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the ISBN directed link needs to match the year of the source that is used in the article. There needs to be ISBNs in the article for books that have ISBNs. It should either be 1998 or 2000, not both. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:57, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No where in the Bibliography are there two ISBN's for any book. If I've made an error with ascribing an ISBN number, it of course should be corrected, but given the multiple ISBN numbers for many of the publications, it seems we will forever be trying to get all the URL's matched up with the 'correct' ISBN. As we've seen, even Google and Haiti Trust are given to errors or discrepancies. Are ISBN numbers actually required by FA criteria? I was hoping we could simplify matters by eliminating ISBN numbers by just using the URL that points to the books we are using in the sources and citations, simply providing the author's name, year and page numbers. This situation is no doubt characteristic of not just the Washington bibliography. Even if we eliminated all the URL's there is no guarantee we are employing the right ISBN number for the exact publication we are citing. Will continue in the effort to fix any remaining issues in our Bibliography. If ISBN numbers are not required by FA criteria I would recommend we just get rid of them and simply employ URL's to the books we are actually using for sourcing and citing. Trying to do what is best for all concerned. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:49, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant was books that have ISBNs, those ISBNs should be in the article. Books that do not have ISBNs should have Google links or Archive.org links. Cmguy777 (talk) 07:08, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If there is no ISBN, an OCLC number can be used. These can be found using the search facility here (like ISBNs they have different numbers for different editions/years/countries, etc). Google books link don't work in all territories, so use with care. - SchroCat (talk) 11:54, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not aware that Google is showing errors and discrepancies; it makes sense to me that different editions of the same book will have different ISBNs. The discrepancies are all in the article's bibliography. I'm having difficulty understanding why there can be "no guarantee we are employing the right ISBN number for the exact publication we are citing". Editors must have had access to the book at some stage in order to cite it. Whether that was the actual physical book, or a GBook preview, the correct ISBN number can be and should have been taken directly from that source. How is that so difficult? Factotem (talk) 12:16, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "Are ISBN numbers actually required by FA criteria?" That's a good question. I've raised this on the TP. Maybe the @FAC coordinators: can shed some light on this too. Factotem (talk) 12:44, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure why ISBN numbers are so controversial. Archive.org currently has the actual book that the readers can have access too. ISBN numbers give the reader the opportunity to verify the source. Archive.org is better that ISBNs because there is a direct link to the actual source. OCLC World Cat might list multiple copyright dates. This article in my opinion has too many sources. Well-written, Comprehensive, and Neutral have yet to be FA reviewed. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:39, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I will continue checking the sources and ISBN numbers. At this point it would seem there are few left to deal with. We should clear this hurdle before getting involved in other areas. In regard to "too many sources", I try to keep an eye out for any single–use sources, i.e.a source that is only used to cite one statement. Just recently I have removed two such sources and have replaced them and their respective cites with other more notable sources. But let's remember that the number of sources is not really an issue. Right now we should concentrate on any remaining ISBN issues and move on. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:35, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here is the situation we should be aware of when checking ISBN numbers, using one source as an example. Currently the URL link for Dalzell, 1998 gives this ISBN number: 9780195121148, for a book with 300 pages. However, when you click on View Book the google web-page gives this ISBN number: 9780199923755 for a book with 320 pages. This is the error about Google I was referring to above. When you click on View book it should be for the same book. Sometimes I change the URL to the shortest one, which occurs when you click on About this book, which can also yield a different ISBN number. Part of our problem was not being aware of the different ISBN numbers that can occur on one Google/source page. i.e.An editor finds the page, clicks on view book to do research, writes down the ISBN number, but when he/she clicks on About this book to return to the front cover page and copies the URL, it links to a different version with a different ISBN number. As I said, this is no doubt a situation that has occurred in other Bibliographies. Just so we all know, when you click on View book or About this book, it often takes you to a different version with a different ISBN number. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:22, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well-written, comprehensive, and neutral edit

Can other factors Well-written, Comprehensive, and Neutral be reviewed for FA ? Whether the article passes or fails it would help to have a general idea of any article improvements in narration. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:42, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I love checking and diving deep into references as much as the next editor... but if the FA reviewers could perhaps delve into the well-written/comprehensive/neutral aspects a little bit it sure would be a nice break to have something else to work on. Cheers, Shearonink (talk) 17:49, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Things like 'well-written', 'comprehensiveness' and 'neutrality' are ideas that are often subjective, with opinions than can vary among individual editors and reviewers. The important consideration is that no major details and important context is left out of the narrative. Given the number of knowledgeable editors who have contributed to and scrutinized the Washington biography, it would seem at this point all the important points have been well covered. Of course I speak with a nominator's bias, but I believe we've accomplished this overall. Let's see what the reviewers may say. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:44, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the compliment, but am a bit ill-at-ease with this comment. To be clear, there is no presumption on the nominators’ part that FA criteria has been met, and there is no claim of proprietorship. We don’t have a vote here, and we best be prepared to address the good faith recommendations of reviewers. Hoppyh (talk) 20:11, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well-written, comprehensive, well-researched, neutral, stable, a lead, appropriate structure, consistent citations, Media, and Length are Featured Article criteria. All that is needed is confirmation from FA reviewer(s) that the George Washington article has met all of the criteria. Any areas of concern by FA reviewer(s) could benefit the article. So far well-written, comprehensive, neutral have not been addressed by FA reviewers. Wikipedia:Featured article criteria Cmguy777 (talk) 20:17, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I hope Wehwalt returns, for one, and others join us as well. GW represents a consequential figure and the article deserves the attention after the work that’s been done. Hoppyh (talk) 20:39, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just making a friendly comment about the important criteria. -- Agree with both of you here. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:43, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Is the article well-written, comprehensive, and neutral ? Cmguy777 (talk) 19:55, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Driveby comments from Victoria edit

  • I'm quite well-read in GW's early life and & the French and Indian War years. I strongly urge using Walter O'Meara's Guns at the Forks. Though older than Anderson's Crucible it remains a respected source. I note there are web sources in that section, which should be removed given the amount of scholarship available. Finally, a facsimile of GW's diary exists, (I have it, it doesn't have an ISBN, it's short and I'd be happy to scan and make available but not in purview of FAC), which is a primary source but can be used for quotes - it's very interesting. Victoriaearle (tk) 15:04, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The complete diaries are available at The Papers of George Washington Digital Edition - Diaries 1748-1799. I can partially see your point about published/print sources but I also think that just because a reference is a web source doesn't negate the verifiable facts it contains and doesn't make it ipso facto somehow unreliable... Shearonink (talk) 03:18, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Victoriaearle: — Thanks for checking in. Shearonink has a valid point, but if you can intoduce a better source, in place of a web-site source, it would be most welcomed. I don't, and I suspect others don't, own O'Meara's work, but if you can cite any statement with it, by all means do so. We are in the middle of a nomination, so if you have anything to add to the narrative also I would recommend that you keep it simple, as to avoid major changes at this point in time. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 07:01, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Gwillhickers, no I didn't intend to add to the narrative/text/article; the comment was made to suggest a better source to use for the French & Indian War section/s. I don't own it either; checked it out of the library & read quite a few years ago. I might do a full review; am picking at it at the moment and deciding. Victoriaearle (tk) 00:35, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Early years
  • Try to avoid WP:SEAOFBLUE - the first section has a lot of blue that can maybe be rearranged elsewhere.
Done -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:57, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He was a subject of the British Empire, under the reign of George II" - I get why this is here, but I'm not convinced it's necessary.
It provides biographical context for Washington and colonial life at that point in his life. If you feel this is something that needs to be eliminated, then okay, but it only involves a phrase and, imo, is appropriate. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 07:44, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I removed this information. Not necessary. The link to British America adds enough context to Washington being a subject of the British Empire. Also, did the colonists have the same rights as persons who lived in Britain. For example, there was a colonial militia. The colonists were not part of the British regulary army. I.E. Washington had been denied to wear the Red. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:58, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the link to British America gives us enough context. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:28, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The education section is a bit muddled and I haven't looked at the sources to sort it out. Basically he was home schooled or didn't go to a school, taking lessons from a local schoolmaster. The bit about the education spanning eight years makes it sound more formal than it was and the bit about Appleby doesn't make sense. Were other of his siblings sent to England for a formal education? If so, that should be mentioned.
Clarified, by adding the term "informal" before education spanning eight years. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:02, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider switching paragraphs to lead with education > his father was alive when he gave his son lessons, & then the one about his father's death, inheritance, etc.
  • The focus in "Early years" section should be on the early years; not seeing the need for the paragraph about land purchases at this point. Lay the foundation of the surveying - which is why Dinwiddie sent him to the Forks of the Ohio, and perhaps pick up the purchasing later, although the source that section is being cited to, [21] is not a reliable source.
Early years section designates 1732–1752, the first 20 years of Washington's life. If you prefer, we can make a separate sub-section for Surveying and remove the year date designation. Also, I'll see what I can do about replacing the Mount Vernon citation here. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:09, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I removed and readded edited information on the Land holdings. Chronology of the article is kept. No need to talk about Washington D.C. before there was even the United States. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:02, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good call, esp since after mulling through four sources (Chernow-2010, Ferling-2009, Flexner-1974 and Randall-1997), I could not find any grand total of land purchases. The closet I came to this was Flexner, p.56, who mentioned several land purchase, one of which only amounted to 30,000 acres. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:39, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • New section - @Cmguy777:, directly above Victoriaearle feels that the Mount Vernon cite isn't a reliable source, and I tend to agree, since there is no author's name or a list of sources cited. I see you've only moved the information to a newly created section, under the Legacy section, this after you said we didn't need to mention the capitol, etc. Further, Washington's legacy has more to do with the Revolution and his presidency, not his business dealings. Recommend removing this section and returning the information to the original location, or simply removing the part cited by a questionable source. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:56, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't recommend moving the information back to the Early years section. Faulty source. Then the information should be removed. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:41, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No need to link tuberculosis, especially in long article like this. Watch out for similar low value links.
Done -- Gwillhickers (talk) 07:25, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • When did Washington inherit Mt. Vernon?
Added 1754, the year Lawrence's daughter died, two years after his wife had died. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:20, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prose is wordy and can be tightened, i.e it's not strictly necessary to say how old he was in each sentence and there are ways improve flow.
Grammar has been gone over by multiple editors just before and during the review, and realistically, there is no end to opinions about the best flow, etc. Recommend we concentrate on errors, lack of citations, etc, and, as you pointed out, redundancy e.g. about age. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 07:31, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sourcing - there's really no need to use the 1936 Fitzpatrick if Chernow is being used, suggest eliminating it or swapping for something more current.
Both new and old sources are used throughout the article. If there are instances where a Fitzpatrick citation can be cited by Chernow, or whomever, it's not really a pressing issue in terms of FA criteria, and would require much time and research to effect throughout an article of such complexity. Recommend using existing cites and focusing on any outright errors, FA criteria issues, etc. -- Gwillhickers (talk)
  • Looking at this six year old version of the first section it seems to flow better, contains more information, i.e about formal education, Lawrence's investment in the Ohio Company. It might be worth trying to meld that version with the current one. I'm beginning to be concerned that there's too much to be done in the purview of a FAC, given that this is a 15,000+ word article with sourcing and prose issues. Victoriaearle (tk) 22:13, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • At this point there have been numerous opinions along these lines. Bearing in mind that even Pulitzer Prize works have room for improvement, and given the space limitations for the many topics that must be comprehensively covered in an encyclopedia article, we should just concentrate on any pressing FA criteria issues, imo. This is not to say that your ideas for improvement and respective edits are not welcomed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 08:19, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there are specific examples of clearly inadequate prose, please bring them to our attention. Chances are, the editor who wrote the passage in question will be happy to deal with it, if one of us doesn't get to it first. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:59, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Insert: I incorporated the older version article to the narration. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:39, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. My sense is that this isn't quite ready and there's more to be done that can reasonably be done during a FAC nomination. I've only read a the first few sections of the article, made a few copyedits here and here, but general issues that need to be addressed are the following:

  • In my view doesn't satisfy (WP:FACR 1.a. (prose) - the article is wordy and every extraneous word needs to be trimmed throughout. Because the article is long, it's not realistic to expect a line-by-line prose review from reviewers, but a prose review would be reasonable after a thorough copyedit. Examples only: "His brother Lawrence was an Adjutant General at the time of his death which inspired Washington to pursue his military career" > I cannot parse this sentence, so I had to look at sources and it seems that GW wanted Lawrence's post. Next sentence, "He was trained in musters and drills before Robert Dinwiddie appointed him adjutant, first to the Southern district in December 1752 and later to the Northern and Eastern districts as well." > previous subject is Lawrence so the pronoun antecedent here is Lawrence. Things like this need checking throughout. Also there are non-sequitors such as "His mother could not afford the cost of England's Appleby Grammar School,[20]", which needs to be explained (I had to follow the link to the school expecting a colonial school, found it was in England and guessed that there was something missing. Also direct quotes need attribution; there's a direct quote at the end of the para without attribution and I fixed one in the small section I edited.
  • 1.c (well researched)- for an article like this we need the best sources; sources such as Freeman 1948, Fitzpatrick 1936, this web source should be swapped out for the highest quality and more recent sources, of which there has be quite a lot for George Washington. Keep in mind that well researched doesn't mean we have to include every single source that exists but rather conduct a thorough literature review and use the best that exists while eliminating others.
  • 1.d (neutral) - there's definitely a hagiographic tone in the few sections I read, i.,e he wasn't a military ambassador, (nor do the sources cited verify this fact) but rather an envoy with a letter; the thirty years later quote needs to be put in context (he was sent to navigate the wilderness because of his surveying & wilderness experience); making peace with the Six Nations is an overstatement; instead it was an overture, he impressed the Half-King enough to secure the escort of four warriors. That Washington ordered the first shot in the war seems hard to verify, (plus why the "former war"?)
  • I got confused a few times, dipped into sources for clarification and found some evidence of close paraphrasing, which will need to be eliminated. Here, "precision and considerable force" are Chernow's words; I attributed, which is one way to deal with an issue like that. Further on, article says "sent him to confront French forces at Pittsburgh", source says "Virginia Lt. Governor Robert Dinwiddie sent 21-year-old Major George Washington of the Virginia Regiment on a mission to confront the French forces". Again, these are examples only.
  • Regarding the specific points above; linking is still problematic (cherry tree incident is directly relevant to GW & should be retained); education is still muddled a bit; I didn't know that he had purchased such a large amount of land and think that actually is worth retaining - the options are to weave throughout the narrative and mention periodically as he gained more land or to devote a section to it. Prose, sourcing, etc, I've mentioned.

In Wikipedia terms this article is heavy lifting on a grand scale - it's as heavy as it can get. There's also a truism that it's hard to get Big Articles through FAC, so I have nothing but respect trying and getting this far. My advice is to take the issues mentioned in this FAC and work on them throughout the article, go to peer review (which is exactly for these types of issues) and expect eventually to be back here. Right now it's not quite ready. Victoriaearle (tk) 18:46, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MOD edit

I read through part of this long article. Based on what I've seen, it is not ready for FA. Wordy prose ("spring, summer and fall of ...", basic formatting errors, and a slightly irritating hagiographic tone. Kudos for trying to bring this up in quality but this is definitely not there yet. --MarchOrDie (talk) 08:57, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are not the first reviewer to make this observation; Gwillhickers’ response to Victoriaearle above was essentially that work has been done and you should limit your review to copy editing. I think this is improper. Gwillhickers, who has 40% of the edits to the article, is certainly aware of previous work on the prose, which is predominantly his own, but such a suggestion about the reviewers’ role is out of bounds per WP:OWN. Hoppyh (talk) 13:44, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the article is hagiographic in tone. I have tried to reduce narration and making the article more objective. I have met resistance along the way. Even non controversial areas, that could be reduced have been met with resistance. The article should neither be antagonistic nor hagiographic, but rather neutral. All I can do is highly recommend that editors work together, have common goals, establish a neutral tone, and get Washington to FA. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:33, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Much work on grammar and prose has been done over the last couple of months by various editors, so if there are issues that still need attention I'm certain all of us will accept responsibility equally like adults and move forward. General comments are welcomed but it would help if reviewers pointed at any specific issues also – at least a few so we can get a general idea of what you feel is inappropriate. All of us have been cooperating with reviewers, but if we should have questions or a difference of opinion, which is rare, I'm hoping this is received in the spirit it is offered and we can discuss it without getting personally offended, as all reviewers have done when such discussions occur. Much thanks for your review. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:04, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have been faced with big tasks before during this review, and as experienced editors we have met those tasks in little time, esp when we work together. It is my hope we will get through any remaining issues now in little time. As a general comment, Washington is noted for (very) many accomplishments, so simply making general statements about these things can sometimes seem hagiographic overall. At the same time, if there is any unneeded embellishment we of course should remove it or edit the statement(s) in question. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:31, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Closing the nomination edit

As pointed out by two reviewers there is appreciable work to be done yet. If there are no objections I am going to ask @Ian Rose: to close the nomination so we can get back to work without the worry of time. As we've come this far, it seems it will not take much longer to get over the last few hurdles and resubmit the nomination. Many thanks to reviewers for their perseverance and patience. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:01, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any objections. However, I feel that editors should have the same goals: reducing hagiographic language; and reducing article size; especially in non-controverial areas. Editors need to work together to get George Washington to FA status. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:47, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is appropriate. My apologies to nominators for having realized this only after the fact. I do agree about reducing article size and adjusting the tone. I am not optimistic about the prospects of an consensus to do so. I would not advise to attempt it otherwise, as past futility is quite evident. Hoppyh (talk) 22:08, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wordy and hagiographic prose was the issue, not article size, per size guidelines. As long as we address these issues, water will find its own level in terms of article size. Yes, as I said, we need to work together, however, let's bear in mind that differences of opinions will sometimes occur - we've all been there - but this doesn't mean there can be no compromises made. The only thing that stands in the way of compromise is an unwillingness to do so. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:10, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Victory made the following comments : "In my view doesn't satisfy (WP:FACR 1.a. (prose) - the article is wordy and every extraneous word needs to be trimmed throughout. Because the article is long, it's not realistic to expect a line-by-line prose review from reviewers, but a prose review would be reasonable after a thorough copyedit." "In Wikipedia terms this article is heavy lifting on a grand scale - it's as heavy as it can get. There's also a truism that it's hard to get Big Articles through FAC, so I have nothing but respect trying and getting this far." I would call that article reduction. Again, there already is disagreement concerning article reduction. We have to be in agreement the article needs to be reduced. This has been a problem before. What good is editing when editors are not allowed to reduce the article ? Cmguy777 (talk) 22:25, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Victoriaearle mentions a long article in terms of conducting a review, not in terms of reduction simply because it's long. Again wordy and any hagiographic prose can be reduced or eliminated, and this will reduce article size, but this doesn't mean we can't add other information, as you have done all along. And "editors are not allowed" is nonsense. We have this thing called consensus something that none of us has gone against when there is a clear consensus. What stands in the way of cooperation are veiled accusations as in your last sentence, a refusal to compromise, and not knowing when to drop the stick. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:59, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW - Although I didn't mention page size in my comments/oppose I do think the page is dauntingly long. The reason I didn't mention it is because I didn't get far enough to have a sense of what can be cut, but a good rule of thumb is to try to adhere to 10,000 words (I've been guilty of bringing a few 10,000+ word articles through FAC but they underwent tremendous structural work to stay at barely over 10,000 words). We do have some pop culture ones that are very long, I believe Elvis Presley is one, but I'm not keen on overly long articles. The points to remember are that articles like these are rarely read from top to bottom; instead readers tend to dip into one or two section and then click away or come back later so every section counts; be ruthless about adhering to summary style throughout; take advantage of daughter articles to shove material into (remember, it's not a paper encyclopedia); and keep a strict focus on the biographical details, because this page is the biography. Victoriaearle (tk) 23:06, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Victoriaearle for your clarification. In my opinion, there needs to be concensus the article needs to be reduced without further additions. What then would be the purpose of article reduction ? As long as editors agree the article needs to be reduced, then editors can choose areas that need to be reduced by concensus. I will drop the stick. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:15, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Gwillhickers, the illegitimate owner of the article, will not hear of any reduction here, in the fraudulent name of context. The article remains a GA, and the G stands for Gwillhickers. Hoppyh (talk) 23:33, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Expressing an opinion doesn't amount to ownership, so you need to drop that stick and behave like an adult. You can bang on the same tin pot all you like but your incessant accusations are not supported by my edit history. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:41, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opinions can vary over the best article size, and I've seen much material chopped away just to satisfy a page length guideline. Remember that guidelines allows for exceptions for extraordinary articles. We should appreciate that this is not a biography about 'Congressman Smith', but for a central figure in early American history, inter-connected with many topics. i.e.We shouldn't attempt to squeeze a size-ten foot into a size-six shoe just for the sake of a size number. As Victoriaearle mentions, many readers simply jump to the section(s) they are interested in, so imo, length is noting critical and is only something head strong editors like us argue about. Having said that, I have no qualms about reducing wordy and any hagiographic prose, and will of course go along with any clear consensus over any given matter. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:41, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My stick and my tin pot are mine, and yours are yours, “landlord”. You are entitled to your opinion, but not your dictates when they are wrong, which in this case they are—apparently, I am not alone in this. A quick survey of the article’s archives definitively reveal your proprietary, covetous response to any attempt at making this article more encyclopedic as it should be. All that aside, Merry Christmas, pal. I won't deny your hard work and dedication to your personal cause, albeit misguided. Hoppyh (talk) 23:49, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am not responding to any specific FA or article matter. The stick has been dropped, but I hope we can end this FA review on a better note, a commitment to cooperation. Both Gwillhickers and Hopphy have done excellent work on the article. George Washington should be the primary focus. This FA review has helped immensely. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:32, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Okay, enough guys, let's call a halt to the friendly banter as well as the nom itself. Looking forward, please get this to PR after any rework, so we can have a shot at gaining consensus on length, sourcing and so on before the next FAC nomination. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:38, 11 December 2018 (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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 14:19, 6 December 2018 [22].

Yugoslav coup d'état edit

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:48, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is another from a series I've been working on about the events surrounding the 1941 Axis invasion of Yugoslavia, and will hopefully form part of a Featured topic on the subject eventually. The coup was essentially bloodless, and was encouraged by both British and Soviet intelligence services. It led directly to Hitler's decision to invade and partition Yugoslavia, and thereby contributed to the fractious politics of the Yugoslav government-in-exile, and to the Yugoslav civil war that raged from 1941 to 1945. This article went through Milhist ACR earlier this year, during which it was expanded with some recent scholarship. All comments gratefully received. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:48, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Very little is said on the matter of the legacy of the date. In yugoslav-communist times this coup was celebrated, while in contemporary serbian historiography it is disputed (between the 2 branches on serbian historiography). And also when it comes to contemporary society, its a disputed date (1 side says its a tragic day, the other its a monument to anti-fascism). Also, very little prominence in the article is given to the role of the Yugoslav Communist party in the coup, which is kinda a disputed topic aswell. So, in conclusion, a big chunk of the history of this coup is not merely the events of that day, but also the historiographical evaluation, and the wider societal reception of it (by the post-war yugoslav society, as well as the contemporary one, which very differ). Because the article doesn't cover these important aspects, i don't think it fulfills the criteria of a featured article. --Ivan VA (talk) 22:40, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

@FAC coordinators: I think Ivan VA's comments about comprehensiveness are well-founded, and the historiography aspect needs more work. I'd like to withdraw this nom for now, as I'll need to marshal some sources to do that aspect justice. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:11, 5 December 2018 (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) 10:28, 3 December 2018 [23].

Meghan Trainor edit

Nominator(s): NØ and Lips are movin 07:45, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about American singer-songwriter Meghan Trainor who has achieved seven multiplatinum hits in the United States including "All About That Bass" which is one of the very few songs to scan diamond. She was the recipient of the Grammy Award for Best New Artist in 2016 among her various other achievements.--NØ 07:45, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments, leaning oppose The article seems to be overly positive towards the subject and some of the sourcing is problematic:

  • The only thing I know about Ms Tainor is the extensive discussion of her song "Dear Future Husband", with many commentators arguing that its lyrics and/or filmclip were sexist (e.g. [24], [25], [26]). There's no coverage at all of this in the article, aside from a vague and factually incorrect claim that a single website published an article arguing that she was anti-feminist: this actually seems to be a fairly widespread view.
  • The statement that "Music critics and writers have noted Trainor's lyrics as a contemplation of 21st-century womanhood" is not supported by the source, which is a lightweight Buzzfeed listicle by a single author which makes no claim that her view is more widely held. This sentence is also very vague (the passive voice doesn't help).
  • More broadly, the article seems to confine itself to critics with positive views of this artist, when it seems that there are also critics who hold negative views. Nick-D (talk) 23:11, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nick-D I completely agree with your assessment that the article lacked info about her criticism. I attempted to make it more neutral by expanding a bit on the body-shaming and sexism accusations. Could you have a look over the added content? Your input is highly appreciated!--NØ 00:30, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks

  • The list of instruments in the infobox and the body text do not match
  • "Trainor has said that she aims to "break the chains" of the "absurd standards of thinness" she believes are promoted by the beauty industry with her lyrics" - as presented this seems to be a quote from Trainor herself, but it's not
  • Conversely, "pairs a throwback sound with lyrics that contemplate 21st-century womanhood" is a direct quote from the source and should be presented as such
  • Not seeing her mother's full name in any of the three citations provided
  • "Aged 15, she took guitar lessons" - source has guitar lessons but not the age at which she took them
  • "She earned her first songwriting royalties by writing for Italian and Danish artists" - sources support the Italian but not the Danish. (Sources says her song was released in Denmark but not that it was among her first songwriting royalties).
  • "1950s doo wop-inspired songs that straddle the line between modern R&B and melodic pop" is a direct quote from the source
  • "Her work is reminiscent of the famous Brill building composers, such as Gerry Goffin and Carole King, Ellie Greenwich and Jeff Barry, Neil Sedaka" - not seeing this in given sources
  • "perpetuating retrograde beliefs about relationships" is almost the same as "perpetuates a retrograde belief about relationships" in the source

Oppose at this time as I'm concerned by the results of spotchecks. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:00, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rectified all of these concerns with this edit: [27]. Please look it over when you have time. In most of the places only the wrong source was cited at the end of the sentence instead of any information being incorrect, so I just had to move sources around for verification.--NØ 12:40, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Before I do that, have you had a chance to look at the other refs to see if there may have been other sources needing shifting around? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:48, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confident about all the sections after Title. Most of the content about her early life was added by Lips Are Movin (who's inactive now but has been honorably added as a co-nom here anyway) so I'm not completely sure about its sourcing but am here to address any concerns that may arise.--NØ 16:26, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's not really how it's meant to work -- if a reviewer expresses fundamental concerns about the sourcing then it's up to the nominator to go through each and every reference and ensure that all claims are supported by sources and there are no instances of plagiarism or close paraphrasing. That takes time and legwork and is best done away from the FAC process; I'm going to archive this so that can take place. After that, I know you tried a Peer Review before FAC but I'd have another go prior to a future nomination here. Alternatively you'd be eligible to seek the involvement of a FAC mentor. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:28, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't have withdrawn the nom or supported archiving it so soon. I think you took my statement a bit out of context. I've read the whole article completely and as a fan I'm 90% sure that all of the information is correct. Its just that incorrect sources are present at the end of some sentences which don't completely verify the information. Letting this FAC stay open for at least a month would have created absolutely no problems and have only been benificial for the article.--NØ 10:36, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above, it's not simply verifying that the sources support the article text but also ensuring there are no instances of directly quoting without attribution or closely paraphrasing, cases of which Nikki also identified in her initial spotcheck. Once that's done it will require further independent spotchecking, and I'd like to see all that done away from FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:15, 3 December 2018 (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) 12:25, 3 December 2018 [28].

Jason Sendwe edit

Nominator(s): Indy beetle (talk) 04:17, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Jason Sendwe, a prominent politician of the Democratic Republic of the Congo's early years. For a time he was the preeminent leader of the Luba people of Katanga Province and was the central government's "in-man" inside the territory, fraught with secessionist bitterness. He rose and fell like man of legend; in the words of British journalist Ian Goodhope Colvin, "Jason had battled so long for his Baluba idea...had seen victory, worn the leopard skin, been carried on the shoulders of his people...become a minister, touched power and money, lost his aura and perished." This article passed GAN back in March, and since then I've filled in the biographical details with other sources. -Indy beetle (talk) 04:17, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tony1 edit

1a, just the lead:

  • "He served as Second Deputy Prime Minister of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (then Republic of the Congo) from August 1961 until December 1962 and as President of the Province of North Katanga from July 1963 until his death." Does "second" need the cap? Surely it's not part of some title? Personally, I'd be inclined to downcase all position-names (president, too), unless they come directly before a name. There are lots of caps even without that. But it's up to you. I see "deputy premiership" and "president" below ... that's nice and smooth ... so why not take the easy path and to it for all? I see a fully capped BALUBAKAT. A comma after "1962" would be in order in a sentence of that length and complexity.
    • The Manual of Style reads, "Standard or commonly used names of an office are treated as proper names (David Cameron was British Prime Minister; Hirohito was Emperor of Japan; Louis XVI was King of France)". Thus, for all of the specific government offices I refer to directly, I capitalize them. Sendwe was indeed Second Deputy PM, as Christophe Gbenye was the First Deputy PM at this time (it appears to have been a matter of protocol). BALUBAKAT is not quite an acronym, but is shorthand for the party he led (it's pronounced Ba-lu-ba-kat, not B-A-L-U-B-A-K-A-T). About half of the sources list it in all caps. Comma added.
  • "He also espoused nationalism"—what does "also" add?
    • I was differentiating from his pro-Baluba stance. Seeing as the way I've worded it has that former ideal embedded in foundation of the BALUBAKAT, I've excised the "also".
  • "after the termination of Belgian rule"—why not a simple word? "end". Then, "desired to obtain" ... why not "wanted to gain"?
    • Changed to "end" and "wished", respectability.
  • "but lost the power struggle to his rival"—"the" says to the reader, you know which power struggle I'm referring to: it's been mentioned above, or it's common knowledge. I think you need "a".
    • It seemed to me it would be obvious there was some maneuvering to be done if Sendwe wanted to "to obtain control over the government"; apparently not. Changed to "a".
  • "Sendwe opposed the breakaway state and rejected Tshombe's entreaties for him to join the rebel government, rupturing relations between the two." What are the two? Between Tshombe and the rebel government?
    • Clarified as between the two men.
  • Suddenly present tense? "In early 1963, he increasingly focuses his activities"
    • Typo corrected; changed to "focused".
  • "His popularity dramatically decreased"—among whom? This brings up a major point ... nowhere are we told something critical: is it a voter democracy or a closed system of power?
    • Clarified as His popularity among the local population dramatically decreased. To what system of power are you referring to? A provincial presidency in the Congo at this time was an office awarded to a person on a vote of the relevant provincial assembly. That was the normal process, though things in the country were a little hectic at this time and the relevant source for the information isn't clear on whether Sendwe assumed the office by virtue of a vote or simply took over when he forced his predecessor to resign.
  • "Sendwe's demise greatly demoralised the Baluba, and his image thereafter drifted into obscurity."—what does image mean here? reputation?
    • Changed to "reputation".

It's not of FA quality. Perhaps it might be brought up to standard throughout, but we expect not to have such a density of issues in the lead, and don't want this on the list for six painful weeks. Do you have copy-editing support from others? Tony (talk) 04:37, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • The "density of issues" in the paragraph I wrote a few hours ago was some clunky word choice (which I just fixed, so they are easily rectifiable), your misconception of MOS on office names, and some unfamiliarity on your part with the sources' information on the subject. Must this stall the FAC right here before a look is taken at the rest of the text? -Indy beetle (talk) 05:26, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Being accusatory isn't helpful. What gives you the idea that I'm micsonceiving MOS on capping of job titles? I wrote: "But it's up to you." Did you read my post? I'm not happy at your response. Tony (talk) 05:51, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Did I fail to act upon your comments? -Indy beetle (talk) 17:55, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • You issued a false accusation (as yet not withdrawn) and yes, you did act on my comments. Tony (talk) 01:49, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • The false accusation being the MOS thing? You said "Personally, I'd be inclined to downcase all position-names (president, too), unless they come directly before a name...But it's up to you. I see "deputy premiership" and "president" below ... that's nice and smooth ... so why not take the easy path and to it for all?" That statement still contradicts MOS, I believe. We have don't a choice on whether or not to follow MOS (it's not "up to" me). I'm sorry for my initial hostility, but I still don't see how I was technically wrong. -Indy beetle (talk) 02:01, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I'm getting rather sick of hostility from reviewers, who are ending up corrupting this forum (see below for that). My understanding is that MOS leaves it open. That is why I said "It's up to you". You're complaining of "my misconception of MOS". I can do without the bullying. Tony (talk) 03:18, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • If I may, "reviewers, who are ending up corrupting this forum" and "bullying" don't sound any less "accusatory" than anything I've said so far. Shall we both start over? -Indy beetle (talk) 04:05, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • You haven't withdrawn your accusation. Tony (talk) 05:54, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well let's agree to disagree on the nature of the applicability of MOS. -Indy beetle (talk) 06:10, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, that's completely irrelevant. You accused me of "misconception of MOS on office names". I did not refer to en.WP's MOS. It was not the source of my comment. Tony (talk) 06:47, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Were you unaware of the relevant MOS section? MOS and and policy aren't exempt from application because an individual hadn't recalled it. -Indy beetle (talk) 19:09, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you unaware that we are talking completely at cross-purposes. This is a waste of time. You accused me falsely. You should withdraw the accusation. Tony (talk) 03:35, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am aware this is a waste of time, but I'm not going to withdraw an accusation on the grounds of falsehood when I don't believe it was. You didn't answer my question ("Did you read my post?"). -Indy beetle (talk) 03:40, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note edit

This nom hasn't progressed since the exchange above so I'm going to archive it. I know getting input at PR is a challenge but I'd suggest trying it before a re-nom here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:25, 3 December 2018 (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/December_2018&oldid=875924374"