Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/January 2019

< 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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 30 January 2019 [1].

Streetcleaner edit

Nominator(s): CelestialWeevil (talk) 16:45, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 1989 debut album of the industrial metal band Godflesh, one of the first (and neatest) releases of its kind. Since late 2017, I've been reworking all Godflesh-related articles and have promoted two lists (Godflesh discography and List of songs recorded by Godflesh) to featured status. Regardless, this is my first featured article candidate, and I hope to improve Streetcleaner with help from all you. Plus, the album's 30th anniversary is November 2019, so it would be cool to work it up to featured quality by then. Prior to nominating, User:PresN was kind enough to mentor me and improve a number of things. Thank you all in advance! CelestialWeevil (talk) 16:45, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Opabinia edit

Er, well, I was here to see if there were any other science articles in need of a review, and this one caught my eye but is way out of my usual editing range, so take everything I say with a grain of salt or three.

  • The article puts a lot of emphasis on the use of the drum machine, but doesn't go into much detail on how that came about or what led the band to make that decision. The main Godflesh article has some material on it - that Broadrick didn't like their later use of live drumming, that the original choice of the drum machine was out of necessity - but I think that could be fleshed out more here considering how important it seems to have been. In particular, by the time of recording this material, did they actively prefer machine percussion or was it still "necessity"? Did they have trouble finding a drummer?
Good point! It's easy to lose perspective when writing about this stuff so much and forget to explain why something matters. Anyway, I added this to the prose: "This choice was at first made out of necessity since Broadrick could not play the beats he wanted acoustically, but he came to embrace machine percussion and consider it a defining feature of Godflesh". I know they prefered machine percussion by Streetcleaner, and I'll look for a reference explicitly saying that. CelestialWeevil (talk) 00:45, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That raises the question - he couldn't play what he wanted because drumming wasn't his best skill, or because what he wanted wasn't really achievable by a live drummer in general? Opabinia regalis (talk) 10:07, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I specified it; he considered himself not a great drummer. CelestialWeevil (talk) 15:42, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the background section: "...proved to be the foundation upon which Streetcleaner would fine-tune the genre" - is that a quote? If so it needs punctuation, if not it sounds a little peacocky. There's a few other instances where the writing seems overwrought to me - e.g. "unnerving sounds suffused with chaotic samples of desperate voices" - but I dunno, I usually write about molecules. (Maybe I'll see if I can get away with "suffused with chaotropes" somewhere...)
Thanks for pointing these out; I can get carried away sometimes. I changed your first example to "would fine-tune Godflesh's approach to the genre." Is that fine? I turned your second example into: "with enigmatic lyrics and sounds underlain with samples of voices." CelestialWeevil (talk) 00:45, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The first change is better, I don't know about "underlain" (for one thing - maybe this is an Americanism, but I'd say "underlaid"). I was going to suggest quoting directly from the source if it's hard to describe, but then I looked at the source - a review from the website "Dead End Follies" - and poking around a little, it looks like a personal blog. Is the author a notable critic published elsewhere? The chapter-and-verse here is "high-quality reliable sources" - which can admittedly be hard to round up on some topics, especially ones that aren't well represented in traditional media, but I doubt an FA can get away with self-published sources unless the person doing the self-publishing is a recognized subject-matter expert (or a few other exceptions in WP:SPS). Similar problem with the citations to godflesh.com (looks like a fan site?); the others I looked at that seemed bloggy were interviews so somewhat less of a concern. (That said, someone could push back on that - if a self-published site posts what they claim is an interview with Joe Schmo, do we believe them? In this case, probably we do, but the risk is why we'd look for editorial oversight in sources even for subjects where that seems stuffy and unnecessary.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:13, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, sorry. I thought I had taken out all the questionable references by now. I removed the Dead End Follies one and, though it hurts my heart a lil, took out the ones to godflesh.com. They were all secondary support anyway, and the few that weren't I replaced with some better references I dug up. Also, you're right, underlaid sounds better. CelestialWeevil (talk) 17:28, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some MOS-hound will yell at me but I think the article could do with some duplicate wikilinks - e.g. Swans is linked in the background section but by the time I got to "Inspired by the harshness of early Swans material..." I'd lost the context.
I agree completely. I'll go ahead and wikilink it and remove it should anyone complain later on. CelestialWeevil (talk) 00:45, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The current section order may be somewhere in a MOS page for music articles or something, but - considering that the "composition and style" section goes through each track in sequence and describes critics' reactions to it, I think it'd be easier to follow if the track listing preceded that section.
I can't find any rules on this, but I don't remember seeing any articles with such a structure. I'll look, though! CelestialWeevil (talk) 00:45, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does the title mean? Is there anything written about how it was chosen/why that song came to be the title track?
I really wish there was something written about this, but sadly there's not (that I've found, at least). I do have a strong suspicion that Streetcleaner was named after the Whitehouse song "The Street Cleaner"; Broadrick was inspired by Whitehouse, after all. But this is original research, so I can't add it. Oh well! CelestialWeevil (talk) 00:45, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The caption for the "Dead Head" sample says it "showcases the musical departure of Tiny Tears" - Tiny Tears came first, right? So what is it a "departure" from?
Good point. I've changed it to ""Dead Head" showcases the musical differences between Tiny Tears and Streetcleaner proper." Is this fine? CelestialWeevil (talk) 00:45, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That works for me. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:13, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the live performances section, I'm not sure what it means that the Roadburn performance was released "again in 2017 in a wider capacity". Formats other than vinyl?
Yep! I made this more specific. Thanks. CelestialWeevil (talk) 00:45, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could use a brief explanation for context to what a "Peel session" is - the link goes to the band's entry in a long list.
I added a little more and changed the wikilink target. CelestialWeevil (talk) 00:45, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The main Godflesh article says the band dissolved in 2002 and reformed in 2010. Is it significant that both of the full-album performances happened after the band was re-formed? (Also, the date of the Hospital Productions show is missing.)
Godflesh wasn't very beloved or respected before reformation, and since then Streetcleaner became a sort of classic. I can't remember them specifically talking about this anywhere, but I might be able to find something. Also, I added a year to the Hospital Productions show. CelestialWeevil (talk) 00:45, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's actually interesting in its own right, and maybe should be fleshed out a little more - I did notice a lot of the reviews seemed to be about the re-release, but figured it had to do with the more recent stuff being more available. If the album wasn't well known until after the band got back together, what prompted the better reception the second time around? Why re-release an album that was expected to have only a limited audience? Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:13, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure! It's an interesting question. Godflesh at the moment seems to be a critical darling. Plus, other musicians fawn over them all the time. They're from the end of the 80s, so I guess that lends a cool factor, and a few people looking back saw some love for Streetcleaner and went with it. And, ultimately, the 2010 reissue wasn't really a big deal. It didn't attract much attention or sell a huge amount of copies. Earache is kind of small, though, so I'm sure they were pleased regardless. CelestialWeevil (talk) 17:28, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems a little disorienting to me that the live performances section precedes the release section in the text, but obviously comes later chronologically, but this may again be a standard set of sections for this article type.
I agree. I switched it around. How do you think this looks? CelestialWeevil (talk) 00:45, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looks better to me. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:13, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The album was released in 1989 and a remastered version was released in 2010 with additional material. Were there any other notable differences between the two releases?
The packaging was different, but that's about it. Do you think I should mention this? CelestialWeevil (talk) 00:45, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • A couple of prose clunkers - "a release that Broadrick provided guitar for shortly before starting Godflesh" -> "for which..." sounds cleaner to me; "The songs performed ("Tiny Tears", "Wound", "Pulp" and "Like Rats") saw the band experimenting live".
Thank you, this first one is a big improvement. I changed the second one some; is it enough? CelestialWeevil (talk) 00:45, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not good at prose, but think what's tripping me up there is the sentence structure, [inanimate object] saw [gerund (is that what it's called?)]. I don't know if you tried this already - there's backlogs everywhere - but the copyeditors at WP:GOCE can be very helpful with polishing up writing. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:13, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean. I shifted it to 'On the tracks played, blah blah, the band experimented..." I'll keep working on it, and I'll look into some copyediting assistance. Thanks! CelestialWeevil (talk) 17:28, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • A lot of the retrospective reviews seem to say this was Godflesh's best, or among their best, and it sounds like Broadrick agrees. But this was their first album of a fairly long career. There's plenty of material on the album's influence on other bands, but it feels like there could be a bit more context on the band's immediate future if that material is available - what did they make of their success at the time, what effect did it have on their future plans, etc?
You're right. It's very tough to find references on Godflesh from 1987-1991. And as soon as they start working on a new project, they rarely want to talk about what came before. I'll look, but this is sadly a dead zone in their history. CelestialWeevil (talk) 00:45, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:56, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Opabinia regalis: Thank you very much for taking your time to do this! CelestialWeevil (talk) 00:45, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Opabinia regalis: I addressed more stuff. Thanks again! CelestialWeevil (talk) 17:28, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the slow response, to be honest I've been sort of hoping that someone else more familiar with either the topic or music FAs or both would wander by :) I even looked at the past few months' worth of nominations to try to find recent examples of similar articles (and recent reviewers of same) but I didn't come up with much. I think input from a reviewer who is more knowledgeable about the subject is needed at this point (especially another look over the sources from someone who knows the area). Is there a relevant wikiproject to post a notice to, to scare up some more reviewers? Opabinia regalis (talk) 10:07, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Opabinia regalis: You've been an incredible help regardless. I would never have thought of plenty of these fixes and refinements. The main relevant wikiproject, wikiproject industrial, is dead, but I'll try wikiproject metal. Thanks again! CelestialWeevil (talk) 15:42, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like wikiproject metal is pretty dead, too. I guess I'll start looking for interested individuals. Is that frowned upon, asking specific people for FAC input? CelestialWeevil (talk) 15:48, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ss112 edit

So, having a quick look at the sources on the article, most seem reliable and it's overall a pretty good collection of sources, however a few grab my attention. I see a couple of blog sources. One, I understand, is Earache Records' official(?) Blogspot here, authored by the label's founder Digby Pearson. However, in most cases, primary sources should be avoided. Do you think there's any secondary news source that reported on what Pearson said there/is the information supported by that reference entirely relevant to the article? I checked out The Obelisk source here, and while ordinarily blog sources like this would be deemed unreliable, as I understand it WP:SPS are at least acceptable if the subject spoke to the outlet directly. Pointing this out because if a news source reported on what was said, then that might be preferable. This Wordpress blog would also ordinarily set off a red flag for me, but it looks like an interview Justin Broadrick gave directly to the author as well. Also, I see a couple of sources citing Roychristopher.com...it seems he's a professor and a writer about his hobbies in his spare time, but is he a reliable source? Could what he says be replaced by a more reliable publication? Ss112 19:41, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @Ss112:, and thanks for the comments.
  • Earache Records blogspot: I'm sad to say that in all my Godflesh research I haven't seen anything else talk about the origin of Tiny Tears. I did just replace one in-line citation of Pearson's blog with a new source, but most of it seems like unique information. I thought it was okay because Pearson is the head of the label that released Streetcleaner, even if it is undesirably primary. Removing it would be tricky since the creation / history of those four tracks is important to the album.
  • The Obelisk: Thanks for pointing this out; I replaced it with two references. One is from Decibel, the other is from MetalSucks.
  • Wordpress interview: I am annoyed that this is a blog, but I think the quote it's used for is a good one. As far as I know, Broadrick hasn't said the same thing so directly anywhere else. But, I can remove this if you think it's for the best.
  • Roy Christopher: This guy has done at least two articles / interviews with Broadrick in the past, one in a music publication called Slap Magazine and one in another called Pandemonium Magazine. Two of his sources appear in the Streetcleaner article; one is from Slap Magazine, and the other is his own personal website. The latter lists 22 sources itself, so that adds a little reliability to it. However, the questionable reference (the one from his own website) only appears once in the Streetcleaner article, so I might be able to remove it and substitute it with a better source if you think it's necessary.
In summary, I removed one dubious reference and one in-line citation, and I added three better references. The Roy Christopher and Wordpress interview references remain, but I will gladly remove them if you think it's necessary after my explanations above. The Digby Pearson reference is kind of pivotal for the article, so I don't think it can go. Thanks again! CelestialWeevil (talk) 20:05, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: I'm adding this to the urgent list now, as we are approaching the point where this will be archived soon if we don't see a little progress. Belatedly answering the question posed above, it is fine to approach users for reviews as long as requests are worded neutrally and not just asking for support. Sarastro (talk) 23:13, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sarastro1: Hi. I'm having trouble finding interested editors. Do you have any recommendations? And, should this be archived as a non-pass, what is the best course of action from there? Renominate? Thanks in advance, CelestialWeevil (talk) 20:18, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mike Christie edit

I took a look at the "Critical reception and legacy" section, which is one of the hardest bits to do well, and I think some work is needed. See WP:RECEPTION for some advice on how to write these sections -- you have the "A said B" problem, for example. A couple of other specific points:

  • There are a lot of different verbs used as substitutes for "said": "praised", "called", "emphasised", "labeled", "wrote", "regarded", "lauded". If you can reorganize the material so it flows around the points the reviewers and critics make, rather than just lists their comments, the need for most of these will disappear. The second paragraph is better than the first in this respect.
  • A couple of slightly unnatural phrases: "its acclaim grew with time" -- is "acclaim" the right word here?
  • Most of the second half of the first paragraph is high praise from several different critics. Do we need all the critics' names and the names of their publications? I don't think the reader would suffer if they had to click on the footnote to see Jason Pettigrew's name. You might try rewriting the whole paragraph with no direct quotes and without naming any of the sources: just paraphrase everything. If you can make that concise and readable, and then re-add some direct quotes for illustration, I think it'll be more readable.
  • Streetcleaner has cultivated a major following: not quite right: cultivation is an activity, so the subject can't be something inanimate.

I haven't looked at the rest of the article, but I see there are no supports yet. It can be a bit of a chore to get the reception section right (see here for a fairly thorough example), so I'd recommend withdrawing this and working on it, then coming back to FAC. I'd be glad to comment on the reception section away from FAC if you would like me to. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:30, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CelestialWeevil, just making sure you saw this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:48, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mike Christie, Oh, I'm so sorry, I missed it. Thanks a bunch for the input. I always thought the reception section was rough, I just didn't know how to fix it. I'll work on it as soon as I can. Is it a better idea to withdraw the nomination myself or just wait for archival? CelestialWeevil (talk) 15:26, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You can request withdrawal by posting a note saying so here; the next time one of the coordinators go through they'll archive. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:54, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawal request edit

I appreciate everyone's feedback. After I redo and improve some stuff, I'll renominate; for now, I'd like this article to be withdrawn from FAC. CelestialWeevil (talk) 15:59, 30 January 2019 (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) 30 January 2019 [2].

Nibiru cataclysm edit

Nominator(s): Serendipodous 17:51, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a longstanding and frankly infuriating public panic that has seemingly only grown over the years. As I have kept track of it, I think it has grown to the point at which it might be considered for FA status. Please note, all references to the site Zetatalk are in reference to that site. Zetatalk links there. Serendipodous 17:51, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
Done. Serendipodous 13:03, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:ZECHARIA_SITCHIN.jpg: I've nominated this for deletion as copyvio on Commons - it's from a 2010 New York Times article
  • File:Statue_of_Virgin_Mary_in_the_Cathedral_of_Strasbourg.jpg needs a copyright tag for the original work
Doesn't it have one? It's listed under {{PD-user}} Serendipodous 01:12, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That applies to the photo. Because France doesn't have freedom of panorama, we need a separate tag for the work being photographed. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:54, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The statue was made in 1858, so presumably public domain applies. Serendipodous 11:48, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably, but we still need a tag indicating why. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:47, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Added. Serendipodous 18:41, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Composite_image_of_Comet_ISON;_April_2013.jpg: does this meet the restrictions around Hubble images as identified in the NASA tag? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:28, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The copyright page doesn't work on the linked HubbleSite page so I assume yes. Serendipodous 01:20, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, which link are you referring to? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:54, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you click on the link to the source on the image information page, and scroll to the bottom, you will see a list of links away from the page, all of which are clickable, except "copyright", likely meaning that copyright doesn't apply. Serendipodous 11:43, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That link seems to be clickable for me... it leads here. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:47, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lingzhi edit

  • Inconsistent use of Publisher Location (3 with; 8 without);
  • Carl Sagan (1977). Caution: Missing pagenums for book chapter?
  • Govert Schilling. Missing Year/Date;
  • i dunno how much you care about " Missing identifier (ISSN, JSTOR, etc.)". You have 12 of them.
I'm not sure what you mean, here. Serendipodous 11:56, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meade, David (2013), COMET ISON portends the Apocalypse, p. Goodreads, Missing Publisher; Missing ISBN. What does "p. Goodreads" mean? ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 09:32, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All other issues resolved. Serendipodous 13:03, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Squeamish Ossifrage edit

Looking at sourcing and reference formatting; no examination of prose at this time. All reference numbers are based on this revision of the article.

  • In general, your reference formatting is very inconsistent. I see both First Last and Last, First for authors. I see at least three ways you've formatted citations to ZetaTalk (Zetatalk, zetatalk, zetatalk.com) – and more on that momentarily. And so forth.
  • Several references conflate the url with the website. For example, telegraph.co.uk is the address of the online publicatons of The Telegraph.
  • You cite unreliable primary sources. A lot. I suppose, based on WP:SPS, that Lieder's posts on ZetaTalk are a reliable source for the unique purpose of showing that Lieder said something. But you depends on them well beyond what policy allows, especially at the FAC level. These operate in an intersection of several policies and guidelines: WP:PRIMARY, WP:SPS, WP:FRINGE, and I think on the whole the article runs afoul of threading that intersection.
  • ISBNs should ideally be presented as properly hyphenated ISBN-13s.
  • #2: This article is bylined (Jesse Emspak) and has a publication date (2015-12-15). Additionally, Smithsonian should be in the website parameter because it was actually published via Smithsonian (the magazine), not the website of the museum itself. That also means the publisher link goes to the wrong place, but that's a separate issue, because you're very inconsistent with what you link in these references.
  • #3: This article is bylined (Avi Selk) and has a publication date (2017-11-18). Washington Post should be the website, not the publisher, so that it is correctly italicized.
  • #5: This article is bylined (Natalie Wolchover).
  • #9: Extraneous equal sign. I'm not really certain this cites all the necessary bibliographic information for this citation either.
  • #12: Phil Plait is a recognized expert, so although Bad Astronomy was self-published, it is an acceptable source for astronomy commentary per WP:SPS. However, that policy states: "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer," (emphasis in original) which seems to preclude any use of his writing there to directly comment on Lieder.
  • #16: This does not include sufficient bibliographic information to serve as a valid reference. You need to cite the information about the actual interview before introducing its archival location.
  • #17: Fortean Times is a traditional publication as well, as so should be italicized via the website parameter.
  • #21: This appears to be a random document created by a doctoral candidate (but is not a doctoral thesis), and self-published on the author's website. I can see absolutely no reason why this constitutes a reliable source.
  • #22: This article is bylined, and has a publication date, and isn't titled what you have it titled in the reference, but none of that is relevant. Because as far as I can tell, The Skeptic's Dictionary is self-published (by Robert Todd Carroll) and is not a reliable source.

...and I'm done here, although I'm quite certain that problems persist all the way down the reference section. Frankly, based on the quality of sourcing – with large passages referenced exclusively to ZetaTalk or to the work of Sitchin – this would be impossible to support at FA even if the reference formatting was immaculate. Indeed, because of the problems with WP:SPS and WP:FRINGE, I'm not at all convinced this is a GA-quality piece either. This is a very firm oppose (1c, 1d, 2c, and policy compliance); any revision sufficient to remedy these concerns would be a different article. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:44, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hang on a secFixing reference formatting is a wee trivial little thingie. Like washing dishes. And as you stated, there's room for sorting out the SPS issues. I am not at all saying I support. I'm saying your +O is a wee bit premature and more than a bit too forceful. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 15:17, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, the formatting issues are relatively minor (although things like missing bylines are concerning because they tend to indicate a lack of due diligence with source handling). The reliability of sources is not. I don't believe I stated there was "room for sorting out the SPS issues" other than rewriting passages to avoid relying on the sources that are currently being used in a manner contrary to policy (and there's enough of that needed that doing so would raise criterion 1e stability concerns). I'm an admittedly picky reviewer, and proud to be, but I don't like directly opposing candidate articles. I stand by my statement here, but, as always, if the FAC coordinators feel that my stance is unduly harsh or out of sync with the expectations, they are welcome to discount it. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:56, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It;s decidedly past my bedtime here and I won't be able to do anything for several hours. But after reading the article and your comments, I conclude: 1) I respectfully disagree that reference formatting is reason enough for Oppose. All can be fixed with elbow grease and nor too much time. 2) More importantly, I respectfully disagree that this article in any way shape or form runs afoul of FRINGE, It is an article about a fringe theory; its principal thrust is very much in line with mainstream thought. Emphatically so. 3) SPS needs time to percolate a bit, but initially I am not at all seeing it the way you are. 4) WP:RS.. you mention one source that seems to fail RS but I need to look at this tomorrow. Is the whole article framed by unreliable sources? I don't think so. Let this FAC breathe a bit. It is very much something that can be worked out, and not with too much trouble. Good night. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 16:42, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity, I'm relying on three inter-related policies for the strength of my opposition. WP:SPS prohibits most self-published sources. There is an exception for "established experts" (such as, here, Phil Plait in astronomy), but such sources can never be used for information about living persons, per policy. The policy also encourages the use of reliable independent sources in place of SPS; my reading of criterion 1c's "high-quality" requirement is that replacement of SPS references with reliable independent sources, when possible, is an expectation at the FAC level. WP:ABOUTSELF says that self-published sources even by non-experts "may be used as sources of information about themselves", but not about any exceptional claims, claims about other people, or events not directly related to the source. Additionally, the article may not be "based primarily" on such sources. I argue that the FA criteria also mandate applying this policy more stringently here; I consider any sections (or significant passages) cited exclusively to sources of this type to be suspect. Finally, WP:FRINGE says (at WP:FRIND) that "points ... not discussed in independent sources should not be given any space in articles."

Large sections of §History are incompatible with these policies. The NYT article can replace some of the claims in §Nancy Lieder and ZetaTalk, but the last two paragraphs in that section are cited almost entirely to Lieder (the other source there, the Fortean Times, isn't exactly going to satisfy FRIND either). Much of §Zecharia Sitchin and Sumer cites exclusively Sitchin for his own fringe claims. The VOA source in §2003 Hazelwood claims is a dead link, but that material is available here; although it briefly mentions Nibiru in the context of the Pana Wave (and is a reliable source), it makes no mention of Hazelwood; the Lieder source used to discuss him has impermissible BLP implications. The entire second paragraph of §2012 and the Mayan calendar also violates the SPS/BLP prohibition. The §2017 revival section is... better (although we can debate whether Unilad is a reliable source), but some of Meade's claims here are still an issue as referenced. Elsewhere in the article, in §Misappellations, neither Rabolu nor Lieder is an acceptable independent source for §Hercolubus.

To some extent, I regret having even considered reference formatting issues for an article with policy-level problems ("arson, murder, and jaywalking" as it were). Otherwise, I'm open to the possibility that my interpretations of policy and the FA criteria are too expansive. If the @FAC coordinators: think I've strayed from reviewer expectations or been unnecessarily harsh in my reading of sourcing requirements, I'll be happy to reconsider some of these objections. Otherwise, I feel I've given more than enough time to this nomination, and will not be revisiting it in future. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:03, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed all the issues he raised. That said I'm not sure that third party sources exist for the very beginning of this. It took a long time, and a few suicides, before anyone "credible" took notice of this. Serendipodous 19:07, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is one of those cases where someone throws out a multi-part argument, asserts he/she is correct in every step of that argument, folds arms over chest and says, "See, ha ha, I'm done." Squeamish keeps mentioning BLP but I struggle to see any BLP violation of any kind here. If John Doe from Peoria says the moon is made of green cheese, is it a BLP violation to say that John Doe said the moon is made of green cheese? I think not. SPS would prefer that we have highly reliable sourcing that says that someone reliable repeated John Doe's assertion and attributed it to John. These are not hard to find, as forex Rob Hafernik, a NASA aerospace engineer, discusses Sitchin's 12th planet claims, see http://skepdic.com/essays/sitchin.htm. Mike Heiser,who earned an M.A. (1998) and Ph.D. (2004) in Hebrew Bible and Ancient Semitic Languages from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, has http://www.sitchiniswrong.com/. Hmmm, Ian Lawton may not be as high-quality a source as we might hope for, but... maybe. And on and on. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 01:07, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Probably the most significant BLP issue is citing Lieder to say that Lieder accused Hazlewood of "being a confidence trickster". I'm reasonably certain that passage is actually problematic under WP:BLP rather than just WP:SPS. But regardless, SPS sources cannot include claims about third parties. This isn't a rule that I'm making up. It's WP:SELFPUB#2. So citing Lieder to reference Lieder's claims about Hazlewood, or Obama, or (arguably) "the establishment" is problematic even before considering that WP:FRIND also prohibits doing so. The same goes for at least one of the "better" sources you have provided; Sitchin is Wrong is a self-published source (by Heiser). Regardless of his credentials, it cannot be used to source claims about Lieder or Sitchin (who is not alive, but is still a "third party"). However, I have stricken the objection to The Skeptic's Dictionary above; despite my substantial concerns that it doesn't have a real editorial policy, the bulk of the historical discussions at WP:RSN seem to favor accepting it as a reliable source (note that the print version of The Skeptic's Dictionary was published by a reliable publisher, and is unquestionably acceptable). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 01:57, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Serendipodous: I suggest that the entire 2003 Hazlewood section be deleted, and his name removed from the infobox. He's a very minor character. I also agree with Squeamish that we probably shouldn't have mentioned the confidence trickster bit in the first place. I was confident that I would find that mentioned elsewhere, but I looked for.... maybe 30 or 45 minutes... and didn't. It's a peripheral bit of trash-talking in addition to Squeamish's concerns. Delete entire section. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 06:34, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Serendipodous 08:03, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

""@Squeamish Ossifrage: Further concerns? ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 08:44, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Squeamish Ossifrage: Can you give us an update on your stance? I'm looking for whether all/some/none of your concerns have been allayed (or you're disengaging, if that's the case) --Laser brain (talk) 22:22, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Laser brain: Fundamentally, the question is whether I'm interpreting WP:FRIND appropriately. I feel the content guideline establishes a bright-line rule: "Points that are not discussed in independent sources should not be given any space in articles." There are a lot of sections of this article that are sourced exclusively to non-independent, fringe sources (often Leider and Sitchin themselves). The second paragraph of §Nancy Lieder and ZetaTalk (anything about the "pole shift"), anything in §Zecharia Sitchin and Sumer that directly refers to Lieder (including the entire second paragraph), the second paragraph of §2012 and the Mayan calendar, and so forth. The editors who have put in the work on this article respectfully disagree with me over that interpretation. If the coordinators feel that my reading of FRIND is an appropriate one, then I still oppose on largely the same grounds I did initially because no FAC-reasonable amount of editing to the article will change the overall source selection. If consensus is that I'm being unreasonable about the content guideline, then I'll merely opt to disengage in the interest of mutual comity. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:37, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Serendipodous: Would you read all of SO's detailed comments above and check carefully for violations of WP:FRIND? please err on the side of caution and interpret the rules strictly. Tks. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 05:45, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment - Not opining on the matters at hand, but I think this needs to be archived so discussion and consensus can occur on the article's talk page. --Laser brain (talk) 00:31, 30 January 2019 (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) 22:59, 27 January 2019 [3].

Siege of Melos edit

Nominator(s): Kurzon (talk) 11:19, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the Siege of Melos. I cannot think of any way to improve it further. Kurzon (talk) 11:19, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

File:Milos.jpg--I'm not clear why this has Creative Commons licensing, as a crop of a NASA photograph it should be in the public domain?
The other image looks fine.
Not doing a source review, but the scripts I use show that Fns 12, 20 and 28 don't point to any source. Also Herodatus, Michell, Midlarsky, Sabin and Smith don't seem to be used for any footnotes and you may want to move those to a further reading section.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:24, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator note re. Paul Chrystal edit

I'm leaving a note to say that the book by Paul Chrystal (2018) seems to have copied what I wrote in this Wikipedia article almost verbatim. I don't want anyone to think I plagiarized him, because this article was finished before 2018. Kurzon (talk) 06:28, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Why is a source that copies your work being cited in the bibliography? It's obviously not a source you've cited, so it should not appear there. There are several publishers that copy Wikipedia articles and then pass them off as their own. Merriam Press is one that I've encountered that publishes Wikipedia articles under the titles "World War 2 In Review No. #: Warplanes". Mr rnddude (talk) 07:17, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Paul Chrystal is a published scholar of the classics, so I figured that he validated my work. Like, he took a look at the article and found it so correct that he saw little need to change the wording. But I took your advice and deleted his book from the article. Kurzon (talk) 12:27, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mr rnddude edit

I don't see this passing FAC right now. There is only a single footnote "[25]" in the entirety of the Melian dialogue section, and it's not really a citation. The footnotes often tell me what sources are used, but not where in the source the material is cited from. Insufficient from a verifiability perspective. This is a recurring problem as many "citations" are just source names. Page numbers do appear in some places, though. The sources are inconsistently formatted, and several of them show up as not being used (Herodotus (1998), Michell (1964), Smith & William (1890) all have harvnb errors pertaining to this). Similarly, many of the sources mentioned in the footnotes are not present in the bibliography: e.g. footnote 37 is to Aristophanes translated by Ian Johnson 2008, but that's nowhere to be found in the bibliography. Meritt & McGregor (1950) and Michell (1964) have ISBNs, but their publication is too early for ISBNs. Looking at the footnotes, the article relies disproportionately on ancient sources (16/35 citations to Thucydides, Herodotus, Xenophon, Plutarch, Isocrates, Andocides, The Suda and Aristophanes). Articles must primarily rely on secondary sources, which none of these (except perhaps The Suda) would qualify as. Footnote 20 is an unacceptable citation ("Thucydides' account suggests the siege lasted only from summer to winter of 416 BC. Barry Strauss in Sabin et al. (2008) wrote that it lasted one year. Several online sources, such as the official tourism website of Melos, say it lasted two years.") <- Always, always, always, name all of your sources. "Several" is just a weasel. That's all from a ten minute skim through. An effort has clearly been put in – I know exactly how difficult it is to write an article on an obscure topic – but the presentation is not there. This article would fail MILHIST's B-class review in this current form. "B1 - As a rule of thumb, the absolute minimum is that all paragraphs should at least end with a citation and and all direct quotes should be attributed to a source" from here. I don't have time for more currently, but in a best case scenario, the citations need an overhaul for presentation. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:17, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia doesn't ban primary sources, but cautions on their use because when you use primary sources you are veering dangerously close to doing original research. The main issues, as I understand, have to do with authenticity and impartiality. With regards to these ancient Greek texts, I did not reference the original texts but translations by modern writers. Kurzon (talk) 09:53, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia doesn't ban primary sources ... - A smattering of primary sources here and there would generally be fine, but nearly half of your citations are to primary sources. I'm not suggesting that you've been misusing them to conduct OR, I'm making the observation that the article over-relies on them. I know how much of a stick this is from personal experience. When I submitted Battle of Antioch (218) to MILHIST's A-class the first time, it was shot down for over-relying on Dio and Herodian. I had to cull Herodian entirely and cut down Dio to no more than a handful cites. This is what the article looked like when it was rejected. Ignore the formatting of the references, I didn't know what sfn and harvn cites were at the time as I was using visual editor and was brand new to editing Wikipedia. I still don't think that it's an FA standard article. For Wikipedia purposes secondary sources contain an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. A translation isn't any of those, so these sources remain primary. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:41, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Mr rnddude: A translation solves the problems of authenticity and verifiability. Other than that, I don't see how the mere age of a source makes it unreliable. Just how recent does a source have to be to be considered secondary? If it's "close to the events described" then any article on recent events will be using entirely primary sources. Like, any article on Kim Kardashian will unavoidably reference contemporary sources. Besides, the secondary sources that discuss the Siege of Melos just paraphrase Thucydides. For ancient events, secondary sources are often better because they synthesize multiple sources of evidence, including newer findings, but in this case virtually all historians just refer to Thucydides, who wrote the only account of the Siege of Melos.Kurzon (talk) 12:22, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The idea that every paragraph needs an inline citation is silly. I could get around that with a few formatting tricks. The only part which "lacks" inline citations is the synopsis of the Melian Dialogue, and I don't think there is any need here because it should be obvious that I based this on modern translations of Thucydides, and I did not insert any modern interpretations or commentaries, I only paraphrased what Thucydides wrote. Interpretations and commentaries go in the Analysis section, with references to the scholars who made them. Kurzon (talk) 09:53, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I know there's a consensus somewhere that movie synopses don't need inline citations, and so perhaps the same is true for a book synopsis. I haven't worked on articles in either area. If there's agreement that inline citations are not needed in that section, so be it. Now that I'm looking at it again, is there any reason why that section consists of 8 2-3 sentence paragraphs? "The Melians argue... The Athenians counter..." appears in 5/8 lines. It's a rather repetitive read. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:41, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I did it that way to break down the individual arguments presented. I care more about clarity and precision over "elegant prose".Kurzon (talk) 12:20, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by Gog the Mild edit

I dislike being harsh about articles, and it is clear that a lot of work has gone into this. Nevertheless I feel a need to be blunt. This article would be a rapid fail at GAN, unless it found a very sympathetic assessor, willing to work to bring it up to scratch. It is not yet ready to be considered for FA. I would suggest putting it in for peer review, then GAN, then ACR, before considering bringing it back to FAC. It falls short of FA in so many ways that I do not feel that it would be helpful to list them. If the nominator were to submit it for PR with a view to a subsequent GAN, then I would be happy to list what it needs to achieve that level, if pinged. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:16, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You don't explain what's wrong with it. Kurzon (talk) 19:44, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just to mention a few issues:
  • The whole The Melian Dialogue section has one cite - for ten paragraphs.
  • Another paragraph not ending in a cite.
  • Section titles start with "the".
  • Too many short, choppy, two or three sentence paragraphs.
  • A military conflict infobox is used, and entries are left blank despite the information being in the main article. Eg, the Athenian strength, the Athenian commanders.
  • Information in the lead, eg the last sentence, which is not in the article.
  • POV pushing prose; eg "the proud Melians".
  • More information on the cultural record than the actual siege.
  • The actual information on the siege presented is very limited. This may well be due to lack of sourcing. If so, then, IMO, this alone precludes it from becoming a FA; if it isn't then the missing information needs to be included.
  • "Starvation is a normal goal of sieges and the ancient Greeks had much experience with them, so this suggests that the Melian experience was extreme." is not cited and smacks of OR. Starvation is not the goal of a siege, capturing the place besieged is.
  • A number of sources lack, available, OCLCs.
  • Several books have ISBNs given when they were published before ISBNs were introduced.
This list is not exhaustive. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:52, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note edit

I have to admit that a quick glance of the article suggested the nom was premature but I wanted to see if the first reviewers thought likewise. I think it's fairly clear that they do so I'll be archiving this shortly. I can't add much to what Gog has suggested as the way forward after making improvements, except to say that you'd be eligible to try the FAC mentoring program as well. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:58, 27 January 2019 (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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 23:41, 24 January 2019 [4].

Kenora Thistles edit

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

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

Comments – Just a few quick ones, as that's all I have time for:

  • I'm seeing a mixture of singular and plural references to the team's nickname, with "its" and "their" both in use here. Pick one style and stick with it throughout the article. I personally prefer the plural form for teams that have nicknames which will be used frequently, but others may differ.
  • 1903 Stanley Cup challenge: Try not to have Ottawa repeat from the end of one sentence to the start of another, as happens in the first paragraph here. It's just overly repetitive to read.
  • January 1907 Stanley Cup challenge: "1906–07season" obviously needs fixing. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:50, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Back from my other obligations, and addressed things here. Thanks for going over them. Kaiser matias (talk) 22:59, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - a few quick ones, I will come back for a more thorough read:

  • "The owners of the Victoria Rink where the team played, stated their intention to build a 4,000 to 5,000-seat replacement rink. This would make it the largest rink in Western Canada and dwarf the 1,000-seat Victoria Rink." Two comments / questions about this pair of sentences. First about the tense of the second sentence - should it be "would have made"? Second, and this is perhaps a quibble - despite playing in a Manitoba league, I don't know that many people would obviously call Kenora "Western Canada" - perhaps a more specific definition would be better?
It is more a quirk of Canadian history to call a place in Western Ontario part of "Western Canada." I've reworded it to "west of Ontario," let me know if that sounds better to you. Agree about the first part there, changed that wording.
  • Player names are sometimes wikilinked multiple times after their first usage. Billy McGimsie is first linked in the caption of the photo, and then not linked in prose, and then linked twice towards the end of the article in different sections.
Fixed
  • IHL is abbreviated, but the abbreviation is never used later in the text.
Removed abbreviation
  • ""Although Kenora's experience of professional hockey was brief, the Thistles' early twentieth-century Stanley cup challenges [illustrated] some of the key issues surrounding community identity, town promotion, and the amateur-professional controversy in [that] period."[68]" If Cup is incorrectly not capitalized in the quote, should that be noted?"
That was a typo on my part (the source capitalizes "Cup."
  • MHA is not defined on its first usage.
I see it only used twice in the article, in the "1905 Stanley Cup Challenge" section, where it's written as "Manitoba Hockey Association (MHA)," and later on in the "League play, 1905–1907" section, which is three paragraphs later.
  • "Almost immediately after winning the Stanley Cup the Wanderers, who won the ECAHA championship," - this really makes it sound like the Wanderers won the Stanley Cup, not the Thistles, which as I read the previous section is not correct.
I reworded it, let me know if that's better.
  • I will come back and give a more thorough review. At first glance, there seem no issues with reliable sources, or images. Canada Hky (talk) 18:08, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Canada Hky: I've addressed everything here. Let me know if you have anything more to add. Kaiser matias (talk) 03:47, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding to my comments. Images all look good and appropriate for the article. For sources - the two Dan Diamond books - should the publisher for both be "Total Sports Publishing" or did the name change between the two publication dates? That is the only other thing I noted with a more thorough review. Once that is cleared up, I am good to support. Canada Hky (talk) 17:47, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The full name of the publisher has been added. Thanks for going through the article. Kaiser matias (talk) 16:55, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support per the above comments which have all been addressed. Canada Hky (talk) 14:52, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Sportsfan77777

  • I'll leave comments later this week. I reviewed this article for GA status. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 03:54, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: This FAC has been open for over 6 weeks without achieving a consensus that it meets the FA criteria. Even if Sportsfan77777 reviews this week, we are still struggling to attract commentary. Perhaps it is best for the article to close this now. I would recommend seeing if anyone can have a look before this is renominated, either at PR or an informal talk page review. That way the heavy lifting is done before another FAC, in which case we might have a smoother run next time. This will be archived shortly and can be renominated after the usual two-week waiting period. Sarastro (talk) 23:00, 24 January 2019 (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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 18:13, 22 January 2019 [5].

Cape May County, New Jersey edit

Nominator(s): ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:50, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Cape May County, which is at the southern tip of New Jersey. I worked on this article last year and submitted it for GA review, hoping for some feedback on how to improve it, only the GA reviewer didn't find anything of note. I believe this article is the most comprehensive source for the county. It would be only the third county to be a FA, if successful. Please note that this is a Wikicup nomination. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:50, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw - I see there are a lot more issues than I realized. I am withdrawing the nomination. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:22, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Buidhe edit

Right away I'm seeing some serious issues with sources. For formatting, the article does not follow MOS:LEADCITE and WP:INFOBOXCITE. There's a bare url (ref 101), and much of the "Notable people" section is unsourced. buidhe (formerly Catrìona) 11:47, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I started fixing it, but there are a lot more issues than I'd feel comfortable with keeping this nomination open. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:22, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 23:59, 20 January 2019 [6].

Jamiroquai edit

Nominator(s): 100cellsman (talk) 11:21, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again! After a helpful peer review, I've come back here with this article ready for nomination. It is again about the British jazz-funk band Jamiroquai who broke two world records for the best selling funk album and the fastest airplane concert. They drive sports cars and sing about making the world a better place, their "Virtual Insanity" music video defies gravity, AND they got an LED hat. That's pretty damn awesome. Really though, here's hoping that this article will better represent the group. 100cellsman (talk) 11:21, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Buffalomanoriginal.jpg: source link is dead
  • File:Journey_to_Arnhemland_Jamiroquai.ogg needs a more complete FUR. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:43, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Both fixed. 100cellsman (talk) 10:17, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Would still like to see more details around purpose of use. Why for example is it insufficient for us simply to note the use of didgeridoo in text? This section needs to be essentially an argument that having a non-free file is essential to reader understanding. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:15, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I added more context about its purpose of use. Not entirely sure if I can think of a better argument, so if you're still uncertain, I can just remove it. 100cellsman (talk) 14:04, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think there could be an argument made for inclusion of this file; I don't think the current FUR makes it. There is some guidance at WP:NFC which might help in strengthening the rationale. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:23, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil edit

1.a - this is not well written. From the lead only

  • This prob more suited to the talk page, but are they not more Acid Jazz than jazz-funk? Apart from anything, there is a strong disco influence.
  • which landed them a record deal - landed doesn't seem encyclopedic in tone
  • There are 13 instances of the word "also". Around ten are redundant.
  • Jamiroquai favoured live instrumentation and stage performances - what does this actually mean. Over what you dont say.
  • occasionally reference Kay's views towards environmentalism - reflect rather than reference.
  • With the band selling more than 26 million albums worldwide, Jamiroquai's 1996 album Travelling Without Moving, holds the Guinness World Record for the best-selling funk album in history - What? Why "with"; the latter claim does not follow from the first.
  • etc

Ceoil (talk) 16:22, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly done. I never thought about what their general music terminology was. For some time, the article previously called them a "funk and jazz band" or a "funk and acid jazz" band. The disco sound came two albums later when they released Travelling Without Moving. When I was doing research, I recall them being termed as a "Nu-funk" band a couple times. As for the airplane record in the lead, I can't think of where else put it without it seeming out of place with a certain section. Should I kick it out? 100cellsman (talk) 18:10, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To add, they also debuted under the record label in fact called, "Acid Jazz". Maybe that could be kept to preserve that moment in their career. 100cellsman (talk) 18:17, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well there would be no Acid Jazz label without Jamiroquai; the genre was a *deeply* uncool basket case, viewed not dissimilar to Smooth jazz until I think "Spaceboy". Nu-funk sound like a non existent journalist invention. Thank you for your thoughtful reply, let me read through a bit more. And yes would kick. Ceoil (talk) 22:07, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So I made that airplane mention... fly away from the lead now. Ahahaha. 100cellsman (talk) 22:32, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You kicked that ---t over to the jams :) Ceoil (talk) 23:28, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural note: This FAC was nominated early. The previous FAC was archived on 13 January, and as there is a two-week waiting period before an article should be renominated, this should FAC should not have been opened until the 27 January. It really should be a procedural close. If there is substantial work to be done, I'm inclined to archive this now. Ceoil, do you think this is close, or would it be better to do the work away from FAC? Sarastro (talk) 23:42, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gah, I did not think of this first. But archive if you must. 100cellsman (talk) 23:45, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sarastro, I think the page would benefit from further pre-FAC work, ie my sense is that its not close. No offence 100cellsman. Ceoil (talk) 23:48, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks Ceoil, and I think it would really help the article if you had a chance to look at it. I will archive this now. Sarastro (talk) 23:59, 20 January 2019 (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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 23:49, 17 January 2019 [7].

Marquesan Dog edit

Nominator(s): KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:13, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an obscure variation of the domestic Polynesian Dog from the Marquesas Islands. It's also an important look at the cultural significance of the native dogs and later dogs to the Marquesan people. KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:13, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jens Lallensack edit

Was this translated from the German Wikipedia?

No the article was translated into German. KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:58, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • link totem in lead
  • Serving as a tribal totems and religious symbols – "a" too much?
  • they were sometimes consumed as meat although less frequently than in other parts of the Pacific because of their scarcity. – this would mean the breed was widespread in Polynesia? Is "they" referring to dogs instead?
  • Modern dog population on the island are – populations?
  • Millerstrom noted that a majority of dog petroglyphs – a majority of what? Or do you mean "the majority"?
  • Linguistic – Linguistics?
  • They were totem animals associated with the Nakiʻi tribe. – Needs background and clarification. The sentence reads as all Marquesan Dogs are associated with this tribe?
  • The "Characteristics" section is a bit poor. Isn't there anything known from the bones that have been found? Not even the size?
  • The citation in the "Characteristics" section needs explanation. What is the "early post-contact dog"? Could the Marquesans of the past have forgotten what the dog looked like or did it matter how they depicted the dog – Does that mean that the stone carvings were made after the dog became extinct?
  • the first tiki was a megalithic stone head – the oldest tiki or the first discovered? If the latter, why use past (was)?
  • who is believed to have carved both statues – only one was mentioned. Or do you mean "both statues and tikis"? But then, what is the difference between the two?
  • He was informed that – who is "he"? Still von den Steinen? Who informed him?
  • Only one of the dog carving – carvings?
  • The second statue – when discovered, and by whom?
  • Only two carvings are mentioned; these cannot be the only ones?
  • link "canine"
  • article contains both British and American English
  • roles of dog – dogs?
  • "found guilty of sheep stealing about the year 1797 and was banished for the above crime" – citation needs attribution.
  • with a local ruler Keattonnue – "with the local ruler"?
  • another American Captain Brinell – similar language problem to the above point.
  • in her 2003 paper "Facts and Fantasies: the Archaeology of the Marquesan Dog". – I would not give the title of a paper in the text; this is non-standard in Wikipedia.

All in all, the article does not appear to meet FA standards yet. Prose issues will be easy to fix, but there appear to be larger omissions in content (e.g., the petroglyphs are completely lacking from the "Archaeological evidence"). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:08, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Milburn edit

Very interesting.

  • At first glance, the lead feels a little short. For example, it has no discussion of the breed's appearance, and no reference in the lead to at least some of the sections in the article (e.g., on language).
  • Do we capitalise breed names? I.e., why "Marquesan Dog" and not "Marquesan dog"?
  • "Similar to other strains of Polynesian dogs, it was introduced to the Marquesas by the ancestors of the Polynesian people during their migrations. Serving as a tribal totems and religious symbols, they were sometimes consumed as meat although less frequently than in other parts of the Pacific because of their scarcity. These native dogs are thought to have become extinct before the arrival of Europeans, who did not record their presence on the islands." This is not clear writing. You keep switching (grammatical) subject, making it tricky to follow who or what is being talked about.
  • Is it normal to start an article on a dog breed with a section entitled "Linguistic"? It's honestly not clear to me what purpose it serves.
  • "although pero was an alternative for dog (kurī) in the related Māori language" Is it not any more?
  • "They were introduced to the Marquesan Islands by the original Polynesian settlers" When?
  • "The dog is thought to have become extinct prior to the arrival of Spanish explorers in 1595, although some might have survived beyond this point.[5][6][7][8][9] No European accounts were ever written about them. They were thought to be fairly rare and "never numerous in the islands" even before the arrival of Europeans." Again, this doesn't strike me as clear writing. It's a little weaselly (note the passive voice!) and doesn't flow all that well.
  • "Many petroglyphs or carved images of dogs were found near religious centers and chiefly residential areas indicating their venerated status and importance in the culture" Vague.
  • "wondered if they were meant to be realistic." Informal
  • General comment: Don't be scared of redlinks. I wonder if there are a few wikilinks missing where they would be appropriate because we don't have articles on the subject?
  • "There are disagreements[note 1] if the statue should be set in the reclining position as it was discovered or the prone position as it is currently displayed." Grammar.
  • "its original spot" Informal.
  • "In 1956, Norwegian adventurer and ethnographer Thor Heyerdahl later claimed the reliefs on Tiki Makiʻi Tauʻa Pepe were llamas or pumas instead to bolster his theory that Polynesia was settled from South America." Grammar; you don't need later and a year.
  • "Later unidentified writers and rumors have insinuated that Heyerdahl deliberately altered and defaced the images in his process of restoring them." You make it sound like you're reporting gossip.
  • "many dog bone fragments and one dog burial across a few sites" Vague.
  • "Millerstrom summarized these earlier findings and personally analyzed many of the petroglyphs of dogs left by the prehistoric Polynesians in her 2003 paper "Facts and Fantasies: the Archaeology of the Marquesan Dog". She noted that further research needs to be done on the linguistic evidence tracing the movement of dogs within Oceania, the socio-economic roles of dog in Marquesan and Oceanian cultures, and a study into the morphology of the bones and dog burials found in the Marquesan archaeology sites." I don't feel that you're really telling me much, here. Tell us about this analysis!
  • "Dogs of different breeds were later reintroduced by European settlers and visitors to the Marquesas." Later than what?
  • "the Marquesans attempted to steal one of the small dogs on their ships" Unclear. What's the significance of the ship?
  • "Anthropologist Katharine Luomala noted that nothing suggested that these dogs were left by the Spanish." What dogs? Or am I misunderstanding? Generally, this section could be much smoother. It seems to just become a list of mentions of dogs on the island.

Oppose. Based on this first reading, I get the impression that this article is not FA-ready. Sorry. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:04, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: As two reviewers have expressed concerns, and the nominator does not appear to have replied for some time, I will be archiving this shortly. Sarastro (talk) 23:49, 17 January 2019 (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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 22:20, 17 January 2019 [8].

Polaris (UK nuclear programme) edit

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

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

MOD edit

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

  • We mention the opposition from Labour (although the misquote is grammatically wrong); did the SNP and CND object to the Polaris programme? They did, but it isn't mentioned. Some sources here
    I'm sure they did, but neither had any representation in Parliament. The CND imploded in the early 1960s and did not become a force again until the 1980s. The Labour Party was split on the issue, pledging to "renegotiate" the PSA - the sort of arrant nonsense we've come to expect from British politicians. The anti-nuclear policy was soon dropped, and the concept of Britain going it alone led to Chevaline. Your link is about Trident, and pertains to a later time period.
    SNP had 11 MPs in 1974, elected on a platform of opposing all nuclear weapons. CND were very influential throughout the period of Polaris's deployment, with a dip, as you say, in the 1960s. See this Telegraph link. Here's a bunch of Pathe reports. Anti-nuclear protesters breached security and boarded Repulse in 1988. Thatcher was furious. Faslane Peace Camp was started in the Polaris era. I really think some of that needs to be mentioned in the interest of balance. --MarchOrDie (talk) 21:50, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    We're looking for material about the 1960s. The 1980s takes takes us into the Trident article. When was the Faslane Peace Camp established? Its article doesn't say. The SNP article says it had no MPs before 1970. It cites a source that says that the SNP adopted a motion opposing nuclear weapons in 1963 in response to the US Polaris, which would be worth adding to the article, but it's cited to James Mitchell (1996), Strategies for Self-government: The Campaigns for a Scottish Parliament, a book which the library here unfortunately lost in the 2018 flood. I'll have a look and see if what I can find. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:44, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Faslane Peace Camp was established in 1982. I've found some material on opposition to the American Polaris submarines at Holy Loch. The whole nuclear disarmament movement faltered with the test bans in the early 1960s. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    We're looking for material about the 1960s. The 1980s takes takes us into the Trident article. No, if this article describes the Polaris system, it should cover it over its entire lifespan, 1969-1996. Opposition to Polaris was significant, especially in Scotland and among Labour people in the 1970s and 1980s. I don't see an argument against including it. --MarchOrDie (talk) 07:37, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Labour is already covered. Added a new "Opposition" section. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:09, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are five instances of "some" in front of numbers. Exact numbers should be exact (Some 38 test firings were carried out -> Thirty-eight test firings were carried out) and approximate ones should be approximate (some 4,500 staff -> 4,500 staff)
    Cut back to just two. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:16, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • How did Britain start off ordering Trident I C-4 and end up with the more capable Trident II D-5? I know, presumably you know, but the reader of this article as it stands doesn't know.
    Well of course I know; I wrote the article on Trident. There is a long description of the negotiation process there. Added: "When the US government resolved to upgrade to the new Trident II D-5, the UK government, with the experience of Chevaline in mind, decided to purchase Trident II instead." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:16, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why include the long verbatim extract from John Major's speech? Major came to power just as the programme was ending.
    Of necessity, the article is mainly about the purchase and development of Polaris, but I wanted to end with a statement about the service that the Polaris force gave over almost thirty years. The quote is not long, sums it up well, and gives the reader an insight into the way British people think. I did not want to paraphrase and express such sentiments in Wikipedia's voice. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:16, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that's ok but it's too long a verbatim quote even if it was from the inventor of the device. If we quote Major at this length, would we need a balancing quote from Bruce Kent? Better not to do this, especially if it implies that all British people supported it. --MarchOrDie (talk) 21:50, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The majority did support it, and even more bought into the notion that Britain was an important country. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:44, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right. This book suggests about a third in the UK opposed it in the 1980s. This one points out the obvious, that Scottish people have always been more opposed to it than the rest of the UK. Throughout the 1980s, Scottish politics was dominated by Labour, which was unilateralist at the time. Since 2007 Scotland is SNP, which is unilateralist, and it's likely that most Scottish people now oppose nuclear weapons being based there. Polaris was a big part of this journey. All the same, whether it's a half or a third, the article should reflect this in its coverage of the topic. At the moment we have close to zero coverage of the opposition to Polaris, which was significant, both in numbers and in the continuing impact on the Scottish and UK political scene. --MarchOrDie (talk) 10:30, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Added an "Opposition" section. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:09, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The final paragraph contains language like "Polaris accounted for just 1.5 per cent..." and "Adjusting for inflation, the programme cost less than originally envisaged". This source has broadly similar costings but points out that the Chevaline programme added a billion to the cost. To mention Chevaline's cost earlier but to miss it out here looks slightly partial.
    added: "This does not include Chevaline, which cost another £1 billion." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:16, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • We shouldn't mention the missile gap without pointing out that it was fictional.
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:16, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tritium is not a fissile material.
    It hadn't occurred to me that might be inferred. Changed to "active materials" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:16, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why capitalise (for example) Improved Front End? Why show the abbreviation (IFE) twice but then never actually use it?
    Because another editor did not realise that "front end" is a technical term. De-capped. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:16, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Thanks for your review. Much appreciated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:16, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. Thank you for the improvements you have made in response to my comments. Pending the other points being addressed I oppose on 1b and 1d. --MarchOrDie (talk) 11:27, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hawkeye, MOD, it looks to have been several weeks since the last exchange here -- are we any closer to resolution? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:55, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I attempted to address the concerns with the Opposition section. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:55, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM edit

This article is in fine shape. A few minor quibbles from me:

  • suggest the current wording/punctuation in this sentence is clunky, and suggest "of the Blackburn Buccaneer,[12] and the need for a small warhead led to the development of the Red Beard aerial bomb."
    Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:56, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it should be Sputnik rather than sputnik, as it is a proper name
    I'm used to it in Russian, where cпутник is not. Capitalised. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:56, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • you can probably drop the definite article here "if it could acquire the Skybolt."
    Dropped. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:56, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you could add a sentence fragment explaining what the MLF concept was. And use MLF thereafter.
    Don't want to get too deep into it, (it has its own article, and books have been written on the subject) but added: "an American concept under which North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) nuclear weapons would remain in US custody, thereby heading off nuclear proliferation within NATO, but all NATO nations would have a finger on the nuclear trigger through multinational crewing of the ships carrying the nuclear missiles."
  • perhaps NATO in full at first mention?
    Done. Although I think its one of those abbreviations like ATM where the abbreviation is better known. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:56, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "dependence on the United States"
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:56, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the MLF concept began fading away"
    Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:56, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

down to Design... more to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:03, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The number of missiles required was based on substituting for Skybolt" does this mean that the same number of Polaris missiles were to be deployed as Skybolt missiles that were planned? Perhaps it could be better expressed?
    "The number of missiles required was the same as the number of Skybolt missiles, which were considered sufficient to devastate forty cities." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:44, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest "It was subsequently decided to halve thisthe number of submarines"
Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:44, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest "With aits range extended ofto 2,500 nautical miles"
    Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:44, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest "It was subsequently decided to halve thisthe number of submarines"::Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:44, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:44, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • perhaps say when it is first mentioned, that HMS Valiant was a nuclear-powered hunter-killer sub?
Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:44, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and decided to adopt Le Fanu's proposal that a special organisation be created to manage the project was adopted"
Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:44, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • perhaps link cadre (military)?
Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:44, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

more to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:08, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • "the Mministers"
    De-capped. Hawkeye7 (discuss)
  • link keel laying for "laid down" at first mention
    Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:09, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • when it talks about the scope of the Polaris Sales Agreement being open-ended or limited, from different UK/US perspectives, is this meant in terms of timeframe or other aspects?
    Information. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:09, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you add that then? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:32, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • link ship commissioning for "commissioned" at first mention
    Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:09, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • clearance in the Cchannel
    De-capped. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:09, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest "complete the hunter-killer Valiant; in 1966, and Warspite the following year."
    Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:09, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • link refit
    Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:09, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • if the 3rd Submarine Squadron was/is the hunter-killer one, perhaps state that when first mentioned?
    It wasn't. The 3rd Submarine Squadron operated conventional submarines. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:09, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps mention that then? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:54, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:51, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think SACEUR should be in full
    Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:09, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest "formally informedadvised his RAF counterpart" it's currently a bit form-ish
    Sounds like the Royal Navy. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:09, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

more to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:53, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • this isn't clear "The Americans used a material known as 3DPO, a phenolic thermosetting material infused with quartz fibres, in the heat shield, which also acted as a defence against irradiation.[165] The new warhead was designated the A-3TK, the old one being the A-3T." Does the former mean that the UK used the same material as the US to shield the warheads? If so, I would state that. Also, was the heat shield on the IFE as a whole or on the individual warheads?
    Yes. Added. The warheads. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:51, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest "In 1972 Chevaline was estimated to cost £235 million."
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:51, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest "Its main technical problem was the increase in weight of the PAC over the third warhead..." if that is what is meant?
    I don't understand you. The increase in weight of the PAC resulted in a decrease in range of the missile. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:51, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    What I mean is that the PAC replaced the third warhead, as I understand it? So, was it heavier than the third warhead or lighter? If lighter, why the reduction in range? If heavier, that explains the reduction in range. Maybe I'm being thick here... Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:57, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Text has been re-worded accordingly. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:48, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and Repulse in 1987."
  • Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:51, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "One hundred warheads were produced" are these PACs or A-3TKs or both?
    The A-3TK was the warhead. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:51, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • what is the relevance of "£240 million in April 1972"? I couldn't find a reference to that figure earlier, perhaps I've missed it?
    Changed to "£235 million" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:51, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

more to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:49, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Great to see the Opposition section. Polaris (and Trident) have been significant socially and politically in the UK
  • US cruise missiles
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:51, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's me done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:51, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

Source review edit

  • Be consistent about using title case
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:33, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The bibliographic info for Suzanne Doyle's article needs to be updated
    Reverted bot edit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:33, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cite 133 should have an access date.
    Not required for an archive URL. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:33, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The link for cite 196 goes to Major's general website. Should link to the speech and the access date needs to be updated.
    Repaired link rot. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:33, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in your date format in the cites. #176 doesn't match the rest and there may be others.
    Template. Fixed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:33, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Access date for #137 should be updated.
    Why? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:33, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add "|lastauthoramp=y" to the multiple-author references to match the citation style.
    Looks okay to me. Changed anyway. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:33, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sources used are high-quality ones published by reputable journals and publishers.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:16, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley edit

  • "the United States Atomic Energy Act of 1946 (McMahon Act) ended technical cooperation.[2] It feared resurgence of United States isolationism". This appears to say that the Act feared resurgence.
    Resolved, at the expense of making the text more awkward. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:50, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • " By 1959, however, serious concerns had been raised about its own vulnerability, as it was liquid-fuelled and deployed above ground, and therefore extremely vulnerable to a pre-emptive nuclear strike." This seems to imply that Blue Streak was brought into service.
    Added that it had not. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:50, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "research at the Atomic Energy Research Establishment (AERE) at Harwell was directed towards development of a gas-cooled, graphite-moderated reactor which January 1952 studies showed was too large for use by the Royal Navy, and not into a Pressurised Water Reactor (PWR) of the kind that the US Navy had under development, as this was seen as having no civil application." What was seen by whom?
    Added that it was the UKAEA. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:50, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Submarine propulsion research was suspended in October 1952 so they did not interfere with plutonium production for nuclear weapons" What does "they" refer to?
    Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:50, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The US policy of attempting to force Britain into their MLF proved to be a failure in light of this decision" You say above that this attempt had already been abandoned.
    No, it soldiered on. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:50, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in favor". This should be British spelling.
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:50, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It included the Vice Chief of the Naval Staff, Vice Admiral Sir Varyl Begg; the Deputy Secretary of the Admiralty, James Mackay; Rear Admiral Hugh Mackenzie; and physicist Sir Robert Cockburn and F. J. Doggett from the Ministry of Aviation." I would delete the "and" before "physicist".
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:50, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Resolution-class. Is it necessary to hyphenate when used as an adjective and not as a noun? This makes it difficult to check use of the term with Ctrl-F. So far as I can see this crucial term is not explained. It is first mentioned (apart from in the lead) unlinked in the Organisation section. In the construction section it is linked in the main article template but not mentioned in the text.
    That's what the MOS says. )MOS:HYPHEN) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:50, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I should have made clear that my main point is that the term Resolution-class is not explained. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:05, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh. Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:11, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that the type of submarine used for Polaris needs more than a link and "Main article: Resolution-class submarine"
    There a great deal of detail about their design and construction. What more do you think should be included? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:11, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a great deal of detail but you do not spell out what detail relates specifically to Resolution-class. The term is not mentioned in the 'Construction' section even though you refer the reader to Resolution-class submarine as the main article on this section. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:26, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Removed the early reference. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:00, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Peter la Niece. I think the "l" is usually capitalised.
    Captained. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:50, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Concerns about the Walney Channel proved justified; the launch was delayed by half an hour due to a protest by the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, leaving insufficient clearance, and the boat became stuck in the mud." This appears a non-sequitur - due to decline in tide level?
    Yes. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:50, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "not being as well built as those built by Vickers" Repetition of "built". Perhaps "not being as well built as those constructed by Vickers"
    Changed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:50, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "One important matter that SPO raised was that A-3 production would in due course be closed down, and the missile replaced by a new model under development then known as the B3, which eventually became the Poseidon. Thus, a final decision on the number of missiles and spare parts would ultimately be required.[121] This gravely concerned the British government. "True to form", commented Patrick Gordon Walker, "we either buy weapons which don’t exist or buy those destined for the junkyard of Steptoe & Son." I do not follow this. Presumably a final decision would always be required whatever was proposed so what made this of such particular concern? Also what is the relevance of Walker's comment? All weapons don't exist when they are proposed and Poseidon was not scrapped.
    The whole issue is that buying weapons systems is much cheaper than developing them, but you lose control. If the supplier abandons the system, then you either have to follow suit or pay the cost of maintaining it yourself. Walker posits the two extremes (a common rhetorical tactic). The fear was that Polaris would be scrapped when the USN upgraded to Poseidon. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:50, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think you need to explain this in the article. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:05, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I still do not understand. He appears to say that we either buy weapons which don’t exist (Poseidon} or weapons which are destined for the junkyard (Polaris}. As these were the only choices, what was there to be sarcastic about? Dudley Miles (talk) 22:10, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        This is not the way that political debate is conducted in the UK. There was a clear preference for an unrealistic non-existent solution. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:28, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well it may be my fault but I do not understand what you are saying so I will terminate this review. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:40, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:40, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This was authorised by Wilson on 28 November 1963." Wilson did not come to office until 1964.
    It was Douglas-Home. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:11, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This does not include Chevaline, which cost another £1 billion." I think that figures including Chevaline would be more realistic.
    Both figures are provided. The comparisoon is fair, as Chevaline was not foreseen in 1963. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:11, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: With one support and one oppose after this has been open for 2 months, I am inclined to archive this. As Dudley Miles is in the middle of a review, we can maybe spare a day or two more to see if we get somewhere, but without an obvious consensus very soon, this will have to be archived. Sarastro (talk) 22:01, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have added two replies and will try to comment on the rest of the article tomorrow. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:05, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a good article and in my view close to FA. I have only added two more comments but there are still two queries from my earlier review. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:25, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: I think it's time to archive this now. Even if Dudley supported, we still wouldn't have a consensus and are unlikely to get one within the time frame of this FAC. I will be archiving this shortly. As usual, it can be renominated after the two-week cooling off period. Sarastro (talk) 22:19, 17 January 2019 (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) 08:27, 17 January 2019 [9].

Staten Island Railway edit

Nominator(s): Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 17:01, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the only rapid transit line on Staten Island. The railway first opened in 1860 to serve the residents of the island. In the 1880s two additional lines were built and the original line was extended to a new terminal at St. George. Since then the two additional branches closed, leaving the original line. Before I started editing the page–unbeknownst to me–it was completely copied out of a book by an abusive user. I did research in the New York Times archives, through books that I own, and through books and documents that could be viewed on Hathitrust or Google Books. I nominated the article to be a Good Article, and it passed. The review was not thorough enough, and statements were copyrighted. I fixed the issues and it was kept as a good article. Because the history section became so long, it got split off into a separate article, History of the Staten Island Railway. Since then I have worked on providing better sources, more accurate information, and additional information. I nominated this on April 22 of this year, and in response to comments made by Nikkimaria I replaced some SPSs and standardized some sources. The nominations subsequently stalled, and was archived. I hope that a more thorough discussion of the article can take place to determine what changes need to be made for this article to become a Featured Article. I look forward to working with other editors to resolve these issues in a constructive manner. For those taking up time to review my nomination, I thank you in advance for taking the time to do so. Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 17:01, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source Review Comments by Catrìona edit

I should get to this today or tomorrow. Catrìona (talk) 09:20, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking this up.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 15:22, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source numbering based on the permalink to the current revision: [10]

  • All of the notes look like original research to me.
  • Sources of concern:
  • 8, 130–132, 134: nycsubway.org is a non-official wiki, according to its homepage.
  • 12, 36, 128: I can't think of a circumstance in which I would accept a Google Doc as a source. It's one thing to cite a self-published book, which at least won't change its contents. And, also per Nikkimaria's previous comments, if Bommer has not made any publications in this area, I don't think he meets WP:SPS.
    • See pages 4 and 6 of [11] --Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 20:09, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • To add on, I think the Google Drive (not Doc) PDF may be a re-publication of a print document. Google Drive is commonly used as a file hosting site. It seems like this was originally created for the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Historical Society Convention in 2003, but was put into Google Drive in April 2015. epicgenius (talk) 23:47, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • 26: Slightly less dubious than a Google Doc, but still a SPS by Bommer. The website cites no references and lists no sources; it's unclear what editorial control and fact-checking the historical society is using.
  • 30: Page number needed
  • 34: Secret Staten Island looks like a glorified blog
  • 50: Get rid of the link to gretschviking.net unless there's proof that they have permission to post the copyrighted newspaper content.
  • 67, 77, 78, 102, 127 silive.com Seems to be a minor local news organization; I cannot find information about its editorial practices. However, at least some of these citations are duplicative of more reliable sources and could be removed.
    • Removed. --Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 20:09, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • silive.com is the website of The Staten Island Advance, a long-running local newspaper, and the namesake of parent company Advance Publications, a major newspaper-publishing company with papers around the country. It's a reliable source. oknazevad (talk) 21:22, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Seconded. It is not a "minor local news organization", but rather, a major regional newspaper (it covers Staten Island, a locale with a 500,000+ population, and has done so since at least the early 20th century). It's just that the Advance's web hosting platform is not conventional for a newspaper. epicgenius (talk) 23:19, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • 100, 109–110, 113–114: I don't think that an image from Flickr, Wikimedia commons or on Wikipedia could be used as a source to support article text, per WP:UGC and WP:NOR. When citing a report, cite the original not where you got it from.
  • 117, 124–126: A personal website is not a RS. Also, I fail to see how these photographs could support the article text without original research.
    • What exactly is being cited by the photographs that you have issues with? There aren't any policies that specifically prevent photographs from being used as sources, if the items pictured in the photograph are easily visible and obvious to the viewer. epicgenius (talk) 23:19, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • 135: CurbedNY is a blog network, according to its Wikipedia article. Not a RS.
    • No, it is a reliable source. It's set up like a blog because of the commenting system, but every article published by Curbed is based on verifiable information, such as real estate listings and press releases. (Also, Wikipedia isn't a reliable source for determining what is a reliable source...) epicgenius (talk) 23:19, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Whether it is based on verifiable information has nothing to do with whether it is a RS. What matters is the editorial control and fact-checking. Catrìona (talk) 10:50, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, it passes that as well. It is more of a news blog, like the Wall Street Journal's or New York Times's blog sections, than a true blog. But you could bring this up at the reliable sources noticeboard if you have further objections. epicgenius (talk) 15:03, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Formatting issues:
  • 25, 71: fill out this citation, it seems incomplete
  • 49: Be consistent about publisher locations; all or none.
  • JHU Press—I would write out all publishers, and link the first occurrence.
  • Books, pdfs, and archived news sources (for example 31; NYT is not going to issue a correction for a story written in the 1920s) should not have retrieval dates since they are not live webpages subject to change.
  • I would get rid of via anything, since that's already obvious in the url and just serves to advertise Google Books or other websites.
  • All print sources should have either ISBN or OCLC, if published before ISBNs came into use.
  • I'm opposing due to serious issues with several of the sources, and recommend that the nominator withdraw the submission in order to resolve these issues before nominating again. Catrìona (talk) 10:41, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi Catrìona, I'm just getting to this now partly owing to time differences and partly to commenting on general discussion on WT:FAC, and would like to hear your thoughts on the above responses before considering any action. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:26, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate Kew Gardens' quick effort to fix some of the issues listed above. However, I'm skeptical about the arguments that the Bommer sources are reliable, per above. It seems like if they are to be used, it might be best to withdraw this nomination and establish consensus on RSN first. Since this is not a complete source review, I am changing the title to "comments" but I am still opposing for the moment as I don't think my concerns have been adequately addressed. In particular, I am concerned about the two sentences in the lede which are supported by photographs, which seems like original research to me. Whether the nomination is adequately prepared is something that the coordinators can assess. Catrìona (talk) 10:50, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Which policy specifically prohibits the use of images, per Epicgenius's comments?--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 19:04, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Catrìona: I am not sure if you saw my comments.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 22:52, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe: I did not realize that you changed your username, which is presumably why you have not gotten my pings. I would appreciate your feedback. Thanks again for taking up my nomination.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 16:06, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I had been pretty clear above. For the photo, as WP:UGC, it fails WP:RS, even if it weren't clearly original research to derive the claim, "Express service is noted on trains by a red marker with the terminal and "Express" underneath it.", from a photo with minimal text. In addition, there are still several references to nycsubway.org, more UGC. buidhe (formerly Catrìona) 16:29, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe: Some of the images on nycsubway.org were taken by Marc Pitanza. Some of his other images are in the Staten Island Rapid Transit book published by Arcadia a part of its Images of America series and are accepted as reliable. In fact, some of his images in the book are on nycsubway.org. How does just being on nycsubway.org make it. Per WP:OR, original research includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the source. In addition, To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented. Current source 123 is directly related to the topic as it is an image of the spur for the West Shore Branch of the railway. It supports the material being presented by showing that the connection between the two has been severed. It is clear that it was not photoshopped in any way. The date is accurate and the location is accurate. The picture taken was not done for a personal motive other than to depict the state of reality, and the present condition of the spur. The only citations referring to nycsubway.org are images. I removed the red marker note because it is too esoteric, and does not belong in the lead. In my previous FA nomination for the article I showed that Ed Bommer is an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. A thorough response would be appreciated. While it seems like that this nomination is on the path for failure, I have the intent of doing as much as I can so it can pass. Thanks.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 18:45, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe: I am not sure if you have seen this response. Thanks.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 18:33, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Epicgenius edit

I conducted this article's first GA review and missed the copyvios the first time around. Sorry about that. Anyway, it seems like a few phrases in the "Freight Service" section still copy from other pages. Otherwise, I think the copyvio issues have been largely resolved. epicgenius (talk) 16:47, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Au contraire. It copied from an older version of this page. There is a [18] in the text, which comes from here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Staten_Island_Railway&oldid=639526848 --Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 17:01, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. epicgenius (talk) 17:04, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Kew Gardens 613: In response to your question in SN54129's section: Yes. There's still too much detail in a few paragraphs, when they can be summarized in just one or two sentences.
For instance, consider condensing this paragraph in the 20th century section: The number of SIRT passengers decreased from 12.3 million in 1947 to 4.4 million in 1949 as passengers switched from the rail line to city-operated buses due to a bus-fare reduction. On September 5, 1948, 237 of the line's 492 weekday trains were cut; express service would be reduced during rush hours, and all night trains after 1:29 a.m. would be cancelled. Thirty percent of the company's employees were laid off. On September 7, 1948, Staten Island Borough President Cornelius Hall continued to rally against the SIRT cuts at a Public Service Commission hearing in Manhattan. Commuters testified that trains were missing ferry connections and being held at the St. George Terminal during rush hour to wait for double boatloads of passengers; the trains had previously pulled out after each ferry unloaded. On September 13, 1948, the SIRT agreed to add four trains and extend the schedule of four others. Nine days later the Interstate Commerce Commission allowed the SIRT to abandon the ferry it had operated for 88 years between Tottenville and Perth Amboy, New Jersey, and the ferry operation was transferred to Sunrise Ferries of Elizabeth, New Jersey on October 16.
This is a whopper of a paragraph that most readers will skip over. Since there's already a history article, we only want to give the key points in the history section. I would say that this section would benefit from an inverted pyramid style of writing, except on a smaller level. If you must write about a certain event like the 1948 service changes, I think you should only include the most essential info - for instance, that train service was reduced by more than half, and after backlash, service was slightly increased and the ferry to Perth Amboy was abandoned.
If you have time, look over the section again, but with a neutral perspective. I suggest printing out a copy of the article and then looking to see what else doesn't absolutely need to be in the history section. epicgenius (talk) 02:08, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius: I will do so. How is this not in a neutral perspective? Thanks.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 02:18, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius: I cut it back. Is it sufficient?--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 02:26, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, by "neutral" I meant someone who is looking at the article as a reader, not as an editor. Sorry for the confusion. Maybe I'll look at it tomorrow while I'm on the Staten Island Ferry. epicgenius (talk) 02:32, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from SN54129 edit

Here from WT:Featured article candidates#Staten Island Railway. I see MOS issues also, per WP:FA?.2, regarding both WP:LEADCITE and MOS:SANDWICH. These points are certainly easier to rectify than the OR concerns indicated above but are also less fundamental. ——SerialNumber54129 11:09, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:SANDWICH Dealt with–thanks for bringing this to my attention. I was not aware of the issue. I will see what I can do with WP:LEADCITE.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 20:26, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Serial Number 54129: Thanks for your helpful comments. I have been working to resolve both of these issues. If possible, could you evaluate what I have done and offer more suggestions. Thanks for taking the time to look at my nomination.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 18:46, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius: Should I split off the service information in the lead into a part of the Current use section and modify the Passenger service section? Thanks.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 16:16, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Kew Gardens 613: Sure. That sounds like the best thing to do, actually. Maybe we can include one sentence about the service pattern in the lead. Something like this: SIR operates 24 hours a day, seven days a week, providing local service between St. George and Tottenville, along the east side of the borough. The fare-free aspect and the peak express might be the only other things that need to be included from what is now the second and third paragraphs. epicgenius (talk) 16:21, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius: Thanks for the suggestion. How do you think I should split up the passenger section?--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 17:00, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius: Is there anything that should be removed entirely from the article? Thanks.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 17:10, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Kew Gardens 613: I split it up into accessibility and former lines sections. I think you're giving too much weight to the opening of the Arthur Kill station in the "Passenger service" section; it only needs one or two sentences at most, not an entire paragraph. You should also try shaving a few details off the History section. It's more or less 15,000 characters of prose; this entire article has 30,000 characters of prose, so there's still a lot of detail about history, relative to the rest of the article. epicgenius (talk) 17:17, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius: Also, should the former lines subsection be merged in with the Branches and stations section? I will see what I can cut back.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 17:22, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. epicgenius (talk) 17:25, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius: Should I cut back the history further? Thanks.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 18:34, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Serial Number 54129: Are there any other issues you found? Thanks.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 18:13, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment from Nick-D edit

There are quite a few links in references section to newspaper stories sourced via NewsLibrary.com, but none of these seem to work without an account there. Are these links of any value? Nick-D (talk) 07:58, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick-D: I have removed them. Are there any other suggestions you have concerning the article? Thanks.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 18:49, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Harry edit

Oppose and suggest withdrawal. This is still open so I'm assuming the coordiantors want to see some more feedback, but I'm guessing the reason it's not attracting any substantial commentary is the outstanding oppose above. A bit of a rock and a hard place. I'm afraid I agree withe Catriona/Buidhe that this article is not based on high-quality, reliable, third-party sources. It appears to be based on various (24, to be precise) documents from the MTA website (which, as the owner/operator of the system, is not a third party), when it needs to be based on books and other histories published by heavyweight publishers. You also have multiple questionable sources. For example, what makes the following high-quality reliable sources:

  • The Third Rail Online (FN6, cited 22 times)
  • A Google document (FN9, cited five times)
  • Jersey Central Railway Historical Society Chapter
  • New York Railroad Club
  • progressiverailroading.com
  • gretschviking.net
  • nycsubway.org

Add to that that the formatting or the references is inconsistent and messy. Publishers locations are not compulsory but generally included in FA-level articles; likewise, books and other multi-page sources are usually listed in a separate bibliography and cited short form inline. The "work" field in citation templates is for the name of the publication, not the web address (eg |work=Wikipedia, not |work=en.wikipedia.org); if there isn't a name, leave the field blank and just use |publisher=. I'm seeing inconsistent capitalisation and missing punctuation in titles (eg Free ride to commit a crime Elimination of fare for most on the Staten Island Railway allows trouble-causing youths to get on and off at will). The formatting issues alone in my opinion show that the article is not FAC-ready. If they were the only issue, I'd be willing to offer help and advice, but there's no point in neatly formatting references to to self-published sites and user-generated wikis, because those will never be acceptable sources for a featured article candidate. I know this is disappointing. A lot of work has clearly gone into this article, but the sourcing needs major work before it's ready for FAC. I suggest you withdraw the nomination, cite every piece of information to the strongest source you can find (books for the history, news articles for specific events; the MTA is fine for operating details) and then re-evaluate. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:08, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell: Thank you so much for being willing to look over the article. I understand that there are many issues, and while it seems unlikely that all will be able to be dealt with on this nomination attempt, I intend to work hard to resolve any issues that exist with the article. I have removed the links to the New York Railroad Club, progressiverailroading.com, and significantly reduced the usage of the google docs and the JCRHSC. The Third Rail source is a transcribed version of a book, which should be okay. I will look to reduce use of documents from the MTA website. I don't know how the use of images from getschviking.net and nycsubway.org don't work. Clarification here would be appreciated. I will work to deal with the formatting of the references. While you suggest I withdraw this nomination, I will not do so, since I believe that I can fix the aforementioned issues. I hope that you will provide additional feedback that will help me deal with these issues. Thanks once again for taking up the nomination and for throughly mentioning major flaws with the article.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 16:44, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@HJ Mitchell: I have fixed the work field and added the locations of the publishers. Would you suggest I add New York, New York for the New York City newspapers as well? Thanks.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 17:32, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I'm happy to offer what advice I can while you work on addressing the sourcing issues. My best recommendation would be to find the best, most reliable, account of the SIR and use that for everything you can, then use news articles to fill in the details, and other sources to fill in any gaps. But user-generated content is never going to be an acceptable source, and hobby sites and self-published sources will only be acceptable in rare cases.
And no, newspapers don't need locations; they're standard (but not compulsory) for books. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:56, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@HJ Mitchell: Thanks so much. What is the issue with using images as citations? The images were not photoshopped, the dates were not altered to misconstrue the facts, they were taken objectively–with the goal of showing how the South Beach Line and West Shore Lines looked at that particular time, the locations that these images are supposed to be of correspond with their actual locations. I have also fixed the capitalization and missing punctuation issues. Thanks.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 18:05, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note edit

Credit to Kew Gardens for prompt engagement re. issues raised, but I'm going to archive this now. We generally close noms that receive an early withdrawal recommendation but I refrained in this instance to see if in fact the sourcing concerns could be dealt with quickly; that Harry also has serious concerns in this area after almost a month reinforces the impression that the nom was premature. Pls continue improvements outside the FAC process, ideally involving Catriona/Buidhe and Harry (and any of the other reviewers who are interested), before renominating. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:26, 17 January 2019 (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) 23:28, 15 January 2019 [12].

Iveta Mukuchyan edit

Iveta Mukuchyan is a German-Armenian singer-songwriter, model, and actress. Any additional comments on the article will be greatly appreciated. @Vami IV: and @Aoba47:, sorry I did not respond on your comments in the previous archive as I was very busy. However, now I have read your comments and corrected most of the article. Can you please take a look at it one more time? Harut111 (talk) 12:52, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Aoba47 edit

Resolved comments from Aoba47
*This sentence (Mukuchyan auditioned for season two of The Voice of Germany in 2012.) implies to me that she did not get past the audition phase though the article on the second season shows that she did go further in the competition. Maybe say “participated” instead to better reflect this?
  • For this sentence (Mukuchyan made her acting debut in the comedy movie Run Away Or Get Married(with Armenian actor Mkrtich Arzumanyan) that year), why is the information about her co-star necessary? I think you can remove it without losing much.
  • For this sentence (Her mother, Susanna Ambaryan, was working in a tourist information center before their moving to Germany in 1992.), I would change the part “before their moving to Germany” to “before they moved to Germany” as the original wording reads awkwardly.
  • Any information on her father? It seems odd that the information is only saved until the middle of the paragraph. When I first read the paragraph, I had just assumed that her mother was a single parent, until the father was mentioned later in the paragraph.
  • For this part (In 1995, their family returned to Armenia,), I would say “the family” instead. Also, it is unclear if it was just Iveta and her mother that did all of the moving, or if there were more family members involved. Could you clarify this?
  • For this part (because of the horrible conditions back then), I would say “at the time” instead of “back then”.
  • I have two comments for this sentence (She attended the Catholic Sankt-Ansgar-Schule in Hamburg from 1998 to 2006, working part-time as a waitress in a café). I would remove the comma after “2006” and say “while working part-time as a waitress in a café” instead. Also, the last part needs a citation.
  • Wikilink Hamburg the first time you mention it in the body of the article as you wikilink it in the lead.
  • For this part (at a ceremony, her parents believed that their daughter should become a singer), the comma should be a semicolon.
  • I have two comments for this part ("Following her "parents' advice”,). Remove the stray quotation mark at the beginning, and I think you think you can paraphrase the “parents’ advice” quotes.
  • For this part (and remained there despite the adapting difficulties faced in the country), could you clarify what you mean by “the adapting difficulties”?
  • For this part (Mukuchyan has stated that she was always hiding behind her sister's shadow in Germany.), it should be “in her sister’s shadow” rather than “behind”.
  • This part (where she was eliminated before the semifinals.) needs a citation.
  • For this part (Mukuchyan released the single Simple Like a Flower), the song should be in quotation marks.
  • I have two comments for this part (with music video, in October 2015.), I do not think the comma is necessary and I would add “a” in front of “music video”.
  • For this part (On 3 April 2016 she promoted), there should be a comma after “2016”.
  • For this part (On 21 June she), there should be a comma after “June”.
  • I would wikilink YouTube.
  • Wikilink extended play in the body of the article.
  • For this part (and performed it at the Dalma Garden Mall.), I would say “promoted” instead of “performed”.
  • For this part (On 21 June she announced), there should be a comma after “June”.
  • I would wikilink Facebook.
  • I am not sure if the following sentence and quote (She said of her acting career, "I fell in love with acting and playing different characters. My first experience was with the amazing Mkrtich Arzumanyan and now I was allowed to work with Mher Mkrtchyan and Arka Manukyan for a new movie project that will be in the theaters this year. It is a very different character than I played before. I'm sure you gonna [sic] be just as much surprised as I was.") are necessary for the article.
  • For this image caption (Mukuchyan performing "LoveWave" during a Eurovision rehearsal), I would specify the year.
  • I would replace this image (File:Iveta Mukuchyan, September 14 2.jpg) with (File:ESC2016 - Armenia Meet & Greet 22.jpg) as the second one is a higher quality image.
  • For this part (Moreover, the singer went on to release the Armenian version of Aznavour song "Quand Tu M'Aimes" (When You Love Me).), I do not believe “Moreover” is necessary.
  • You do not mention her pending nomination for the 2018 Daf Bama Music Awards anywhere other than the “Awards and nominations” table.
  • You mention “Sister Jack” as an associated label in the infobox and and cite them as the label that released her first EP, but you do not mention them at all in the body of the article. Any information on how she joined them or anything like that?
  • You listed (Mukuchyan) as an associated label in the infobox. Did she start a record label under her own name? If she just self-released music without starting a record label with this name, then this should be removed from the infobox.
  • For this part (during an Armenian comedy-show "Women's Club”), remember that shows are in italics not quotation marks.

You have done a lot of great work with this article, but I have unfortunately noticed several prose issues during a first read-through. Once my comments are addressed, I will try to do a more thorough assessment by section (and subsection) when I have the time. Hope this helps somewhat. Aoba47 (talk) 21:06, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: thank you for the comments. I would like to address some of the comments specifically.

Any information on her father? It seems odd that the information is only saved until the middle of the paragraph. When I first read the paragraph, I had just assumed that her mother was a single parent, until the father was mentioned later in the paragraph.

It is mentioned that her father went to Germany to buy a car for the family, however, because of some issues he stayed there longer than expected and her mother made a decision to go and live in Germany with her two daughters. [13] I do not really know how I should mention this in the article (or should I even mention this?)
  • Do any sources mention her father's name? I think that it is important to include this information in the article, as information about a person's early life and family life is important. Right now, the article only references Iveta's father in terms of his attitude about her marriage and language use. I am not sure how to word it exactly either (particularly since I am not that familiar with Iveta). Aoba47 (talk) 23:46, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For this part (In 1995, their family returned to Armenia,), I would say “the family” instead. Also, it is unclear if it was just Iveta and her mother that did all of the moving, or if there were more family members involved. Could you clarify this?

Her father was already in Germany (as I mentioned above) when her mother joined his husband with her two daughters in 1992. Don't really know how to organize this information.
  • I think that it is important to include as I personally found this section to be confusing as it was missing this information that would connect it all together. Aoba47 (talk) 23:46, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

...paraphrase the “parents’ advice” quotes.

I kinda don't understand what you mean by "paraphrase." Like "Following her parents' advice" - "Following her parents' recommendation?"
  • I am recommending that you use your own words rather than the quote. Aoba47 (talk) 23:46, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For this part (and remained there despite the adapting difficulties faced in the country), could you clarify what you mean by “the adapting difficulties”?

Armenia and Germany were very different countries, so it was difficult for Iveta to adapt to this new environment. (Don't know how to say this in the article)
  • But did Iveta say anything about facing particular problems due to this culture shock? If not, then why is it important enough to include in the article, as it is common for people to struggle with a new environment after moving to a new country (and even sometimes moving to a new area within the same country). Unless you can be more specific with this, I would cut it. Aoba47 (talk) 23:46, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For this image caption (Mukuchyan performing "LoveWave" during a Eurovision rehearsal), I would specify the year.

Is this really necessary? I mean that part is only about Eurovision 2016, it is obvious the rehearsal happened in 2016.
  • I will leave that up to you. I am only suggesting it to help people understand the images more easily if they are scrolling through the article. Aoba47 (talk) 23:46, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would replace this image (File:Iveta Mukuchyan, September 14 2.jpg) with (File:ESC2016 - Armenia Meet & Greet 22.jpg) as the second one is a higher quality image.

The photo you suggest was taken during Eurovision season and there is already a Eurovision photo in the previous section. Should I really use it in this part of the article?
  • I recommended the image change as the current one is lower quality and I think that it would be better to use a higher quality one if there is one available. I do not think that it matters if there are multiple Eurovision photos involved, as it appears Eurovision is important to this person's career. Aoba47 (talk) 23:46, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You mention “Sister Jack” as an associated label in the infobox and cite them as the label that released her first EP, but you do not mention them at all in the body of the article. Any information on how she joined them or anything like that?

Yeah I know. I just do not have a piece of information about the label. The only place that mentions it as the label of EP is iTunes.
  • That makes sense. Just wanted to make sure. Aoba47 (talk) 23:46, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again for all the comments/recommendations. I would really love to take the article to the next level (FA). Harut111 (talk) 17:39, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • No problem. I just want to help out. Let me know when you have addressed all of my comments and then I will do another read-through. Aoba47 (talk) 23:46, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies in advance, but I have to oppose this nomination based on the prose. There are several issues in the "Early life" section alone. They are the following:

  • I have two comments for this sentence (Iveta Mukuchyan was born on 14 October 1986 in Yerevan, Armenia, (then part of the Soviet Union), where she started kindergarten.). I would replaced this part "Armenia, (then part of the Soviet Union)" with the "Armenian Soviet Socialist Republic" to be more precise. It is clear from that wikilink she was born in an area of the Soviet Union that is not Armenia. I would also cut this part "where she started kindergarten" completely. It is generally assumed that a person attends kindergarten in the place of their birth, and unless her time in kindergarten was notable for some reason, it is not important enough for the reader.
  • I have a few comments for this sentence (Her mother, Susanna Ambaryan, worked in a tourist information center when his husband, Ruben Mukuchyan, went to Germany to buy a car.). The sentence construction is not great, particularly the use of "when", as it could imply that the mother only worked at the center during the time that Ruben went to buy this car. It should be "her" instead of "his" as I am assuming you are referring to Susanna. Since you are referring to Ruben as Susanna's husband rather than Iveta's father, is he Iveta's father? The connection is not made entirely clear. Also, could you clarify why Ruben had to go to a completely different country to buy a car?
  • For this sentence (However, he stayed in Germany due to unforeseen circumstances, therefore, Mukuchyan's mother decided to move the rest of the family to Germany in 1992.), could you clarify what you mean by "unforeseen circumstances"? You give the year when the family moved to Germany, but do you have a year for when Ruben went to Germany first? By "the rest of the family", do you mean just Iveta or more family members (as at this point you have not introduced her sister yet)?
  • I am not sure if this sentence is necessary (According to her mother, Mukuchyan first started singing before talking.). It is a cute anecdote, but it is seems somewhat trivial (and I doubt that it is true).
  • For this sentence (In 1995, the family returned to Armenia, however, they moved back to Germany because of the horrible conditions at the time.), could you clarify what you mean by "the horrible conditions"? Is it because the area was still controlled by the Soviet Union?
  • I would revise this sentence (According to Mukuchyan, her father was a patriot, a very strict man and he always demanded to speak Armenian at their home and marry an Armenian man.) to something like (Mukuchyan described her father as a patriot and a strict man who demanded she only speak Armenian at home and marry an Armenian man.)
  • Clarify which reference is used to support this part "while working part-time as a waitress in a café.".
  • I would revise this sentence (In Hamburg, Mukuchyan was a member of a music club and after singing Celine Dion's "My Heart Will Go On" at a ceremony, her parents believed that their daughter should become a singer.) to something like (While in Hamburg, Mukuchyan joined a music club and sang Celine Dion's "My Heart Will Go On" at a ceremony. Following the performance, her parents believed that she should become a singer.)
  • For this sentence (Following her parents' advice, Mukuchyan returned to Armenia in 2009.), could you clarify why her parents encouraged her to go back to Armenia?
  • I have a comment about this sentence (She studied at the Yerevan Komitas State Conservatory leaving her design studies, begun in Germany, unfinished). Her design studies are rather abruptly mentioned here. When did she begin these studies? Should you mention them earlier?
  • I would move the sentence about her sister to the top of this section, as it is better to described the subject's close family members before moving on to details about their early life. That way, the reader has a clear understanding of the family. Also, can you clarify if Marianna is her older or younger sister?
  • For this sentence (Mukuchyan has stated that she was always hiding in her sister's shadow in Germany), did she say any particular reason why Iveta felt like she was in her sister's shadow?
  • The genres in the infobox do not appear to be sourced anywhere in the article. They will need sources, or they will have to be removed.
  • Avoid WP:SHOUTING in the reference titles. Titles of sources should not be in all caps.

As you can see above, I have several comments for a relatively short section (i.e. I actually had a comment for every sentence in the section). Some of them are more minor; I have several clarification questions that you may not be able to answer if this information is not in the source, and that is fine. My primary problem with the section is that the information does not flow together very well. Apologies again, but I do not think that this is close to FA quality. Aoba47 (talk) 20:35, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by Squeamish Ossifrage edit

Looking back, this article is on its third FAC appearance almost entirely due to a lack of reviewer engagement. Unfortunately, I also do not believe it is currently at the FA level. As noted above, there are quite a few problems with structure, flow, and overall prose. I'd like to focus on the sourcing concerns, however.

  • Facebook is, with very limited exceptions, not a reliable source. In this article, it's used to cite quite a few things – from Mukuchyan's own statements, to album releases, to magazine cover appearances and award nominations. These are not acceptable uses, especially at the FA level.
  • There are also several references that look like they might be reliable sources, but actually consist of a video being hosted by a third party. That's true for the footage from POP Hanragitaran, hosted at Hayfanat (this one might be a reliable source if cited correctly, but I'm not certain); and for a music video hosted without commentary at PressMedia.am (for whom I cannot find an editorial policy; their "About Us" link goes nowhere also, and I'm inclined to suspect this site is not an independent source).
  • In general, care hasn't been taken to cite sources appropriately. Quite a few of the references are little more than bare links, which makes evaluating their independence and reliability challenging. For example, reference #15 at the time of this writing gives only the source article's title, while linking to it. Missing from the reference are essential bibliographic details like the author (Padraig Muldoon), publication date, and the actual publication itself (Wiwibloggs, which... might actually be an RS despite the name). It's challenging for me to audit them all, especially the Armenian-language sources, but everything will need to be thoroughly checked.
  • Perhaps as part of the lack of care in reference documentation, at least some of these sources are not adequate to support the claims they are referencing. In particular, the statement that "De Jpta" was released "to benefit children with cancer" is referenced to this iTunes page which indicates nothing of the sort.
  • I'm uncertain of the notability of several of the awards. In particular, most of the discussion regarding the Daf Bama Awards is cited to Facebook; I'm unable to immediately determine if that is an indication that the awards themselves are not notable or merely further issues with quality source selection.
  • Furthermore, this may not be a comprehensive treatment of the subject. The details of her personal life are extremely thin and primarily sourced to a teen magazine (and one with an occasionally dubious history, at that). One song is listed as charting on the Swedish national charts, but no other chart performance is given. Now, admittedly, there's no Armenian charts recognized as reliable at WP:CHART, but I somehow suspect that her Eurovision performance means that the Sverigetopplistan isn't the only relevant material for that section. If that's not the case, then I'm curious if there's some special attention that was paid her in Swedish music media. And so forth.
  • There are also a lot of other referencing and reference formatting issues (the website for the magazine Bravo is styled in various reference entries in five different ways: Bravo, Bravo.am, Bravo.am, Bravo, and bravo.am; for the record, the first is correct), but this sort of problem is rather beside the point given the more significant issues.

I'm sorry that this article wasn't given the appropriate attention the first (or second...) time it appeared at FAC, because it might have afforded the opportunity to address the substantial issues before listing a third time. Regrettably, that means I have to oppose (1a, 1b, 1c, 2c). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:29, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note edit

Based on the above comments I'll be archiving this shortly. I'd recommend that after making the suggested improvements to the article you initiate a Peer Review, pinging everyone who's previously commented, or try the FAC mentoring program -- or even do both, in that order. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:28, 15 January 2019 (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) 14 January 2019 [14].

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) 08:27, 17 January 2019 [15].

Endless Night (The Lion King song) edit

Nominator(s): Aoba47 (talk) 00:58, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone. The above article is about a song written for the musical The Lion King, a stage adaptation of Disney's 1994 animated film of the same name. Jason Raize, who originated the role of Simba for the Broadway production, first performed and recorded "Endless Night"; his version is included on the original cast recording. In the ballad, Simba grieves the death of his father Mufasa. The song includes vocals by a chorus that encourages Simba to move forward. Reception to the song was mainly positive. "Endless Night" has been performed in different contexts outside the show.

I admit that the article was unprepared for the previous FAC, though I believe that it now meets the requirements for a featured article. I would greatly appreciate any feedback. I hope that everyone has a wonderful rest of their day and/or night! Aoba47 (talk) 00:58, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from MaranoFan edit

  • "Endless Night" is a song written by composers Lebo M., Hans Zimmer, and Jay Rifkin." - Why is Julie Taymor's name missing from this sentence and only mentioned later if she is a credited writer?
  • "Mark A. Brymer was the composer, Mark Mancina produced it." - This reads a bit confusingly since apparently this song's lyricists were also composers. I would reword it to "Mark A. Brymer composed it, with production from Mark Mancina."
  • "In "Endless Night"—a ballad—" - Just my opinion but the dashes here are a bit cluttery. They could easily be eliminated by using "Endless Night is a ballad that lyrically deals with Simba grieving about the death of his father Mufasa."
  • "The song includes vocals by Rafiki" - Should it be mentioned which actor portrayed Rafiki and provided the vocals? Because I know this movie has probably been adapted several times with different people portraying the character.
  • It would not make sense in this context as multiple actors portrayed this character over the course of the production's history. Aoba47 (talk) 06:36, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The music for "Endless Night" was written by" - "The music for" should be removed since its redundant. Everyone who read the lead section already knows we're talking about a song/music. As for the arranger just continue with "with musical arrangement by Mark A. Brymer"
  • The music and the lyrics are two different things. Julie Taymor wrote the lyrics, but all of the people mentioned in this sentence did the music so I think it is important to include the clarification for the reader. Aoba47 (talk) 06:36, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey Aoba47, perhaps you could change "wrritten by" to "composed by"? 'Compose' in a theatrical context means 'write the music for'.--Coin945 (talk) 11:00, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Looking back on the writing process, Taymor said" - "Reflecting on the writing process" is probably better wording
  • "The Walt Disney Company released the soundtrack on November 14" - If we're going with "Walt Disney" here, then it should be "Walt Disney" instead of just "Disney" in the infobox too. Either way is fine but consistency.
  • "A sample of the song "Endless Night"." - Again, we can remove "the song" here since if someone has read this far, they know we're talking about a song.
  • "while accompanied by chants by Rafiki and a chorus" - Repetition of "by" here. A way to fix this would be to say "while accompanied by chants from Rafiki and a chorus"
  • It goes for this section too that the person who voices Rafiki on this song should be mentioned.
  • It would not make sense in this context as multiple actors portrayed this character over the production's history. Aoba47 (talk) 06:36, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Nick Afoa performed "Endless Night" in 2013 for his audition for Simba for an Australian production of The Lion King." - Repetition of "for" here, could be reworded to "Nick Afoa performed "Endless Night" in 2013 during his audition for Simba for an Australian production of The Lion King."
  • I don't know if Broadway World is a suitable source for featured level content tbh. I'm always iffy even just using it in general, but don't remove it though because I don't think its considered an unreliable source. Its a subsidiary of the John Gore Organization so its probably reliable.
  • I think that it should be reliable. Here is the link to the about page, which shows there is editorial oversight. Aoba47 (talk) 06:47, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're using this as a source but it was uploaded by a random unverified account called 'Benjamin Rauhala' and I'm 99% sure this is not considered suitable in general let alone for featured content. Besides, if a performance isn't covered by a reliable source then its inclusion is WP:UNDUE and you can remove it anyway.
  • Removed and replaced with a better source. Aoba47 (talk) 06:47, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Once my concerns are addressed I'll go through the article again and support if everything looks great. Regards.--NØ 05:49, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • @MaranoFan: Thank you for the review! I believe that I have addressed everything. Have a great start to your week! Aoba47 (talk) 06:47, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fine with the changes. This has my support for promotion!--NØ 08:02, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Homeostasis07 edit

Hi Aoba47. After spending the last few hours reading the article, I have a couple of comments:

  • In 'Context and composition', it might be best to remove "chords" from "its instrumentation is provided by a piano, chords, a synthesizer, a guitar, and drums.", since 'chords' relates solely to the actual melody being played, and not to the instrumentation. You might also be able to remove all the a's in the sentence, because it could flow better with just 'piano, synthesizer, guitar and drums.' Another thing which jumped out at me in this section: there's a bit of overuse of the word "chorus", especially since it's being used in reference to both choir and refrain. Maybe just use "choir" instead of "chorus"?
  • Makes sense. I changed the instrumentation sentence according to your suggestion, and swapped out a majority of the chorus mentions for choir. There is currently only use of chorus in the article, though it is referencing song structure. Aoba47 (talk) 21:58, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I love how you've arranged 'Critical reception', and how each paragraph manages to focus on a specific aspect of the song's reception. One thing this section did remind me of, though, was some advice I received during one of my own FAs—how most people end up reading "said" as though it were an invisible word, so don't be afraid to use that instead of all the synonyms... "described", "cited", "wrote", etc. Specifically, I'm referring to the line "Eric Andrews ... cited "Endless Night" as the "shining moment" for Simba." Maybe just: "Eric Andrews... said "Endless Night" was the "shining moment" for Simba", since "cited" doesn't really make sense there anyway.
  • That makes sense to me. I remember receiving this same note years ago during a creative writing course actually. I have swapped out two instances in the article, including the one that you mentioned above. Aoba47 (talk) 21:58, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

These are all minor quibbles, since it's already a well-written and informative article. Regardless of these suggestions being implemented, I'm happy to support this article for promotion. Good luck Aoba, and happy new year. Homeostasis07 (talk) 18:10, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ArturSik edit

My only suggestion would be to stretch the film's wikilink in the lead to "1994 animated film of the same name". Also, I wondered if maybe it would be a good idea to move the sentence about other language versions of the song and the karaoke version to 'other versions' section. Other than that the article is beautifully written and well sourced. Well done. ArturSik (talk) 17:43, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • @ArturSik: Thank you for the comments. I have addressed both of them. Hope you had a great weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 03:42, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support this now that my comments have been addressed:) Great job! ArturSik (talk) 04:51, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 05:24, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source/Image review by David Fuchs edit

  • References check out via Checklinks, and are properly formatted and archived where appropriate.
  • What makes BroadwayWorld.com a high-quality, reliable source? Likewise, Seattle Gay News?
  • BroadwayWorld.com has evidence of editorial oversight here on the website. Seattle Gay News has the same [16] here on their website. Aoba47 (talk) 23:08, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's helpful, but it still doesn't signify to me that they're particularly noteworthy or the best sources possible. Have they been quoted or referenced by other reliable sources? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:15, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @David Fuchs: I have removed the Seattle Gay News source as it was just a review and there are other reviews in that part already so it is not entirely necessary. For the BroadwayWorld sources, the site's CEO received an award from The Theatre Museum according to this source. The website was mentioned in two sources from The New York Times (1 and 2). According to the second AfD on the BroadwayWorld article, both these The Los Angeles Times sources (3 and 4), with the first one calling it "an indispensable resource" . It is on newspapers.com so I do not have access to them, though I have no reason to doubt the user who posted them. It also been cited by Business Insider and The Des Moines Register and The Washington Post. Aoba47 (talk) 23:03, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I leave it to others to decide for themselves, but that seems like enough justification for its inclusion. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 13:57, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I appreciate that you asked, as it is always important to check. Aoba47 (talk) 16:57, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spot-checked statements attributed to current refs 1, 5, 6, 11, 12, 19, 23, 26, and 40. I did not spot any issues with unattributed/misattributed statements.
  • I'm not sure why ref 6 is used, as ref 5 covers the ten new songs for the musical production detail and ref 6 is besides a stray mention talking about The Little Mermaid.

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 18:21, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • @David Fuchs: Thank you for the source and image reviews. I believe that I have addressed your two comments above. Aoba47 (talk) 23:08, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request for a status update edit

  • @Ian Rose:, @Laser brain:, and @Sarastro1: This has received several votes of support, an image review, and a source review. If possibly, could I have a status update on this? I am assuming that you would this to wait for further comments (and I take no issue with that; I have already reached to a few editors about the possibility of looking at this), but I just wanted to check with you. Apologies for always pinging you for each of my nominations; I do not mean to be an annoyance. Have a great weekend? Aoba47 (talk) 23:24, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Sarastro1 edit

Oppose: I'm recusing as co-ordinator because a quick look at this showed several problems that I'm surprised haven't been picked up by now. And they aren't particularly minor ones either. I've not read the whole article but skimmed through the prose of the first sections, and looked at the sourcing in a little more detail. But these are samples only and are not an exhaustive list. Sarastro (talk) 12:52, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • "with the arrangement done by Mark A. Brymer.": Not a great phrasing. The “with noun verb” structure is best avoided like that; why not just “arranged by”?
  • "Jason Raize, who originated the role of Simba for the Broadway production…" Maybe this is a theatre thing, but what does “originated” mean here? Unless its a theatrical phrase, why not just "first performed"?
  • The word "originated" is a theatre word used to represent that actor not only first performed it but was heavily involved in the process of creating the character and show during the workshop phase. I have changed it though. Aoba47 (talk) 02:03, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Some commentators praised its contribution to Simba's character and incorporation of African music": How can a song make a contribution to a character? I recognise the intention here, but it needs to be rephrased. Maybe something like "how the song helped to develop Simba’s character…"
  • ""Endless Night" has been performed in different contexts outside the show": What does this mean? How can a song be performed in a context?
  • The background a release section doesn’t really say anything about it’s background. We learn who wrote it and composed the lyrics, all of which is sourced simply to musicnotes, some sheet music and a download site. Then we use the lyricist as a source for a little more in the background section. I’m not too keen on the sourcing here if I’m honest.
  • Revised the title. The source "Musicnotes.com" as been considered reliable enough for previous featured articles on songs, so I do not understand the concern here. Aoba47 (talk) 02:03, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then we don’t really learn much more apart from bare factual details. When was it written? Why was "Lala" used? What was the function of the song within the narrative? Presumably it was chosen because Simba was grieving and "Lala" was about loss… but we don’t actually make this link. We have three composers listed but don't find out what their specific role or influence was. But we say an awful lot about the lyrics. Why neglect the music?
    • The sources only mention that Taymor had based the melody on "Lala" without further explanation. Both songs do address grief, but the sources do not go further into detail so adding that would be original research. I am not, "neglect[ing] the music" as you put it, but I am going by what the source gives me. Aoba47 (talk) 02:03, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • When was it composed/written? How much was the melody based on "Lala"? Did the writers of that song receive a credit? Reading between the lines, I’m guessing that the writers credited are actually those who wrote "Lala"… but why are we not making this explicit? Again, we need more about the composers.
  • All of those things are not listed in the sources. I could cite the liner notes from "Lala" to say this, but I would question if that would count as original research since they are not making the direct comparison themselves. It would be nice to know more about the composers, but it cannot be helped if that information is not cited in sources. Aoba47 (talk) 02:03, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Reflecting on the writing process, Taymor said compositions were selected from Rhythm of the Pride Lands for their mood not their lyrics.": This sentence is slightly meaningless; we could lose everything before "Taymor" but then we need to explain what she meant by this. What mood? From this quotation, were other songs from Rhythm of the Pride Lands used as well?
    • In the source, she just said that she choose the song based on the feeling/mood of it, and did not elaborate further. Again, I cannot just add things that are not in the sources. Also, I think that adding in more information about what other songs were adapted from Rhythm of the Pride Lands would be more appropriate for the article on the musical rather than this one. Aoba47 (talk) 02:03, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "NASA interns included the song on their playlist for the solar eclipse of August 21, 2017": Without a lot more context about why this song was chosen (which I don’t really think is too worthwhile), I really don’t see why this is here.
  • And the sentence structure of this section is very list-y and repetitive. Most sentences begin with “the” or a simple subject.
    • I do not really see any issue with that, as I feel that going out of my way to make every single sentence have a unique structure would make the section more awkward to read as these different structures would overshadow the actual content. Aoba47 (talk) 02:03, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The context and composition section seems to be mainly giving the lyrics but does not analyse anything about the song, its lyrics or how it fits into the overall story. Maybe here is the place to put reviewers concerns about how it fits (or doesn’t) into the overall feel.
    • Moved according to your suggestion. There is not any further analysis according to my research. Aoba47 (talk) 02:13, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ISBN for the Stacy Wolf book is wrong, and is in fact for British musical theatre since 1950.
  • Several places say that the song “includes vocals by Rafiki and a choir that encourages Simba to move forward. Because of the use of chants, critics identified African music as an influence”, but I see that as a misreading of the sources. Does Rafiki sing in the song? I don’t see that on our article on the musical, or on any other website. Nor do I notice it if I listen to the song (I’m not a fan and have never heard it before), and I can certainly not hear any chants. This idea seems to be sourced to 3 reviews:
  • "supplies the moments of emotional clout in such ballads as "Shadowlands "and "Endless Night," and authentic African flavor in the chants for Rafiki and the chorus" (Houston chronicle)
  • "Musically, it pays homage to Africa in its grassland chants and ensemble numbers such as Shadowland and Endless Night" (Guardian)
  • "Most of the stand-out numbers, including "One by One", "Shadowland" and "Endless Night", were written specially for the stage, and express most fully the show’s African roots." (Whats on stage)
Now, my reading of these sources is that the “African” influences are found in this song, but also in the chants, which the reviewers are NOT saying are in this song, but are in separate parts of this musical. This is a fairly major concern to me, if the sources have been so mis-read.
  • Revised. It is not really relevant to this FAC if you are a fan of this or not. Aoba47 (talk) 02:13, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am also concerned that reviews from (mainly) local newspapers form the bulk of analysis that we do. Why is the Houston Chronicle” used at all? What makes this an expert source for this subject? Are there no theatrical reviews that could be used? Is there no academic analysis that could be used?
  • I do not see why local newspapers should be not allowed for an article like this; they are reliable sources and have discussed the song. There is not any academic analysis that I could find, and this are theatrical reviews, just published in local newspapers. Aoba47 (talk) 02:13, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I’m going to be blunt, it looks like this article has been padded out with details about the lyrics and any reviews that have been made available online, but does not really go into any depth about the song itself.
    • It would be great to go more in depth into certain parts of the song if there were sources that covered it; that is not the case. I also do not see any issue with adding sources and information about lyrics when the article is about a song. Aoba47 (talk) 02:13, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • A final point: the critics mention "African" influences. Really, we need to know more about these influences, ideally from the writers. And "African" is awfully broad. It is rather crude to think that all African music is the same. I'm assuming that as the original lyrics of "Lala" were Zulu, this is more where the influences may lie? And as one of the listed composers (as I've outlined, we need to know more about who composed what and when) is South African, maybe we should be going into this a little more and not just relying on the opinions of non-expert critics in newspapers to class the influences as "African". Sarastro (talk) 12:52, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have removed the African references entirely given your comments and my misreadings. I have also removed the Rafiki bit as that was also part of my misreading. Apologies for that. I see no reason though for discounting newspaper sources completely from the article. Aoba47 (talk) 02:13, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sarastro1: I have responded to your comments above. A majority of your questions could not be answered as the sources do not address the answers to them. The article should not be faulted for not including information that does not exist. I also do not see any issue with citing newspapers are they are still reliable sources, and the authors were specifically chosen to cover theatre shows. I do not understand the reason to dismiss them entirely. Aoba47 (talk) 02:13, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Damien Linnane edit

  • "It premiered in the musical The Lion King" - should you add the year this occurred in the lead?
  • I agree with Sarastro that "African music" is too vague, unless that's all the detail the sources gave.
  • Just going off what the sources say. They just note a generic African influence, and since it was mentioned by three separate sources, then I see no reason to not mention it here. Aoba47 (talk) 02:16, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should the caption for your image of Julie Taymor include the year the photo was taken? I.e (pictured in 20xx)
  • "But the disparity between the two halves" - I'd drop the word 'But', and perhaps the colon that precedes it.
  • "Nick Afoa performed "Endless Night" in 2013 during his audition for Simba for an Australian production of The Lion King" - did he end up getting the pat anyway?

That's all I found. Damien Linnane (talk) 13:24, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for the support. Hope you have a great rest of your weekend. Aoba47 (talk) 05:36, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawal request edit

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 22:57, 13 January 2019 [17].

Jamiroquai edit

Nominator(s): 100cellsman (talk) 17:57, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I majorly expanded and edited the article about the British band Jamiroquai. I’m hoping that through consensus, this article will summarize the group's history, artistry and achievements as nicely as possible–as they are unfortunately overshadowed by the tabloid sensationalism that their front-man Jay Kay tends to have. After about a year of on-and-off meticulous work, it should meet the FA criteria. (if not almost)

I do want to opt for discussion about the sub header titles of whether or not they’re appropriately named and the fansite that is used as a reference for the section about Radio Silence. But any other pointers would be appreciated as well!

Thanks! 100cellsman (talk) 17:57, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

The featured article process is generally for articles that are already considered to be perfectly written and may have gone through a peer review beforehand. This nomination reads like a request for peer review. Should it perhaps go through that before an FA nom? I've not read the article yet so I'm abstaining from supporting or opposing as of now.--NØ 13:39, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did put this article up for peer review, but after a month later, I realized with me editing this article while it was up for PR (my mistake) that I kept finding problems myself so I didn't bother. But if what you mentioned is the case, I guess that would be most appropriate. 100cellsman (talk) 14:35, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

From the nominator: I decided its best to submit this article for a peer review again. Please archive this nomination. Thank you. 100cellsman (talk) 14:57, 11 January 2019 (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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:57, 13 January 2019 [18].

Kalākaua's 1874–75 state visit to the United States edit

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

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

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

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

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

Comments by Wehwalt edit

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

  • "King Kalākaua's 91-day journey across the breadth of the United States began on November 17, 1874. " I'm not sure about "breadth". The difficulty is that he did it twice, back and forth, which is hard to express. I might try something like " ... journey across the United States, and back again, began on ..."
  • Done
  • I might move what made this visit distinctive from the second paragraph to the first, and relegate K's personal details to paragraph 2.
  • Done, if I understand you on this one.
  • "he had previously been to California and Canada with Prince Lot in 1860, as a 23-year-old government bureaucrat" I'd lose the comma.
  • Done
  • "His trip to Washington, D.C. established two diplomatic benchmarks." I might conclude (after D.C.) "saw two diplomatic firsts." Maybe a colon rather than the period but I can see both sides on that.
  • Done
  • "One was the United States Congress holding their first joint meeting in the body's history, less formal than a joint session, specifically for an audience with him." An audience with him is him receiving them, rather than the other way around as was the case. I would make the final clause "specifically to receive him."
  • Done
  • "Washington, D.C." or "Washington, D.C."? You are not consistent.
  • Excellent catch - fixed all with the comma.
  • "to secure an agreement to provide tax relief for its sugar planters," I would frame it as "to seek the elimination of tariffs on the islands' sugar cane" or similar. It should not be framed as a tax.
  • Done
  • "ailing" perhaps "ill".
  • Done
  • " the king abided the relentless attention," I might put a "patiently" or "with patience" in there. Abided by itself doesn't say as much.
  • Done
  • "Anticipation had grown so strong by the time he reached Washington D.C., that spectators gathered on rooftops to watch him pass by. At Niagara Falls, New York, people waited for hours in frigid temperatures just for a glimpse." The lede is a summary. Do we need two examples?
  • Removed the second one.
  • "The treaty, however, became a link in a chain of events that led to the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii in 1893." I would cast this something like "The resultant close economic ties between islands and mainland became a major factor leading to the overthrow of the ..".
  • Agree, and changed accordingly
  • Actually, I made a little change. In 1874-75 "mainland" was not a term used in 19th century sources, since Hawaii was an independent kingdom. I changed it to United States.
More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:43, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, maybe not so soon, but I'm back.
  • "his port of entry". A port of entry is a defined legal term. Maybe "His arrival at San Francisco on November 28 began a state visit, ..."
  • Done
  • "giving him the distinction of being the first reigning monarch to visit the United States." I might consider shortening it to "making him the first reigning monarch to visit the United States"
  • Done
  • "the United States Congress held their first joint meeting in the body's history," I would change "their" to "the"
  • Done
  • " he sailed for San Francisco, to embark across the United States by rail." I think you're pushing "embark" a little too far here, maybe "he sailed for San Francisco and journeyed across the United States by rail"
  • Done
  • "Goodwill generated by Kalākaua is credited for doing much to help move the legislation through the necessary channels." Is a treaty legislation? And you might want to be clearer about what is being discussed here.
  • Done
  • "resultant" I'd say "resulting"
  • Done
  • "Kalākaua was a career politician who rose through the ranks of chiefs, and was named by Kamehameha III in 1844 as one of the chiefs eligible to be king.[1]" He was eight years old in 1844, so I would change "was named" to "had been named". I note the double usage of "chiefs" but don't know if you can do anything about it.
  • Eliminated "one of the chiefs", and I think it's OK now
  • I might merge the second and third paragraphs of "Background"
  • Done
  • "didn't" Contractions aren't favored on Wikipedia.
  • Changed to "did not"
  • "raising the island nation's visibility with visits to government leaders across the country.[21]" For "country", I would sub "United States".
  • Done
  • "Celebration of the king's birthday began with morning service by various Christian denominations" Suggest "services" for "service"
  • Done
  • I would expect the king needed US permission to visit. Is there anything worth mentioning regarding the permission?
  • I'm going to bounce this one to KAVEBEAR. I never saw anything that mentioned that about this visit, or about any article that involves people traveling back and forth between Hawaii and the United States in that time period. Hawaii had long had a consul in San Francisco. Maybe it just all got cleared ahead of time through there.
  • Ping only works if it is signed. I've looked into this. The US government invited the king and put the Benicia at his disposal according to his official biography. Using this I will look into more leads but it seems the invitation came after Allen and Carter was in Washington..."King Kalakaua was a guest of the nation. President Ulysses S. Grant had sent a special invitation asking the King of Hawaii, David Kalakaua, to come to see him in Washington, and had sent the frigate Benicia for his trip to San Francisco. [19]" I prefer a source to the original invitation but this is best I can find so far. This is the source, the Hawaiian Gazette mentioning the dispatch from Washington was delivered to the American Foreign Minister and then to the King. Interestingly it mentions how originally Kamehameha V had been invited to go before his death and that Lunalilo wished to travel as well.
  • Oh ... better sign the pings, then. Maybe after you read that, you could add a sentence or two, or three or so, to the article. Or we could work it out together. E.H. Allen an H. P. Carter left Oct 18. There must have been some communication to Pres. Grant inbetween the August 1 Hawaiian legislature authorization, and the letter from Grant. I'm glad Wehwalt asked, as this is an important point to have missed.— Maile (talk) 02:02, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Letter between Peirce and Fish. It seems Kalakaua convey his intent to go and Peirce as the US government to extend an invitation to make it more formalized.
You're really good at research. — Maile (talk) 02:17, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm headed for RL responsibilities right now. So, this will have to continue tomorrow for me. — Maile (talk) 02:32, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • KAVEBEAR has now added a sentence to cover this, with sourcing. Last paragraph, first sentence of the The quest for tariff easement section.
  • "Lt. Commander William H. Whiting.[22]" Probably the rank should be spelled out.
  • Spelled out and wiki linked
  • Whiting's first mention is now in the last paragraph of their departure from San Francisco to DC.
  • "in the morning" Which morning?
  • Fixed
  • "Japanese minister Yoshida Kiyonari and Japanese Consul Charles Wolcott Brooks" could you explain the logic of this capitalization?
  • Capitalized Minister. Consul is consistently capitalized throughout the article.
  • " Ogden, Utah to Fort Bridger, Wyoming" both were then territories, as you note in the case of Wyoming a bit later.
  • Fixed
  • "Their train stopped at the Laramie depot on December 8, for a reception at the Railroad Hotel in Cheyenne, hosted by Governor John Allen Campbell." I'd ax the first comma
  • Done
  • "Continuing through Aurora, Colorado a boisterous crowd cheered as the train passed through their town on its way to Grand Island, Nebraska." Really, you have a verb clause twice, and it leads to some confusion as it is not clear (of course it is with context) whether "continuing through" refers to the train or crowd.
  • Changed it to "At Aurora, Colorado"
  • The king's reaction to the reporters is needed in the body or the "tolerance" language in the lede will be unsourced.
  • It happened on Chicago, and I've made the appropriate change.
  • The left-aligned quote box, on my browser, shifts the next heading considerably to the right.
  • Removed alignment. Seems to have taken care of that.
  • "The king's car was immediately boarded by ..." The phrasing makes it sound rather hostile. The "was ... boarded" is what is doing it.
  • Fixed
  • "For the meeting with Kalākaua, the all-male Congress allowed women spectators into the room." I'm not aware it was unusual for women to be spectators. See for example the description of the March 4, 1865 Senate session at three-cent nickel.
  • Removed the sentence
  • "President Grant initiated the White House state dinner tradition, when he hosted the December 22 dinner to honor Kalākaua.[48]"The comma seems unnecessary. I suggest reviewing commas throughout.
  • Removed. But quite frankly, I've seen so many arguments on Wikipedia over commas, or the lack thereof, that's it's blurred my ability to know what is acceptable here. The editor gets flagged for having too many commas, or not enough commas. Everybody's right, and then everybody's wrong. I seriously don't know anymore. Sorry.
  • What is the reason for the order in which the dignitaries are listed? It seems odd to see the VP well down the list.
  • I think it was just an error. Corrected now.
  • Washington, D.C. or Washington D.C.?
  • Good catch. I thought I had caught all those. Fixed.
  • "The New York City council held a reception at the train depot, followed by a carriage ride past throngs of curiosity seekers en route to the Windsor Hotel.[50]" This implies that the king stayed on the train until New York City. I am not aware of any train tubes under the Hudson River in 1874.
  • Can you access this "Clip - Kalakaua in NJ and NY". New-York Tribune.. I changed it to "The New York City council held a reception at the Jersey City, New Jersey train depot, followed by a carriage ride to New York City ". If I read that wrong, please suggest wording.
  • " A Christmas Day observance at Saint Thomas Church, was followed by a photo session at Jeremiah Gurney's studio.[53]" ditto re comma
  • Done
  • ""Acknowledging the king's erstwhile service as a volunteer fireman of Engine 4 in Honolulu, " I know nothing about how often the king responded to 911s addressed to the fire station, but maybe if it wasn't frequent that "nominal" be substituted for "erstwhile".
  • Done (maybe) I changed it to "previous". It wasn't while he was king. When he was working his way up through the career ladder, he was elected (public election, I believe) to be the head of Engine 4. But since I can't readily find the source, I just made the change.— Maile (talk) 19:44, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • TA! DA! I found a source that says in 1870 he was a foreman on Engine 4. Wording in the article changed accordingly. In that year, he was a legal clerk with the Land Office. — Maile (talk) 02:09, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • You previously capped "Freemasonry" but you lower case "masonry" and "masonic".
  • Freemasonry→freemasonry for consistency
  • "En route to Boston, they made a December 31 stop-over in New Haven, Connecticut, home to Yale University. " At the time, I think, Yale College?
  • Done
  • "escorted by Lt. Governor Thomas Talbot and governor-elect William Gaston." I think you've got to spell out Lieutenant again, and I would preface it by "Massachusetts". I think governor-elect can be capped.
  • Done
  • Done
  • "A full agenda for the royal party followed the next few days," If you read this literally, the heavy schedule did not occur until the next few days had passed (i.e., there was a rest), but from context, that is not what was meant.
  • Done
  • "state legislature". probably a link to the one in Massachusetts.
  • Done
  • "Boston and Providence" Wasn't that simply what he took to get to Boston from New Bedford?
  • It was an inspection tour of the new depot. I've edited it a bit.
  • The last sentence in the section, regarding the king's homeward journey commencement, could use a source.
  • Done, but I disagree that it was necessary.
  • Did he visit Boston/New Bedford because a lot of the early missionaries and other American emigres to Hawaii came from there?
  • Reworded a little. They were accepting an invitation from the town's mayor.
  • "the royal party inspected city infrastructure processes. " likely the last word should be "projects"
  • Done
  • Done
  • "day-trip" no need for the dash. Similarly, "stop-over" might be better as 'stopover".
  • Done
  • " Wisconsin governor Harrison Ludington." why the lower case on governor?
  • Fixed
  • Was the king caricatured during his stay? Even though such illustrations are likely racist, it would be interesting to see how he was viewed.
  • I’ve find it hard to put them in the article even when I was uploading them. There is no significant context for them like the one surrounding his 1881 tour that I have seen in sources. I’m guessing these are just product of zenophobia, anti-monarchism or anti-Grant sentiments. KAVEBEAR (talk) 16:40, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest conversion of the exportation figures in pounds to kilograms as well.
  • Done
That's pretty much it. Sorry for the delay, I'm still on the road. Regrettably not in Hawaii!--Wehwalt (talk) 11:42, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wehwalt I've answered all your concerns except the one about how Kalakaua got into the country. Hopefully, KAVEBEAR can come up with something. However it happened, there probably wasn't anybody in America who wanted to keep him out. Also, I have not gone back and checked other commas. I have comma burn out from all the nitpicking comma arguments all over Wikipedia. — Maile (talk) 20:54, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

  • Don't use fixed px size
Removed fixed px
  • Suggest adding alt text
Alt text added to all
  • File:Kalakaua_state_visit_to_Washington,_colored_engraving_(cropped).jpg: when/where was this first published?
First published Frank Leslie's Illustrated Newspaper, 1875; newspaper did not credit the artist
  • File:Kalakaua_and_Reciprocity_Commission_(PP-96-13-03).jpg: what was the author's date of death?
Added to the Commons file description. Photographer partner company, both died before 1900
  • File:CALIFORNIA_–_KING_KALAKAUA_AND_SUITE,_UNDER_ESCORT_OF_MAYOR_OTIS_AND_STAFF,_VIEWING_THE_SEALS_FROM_THE_CLIFF_HOUSE,_SAN_FRANCISCO._SKETCHED_BY_E._BEDFORD_GREY.jpg needs an author date of death and a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:43, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
KAVEBEAR I don't have the answer to death date for E. Bedford Grey. Can you find anything? — Maile (talk) 23:22, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know. The only other place with information about this image is [20] and it doesn’t give Grey’s lifespan. Gonna ask our friends at the humanity desk to see what they can find. KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:56, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SchroCat edit

Two very brief comments from me:

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

MOD edit

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Oppose on prose. Problems unaddressed two weeks after I raised them. --MarchOrDie (talk) 16:11, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry MOD, your oppose did escape my notice -- can you check if things seem to have improved since you last looked? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:32, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I took another look. Although there are incremental improvements, I still don't think the lead is of requisite quality. --MarchOrDie (talk) 12:01, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I propose something like this:

King Kalākaua's state visit to the United States in late 1874 made him the first reigning monarch to visit the United States. On his arrival in Washington, D.C., the United States Congress held the first joint meeting<ref>less formal than a [[joint session]]</ref> in its history to receive him. President Ulysses S. Grant hosted him at the first state dinner at the White House. The entire trip lasted 91 days, and began in Honolulu on November 17, 1874.

Kalākaua was a career politician of the Kingdom of Hawaii who rose through the ranks of chiefs, and had previously been to California and Canada with Prince Lot in 1860 as a 23-year-old government bureaucrat, long before his accession to the throne. The Hawaiian government sent him to Washington this time to seek the elimination of tariffs on the islands' sugar cane, after previous attempts had failed. There had been concerns about Kalākaua's willingness to make the journey, but after putting Elisha Hunt Allen in charge of the negotiations, he sailed for San Francisco, and journeyed across the United States by rail. He was well-received by government officials on federal, state and local levels, and accorded respect as a commander-in-chief by military representatives.

Although ill with a viral infection throughout much of his trip, the king patiently abided the attention, even being roused out of his sleep after midnight by two reporters wanting an interview. He accommodated journalists and interacted with the general public, shaking hands and signing autographs, while crowds of curiosity seekers grew with each stop. Anticipation had grown so strong by the time he reached Washington that spectators gathered on rooftops to watch him pass by. Goodwill generated by Kalākaua contributed to pass the Reciprocity Treaty of 1875 through the necessary channels. The resulting close economic ties between the Hawaiian islands and the United States helped cause the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii in 1893.

All the stuff about the exact duration of the visit can be included, but it doesn't all need to be in the first sentence. And we definitely don't need to say that he returned. If the trip had been one-way, the article would have a different title. --MarchOrDie (talk) 21:20, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
MarchOrDie - Yeah ... if he didn't return, the article would have been titled "King Kalakaua's Abdication". I'm thinking about your revision. We might reach a compromise, with some slight differences. Not sure why you coded "less formal than a joint session" as you did, which KAVEBEAR re-coded. I don't use the nowiki coding, so am unsure of how this affects, or what either of you meant. Also, you eliminate "D.C." in the last paragraph. Not sure if you're saying it's redundant, but don't know policy on that (if there is a policy on it). Let me think this over. — Maile (talk) 16:40, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also, starting one pararaph with "King Kalākaua's" and the very next paragraph starting with "Kalākaua was", seems a bit visually repetitive. How about drop his name farther into the paragraph, like "...Hawaiian government sent Kalākaua to Washington... "?— Maile (talk) 18:42, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Recoded to avoid ref template on review page. KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:52, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
MarchOrDie - Long time, no hear. I appreciate all the time you spent looking at this, but I've decided not to make the changes. Recapping, and explaining fully:
  • changing "began in Honolulu on November 17, 1874" to "in late 1874" would almost guarantee the article being tagged with a "when?" tag. Too vague.
  • Starting the first paragraph with "King Kalākaua's" and the very next paragraph starting with "Kalākaua was" is not good practice.
  • Changing "the kingdom's sugar exports" to "the islands' sugar cane" is incorrect. It was a kingdom, not just a collective of islands, so it's necessary to say so. The sugar cane in the field wasn't being hit with tariffs. The source specifically says "all unrefined sugar". They weren't exporting the cane, but the sugar. It was refined in the United States, where the refineries were the prime customer. Hawaii plantations had mills to extract the sugar from the cane. The very first sentence under "The quest for tariff easement" section specifies the US refineries as the main customers.
  • Consistency - we should not say "Washington D. C." in one place, and have it as "Washington" in another.
  • ... contributed to pass the Reciprocity Treaty of 1875 through the necessary channels..." is not grammatically correct. "to the passage of" would be better. But the reason it is written as " is credited for doing much to help move legislation for the Reciprocity Treaty of 1875 through the necessary channels." is because historians credit him with that, people on the scene credit him with that, but there is no factual evidence of how many votes he moved one way or another.
  • "close economic ties between the Hawaiian islands and the United States helped cause the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii". Actually "a major factor leading to" the overthrow is more accurate. The overthrow of the kingdom was about money. The reciprocity treaty was so the plantation owners, mostly from the United States, could realize extreme wealth. Kalakaua knew it when he agreed to the trip, because the United States plantation owners were his financial/political backers. The plantation owners had a monopoly on the economy. A new constitution disenfranchised Hawaiian and Asian voters, but allowed non-residents to vote. Sugar money overthrew the monarchy. — Maile (talk) 02:12, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So, I really do appreciate the time you spent on this. But I believe how I wrote it is more accurate per the sources, and more in line with how a Featured Article should be written. Thank you so much for your time. — Maile (talk) 00:04, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My oppose on prose, specifically the dreadful lead, still stands. --MarchOrDie (talk) 07:20, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ian Rose You asked for this reviewer's comments, and he gave what you asked for. My response to his request is detailed above. FAC should never mean writing a lead that is factually incorrect and in direct contradiction with sourced information in the body of the article itself. Also, Wehwalt already came up with good phrasing for the lead, and I respect his FAC experience enough to follow his suggestions. Making the changes suggested above would get this article yanked at DYK (except it already passed there), where adherence to sourced accuracy, consistency, and Wikipedia guidelines, is primary. As far as I know FAC also has those standards. — Maile (talk) 13:26, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DYK is not FAC. FAC specifically has the requirement that prose needs to be "engaging and of a professional standard". Wehwalt is a good writer and editor but is no more infallible than the rest of us, and the lead you have come up with, while incrementally better than it was at the start of this process, is still almost comically bad. King Kalākaua's 91-day journey to the United States, and back again, began in Honolulu on November 17, 1874. Aargh! Just no. It's the "and back again". A career politician of the Kingdom of Hawaii who rose through the ranks of chiefs, he had previously been to California and Canada with Prince Lot in 1860 as a 23-year-old government bureaucrat, more than a dozen years away from his accession to the throne. Who? President Grant? These tricksy sentences are tricksy and you have to know what you're doing. It still isn't there I'm afraid. --MarchOrDie (talk) 07:43, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't think it was ideal, but I didn't find a better way of putting it that conveys the same information. When I review, I'm not trying to make the article to be written like I might, but to make it smoother and better within the author's style. Maybe phrasing involving the word "return"?--Wehwalt (talk) 09:17, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, exactly. I proposed a better lead but the nominator took issue with aspects of it and rejected it entirely. I think we need to be a bit dialectic about these discussions; it certainly can't pass as it is. --MarchOrDie (talk) 08:40, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to be clear here, it does seem like you are trying to get the lead rewritten to your own style. In doing so, your suggestions introduce errors and do not adhere to sourced content, as I have itemized above. Also, it seems your account has been active since 2012 and has only slightly over 3,000 edits. The Records reflect that you have never created an article. Not one. On the other hand, I have made over 89,000 edits to English Wikipedia and have global contributions of over 135,000 edits. I have created hundreds of articles, and reviewed hundreds of articles on all levels from Peer Review up through Featured. So far, all you've shown me is your own opinion, and tried to introduce errors. And comments such as "dreadful lead" are not appropriate and serve nobody's interest. No, I'm not doing what you say. — Maile (talk) 00:26, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How diligent of you. It might be better if you turned your energy to improving the lead, as Wehwalt has suggested. It can't really pass as it is. --MarchOrDie (talk) 01:03, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Kaiser matias edit

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

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

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

Source review edit

  • I salute KAVEBEAR's magical ability to dig through old newspapers and hit gold. I have no such ability, so I'm not going to try looking for any more sources that might possibly exist.
  • All of the sources appear to be mainstream news or respectable presses.
  • Via—I recommend removing this parameter, because it is already implied in the link and only serves to promote the website. So I would get rid of all of the "via newspapers.com" and "via HathiTrust" and the open access symbol. The default is open access if we're talking web links. Also, it really clutters up this section.
Answered below
  • For the same reason, I would ditch the "via Project Muse" and the link to paywalled book on Project Muse. Readers who have access to Project Muse can already find it there, and there's no need to state how you accessed the publication per WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT.
Answered below
  • I would get rid of links to Google books unless full text is available. For using the preview for verifiability purposes, I would recommend linking in the citation like so: {{sfn|SomeAuthor|xxxx|p=[url number]}}. This makes it easier to verify.
Answered below
Fixed
  • SIU Press spell this out, add location
Done
  • A. A. Knopf—needs location
Done
  • Honolulu: Honolulu, Advertiser Publishing Company. Duplicate Honolulu?
Fixed
  • University of California Press—needs location
Done
  • Fordham University Press—needs location
Done

As an aside: the first sentence should mention the Kingdom of Hawaii, which is not linked anywhere in the lede.

I understand what you are saying on this, truly. For the record, this was my original opening paragraph:
  • King Kalākaua's 91-day journey across the breadth of the United States began on November 17, 1874. A career politician of the Kingdom of Hawaii who rose through the ranks of chiefs, he had previously been to California and Canada with Prince Lot in 1860, as a 23-year-old government bureaucrat, more than a dozen years away from his accession to the throne.
It was changed at the suggestion of Wehwalt who, I might add, has more Featured Articles than any other editor: List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations. Now, I'm sure you can see why I figure he knows what he's talking about. There are other conversations above about changing the lead yet a different way. Everybody has their own individual idea of what the lead paragraph should say. No doubt, there will be more suggestions from others. So, right now, it's kind of a damned-if-you-do and damned-if-you-don't situation. We can only have one version, so I'm sticking with the reviewer who has the most FA's under his belt. Hope you understand. — Maile (talk) 02:04, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like what Wehmalt actually did was rearrange the sentences, not remove mention of "Kingdom of Hawaii" from the first paragraph. Currently, you are assuming that readers know that Hawaii exists and used to be a kingdom. Failing that, at least link Honolulu and Kingdom of Hawaii in the lede. Catrìona (talk) 11:09, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Catrìona (talk) 23:00, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Catrìona Thanks for checking this over. KAVEBEAR didn't come up with the sourcing on this article. I did. But he does have a knack for coming up with sourcing that nobody else seems to find. The websites Newspapers.com and ProjectMuse are subscription access through The Wikipedia Library/Databases. We very much should promote those, as Wikipedia has partnered with them so we get the access as individual approved subscriptions. I very distinctly remember early on when I first started using services through the Library, that we are supposed to notate in the citations where we got them, so the Library will know whether or not the access is being used. And if not used, they don't renew the user subscription. As for the open access, that definitely is not the default. I specifically made clippings of the newspaper articles, so the reader could access them as free access. No reader can access Newspapars.com without a subscription, unless it's a clipping. There's no reason we can't let the reader know they can access the clippings. And again, I was told to use the free access symbol. And I am leaving HathiTrust on there, beause it's one of the most valuable free sources Wikipedia editors can have. The more road signs you can leave to help other Wikipedia editors, the better. Links to Google Books is standard usage on Wikipedia, and you can get whacked down on reviews for not having the links. Back later on the rest, but I stand firm on what I just stated. — Maile (talk) 01:05, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Catrìona I've gone through everything you listed and changed what was appropriate. What was not changed, has been explained. I truly do thank you for your time and consideration on this. Hope you can understand that on some things, Wikipedia tends to be the right hand doing something different than the left hand, and both hands having their arguments for or against. Neither right, and neither wrong. I'm sticking with what I have explained above. So, whether you support this, or oppose this, I still thank you for taking your time to look at it. — Maile (talk) 02:14, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Those issues are not anywhere in the FA criteria, so I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. Support on sources. Catrìona (talk) 11:09, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: We seem to have hit a little bit of an impasse here. By my reckoning we have 2 supports (plus a support on sourcing) and 1 oppose. I think we would require more input from other reviewers on the lead. My view is that it could stand a little more polish, for example we have "His arrival at San Francisco on November 28 was the beginning of a state visit, making him the first reigning monarch to visit the United States" and "Upon his arrival in Washington, D.C., the United States Congress held the first joint meeting in the body's history, less formal than a joint session". I'm also conscious that this has been open for 2 months, and even were the oppose to be struck, there is still no consensus to promote after a considerable length of time. I think the best course may be to archive this now and start again in two weeks. Obviously, those who reviewed here can be pinged when this is renominated. But I think at this stage, a fresh start would be the best course for this FAC. Sarastro (talk) 21:56, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In case somebody opens this to see your comments. A technical note, for your information on your above comments. The reason it says "joint meeting" and "joint session", is that those are official names of Congressional processes, both of which take congressional approval to be held. It means both the House of Representatives and Senate, which usually meet only separately, formally agreed to meet in the same room. And it's a big deal when it happens. Meaningless without the word "joint". And as explained in the article, a joint session is a completely different type of gathering than joint meeting. — Maile (talk) 00:13, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 21:28, 10 January 2019 [21].


The Death of Superman edit

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

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

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

CommentsSupport by DWB edit

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

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

Comments by Favre1fan93 edit

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

These comments have been addressed
Lead edit
  • The crossover, devised by - change devised to conceived
  • It was published in - after this phrase, perhaps add "the titles"
    • I don't feel this is necessary because I think the first sentence makes it clear that it's published in comics. JOEBRO64 19:38, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Death of Superman" is divided into three parts. - change parts to story arcs
    • Done. JOEBRO64 19:38, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • You should add back "three" though, so its "divided into three story arcs". - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:07, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • the rest of the DC Universe mourning to his death - "to" isn't needed
    • Whoops, that's a typo. Fixed JOEBRO64 19:38, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • ending with his adoptive father Jonathan - pipe the link to Jonathan and Martha Kent to read "Jonathan Kent"
  • "The Death of Superman" established a number of characters - All three characters you listed after this debuted in this storyline, correct? If so, then it "established" should be "introduced". Established seems to indicated they were created previously and gain more prominence because of this storyline
    • Done. I'd chosen established because some of them had technically appeared beforehand, but were not developed much. JOEBRO64 19:38, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Great. Yeah, I think for all intents, "introduced" is better, because I'm sure those earlier introductions were for their use in this story line. - Favre1fan93 (talk)
  • received unprecedented coverage from the mainstream media and caused a sensation - what sensation? Please clarify this, or change the word
    • I've cut it because I don't think it's necessary. What I meant by "sensation" that it was such a big event. JOEBRO64 19:38, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks. I knew what it meant, just trying to get to the use of it in the sentence as you intended. I like it not being used there as well. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:07, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retrospective reviewers are divided, with some finding the story ambitious and influential, while others dismiss it as a publicity stunt - move "the story" after divided and change its current use to "it", making the sentence Retrospective reviewers are divided on the story, with some finding it ambitious and influential, while others dismiss it as a publicity stunt
  • a beat 'em up video game in 1994 - the link here is an WP:EGG link
  • A loose animated adaptation - add "film" after animated
  • A second animated adaptation will be released as a two-part film, The Death of Superman and Reign of the Supermen, in 2018 and 2019. - the first film was already released so "will be released" isn't correct. Please rephrase
    • Rephrased to: A second, two-part animated adaptation was announced in 2017; the first part, The Death of Superman, was released in 2018, while the second, Reign of the Supermen, will be released in 2019.
      • Can you please add "film" again in your newly rephrased sentence? Just want to be super clear that they are films and not TV series. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:07, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Background edit
  • A comma is needed after 1938
  • Superman's comics take place - Should just be "Superman comics"
  • I'm not sure the entire first paragraph is needed. I don't see how having that info is relevant to this particular storyline. The info a reader needs to know as background really starts in the second paragraph about Crisis and Byrne.
    • I've removed a bit about the fact he was created as a villain but I'm hesitant to remove some of the other details. The DCU concept is important because this storyline is a crossover, and the original Superman comic launching in 1939 connects to Byrne's relaunch. JOEBRO64 19:38, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm okay with the reword, and keeping the 1939 info. But I don't think you need these sentences: Superman comics take place within a shared universe called the DC Universe, which also includes characters like Batman, Wonder Woman, and the Flash, among others. This allows plot devices, characters, and settings to cross over with each other. This isn't necessary to know with this storyline being a crossover. If anything, I would rather you expand on this sentence Connecting stories also became harder due to the new, diverse creative teams, whereas Byrne had managed most of them on his own. from paragraph 3, but I think by itself, you are understanding that Byrne did stories himself, and once he left, it was hard for the new teams to make interconnected stories across the books. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:07, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • How does it look now? I've added a mention that under Byrne the Superman comics became interconnected, and added a footnote explaining the DCU stuff.
          • I still don't think you need that. Much like the concern over the Vertigo note, this is some extra info that the reader doesn't need to understand this story. Another thought, looking at this again, is if you gave a very short description of what Crisis did for Superman in the reboot after that opening sentence, or a bit on what Byrne's re-envisioning looked like, I think you'll be good to go. Also, you need to move the first link to DC Universe to this paragraph. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:36, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
            • Removed the footnote and explained a bit about the reboot. I've clarified what the DC Universe is with this: Its conclusion resulted in the DC Universe—the shared universe that the publisher's comics, including those related to Superman, take place in—being rebooted. JOEBRO64 20:12, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reference after The relaunch was a major success for DC should move to the end of the sentence per WP:REFPUNC
  • Byrne also wrote and illustrated Action Comics and worked on The Adventures of Superman with artist Jerry Ordway. - What was Byrne's work on Adventures? I'm assuming as writer. Please clarify
  • He spent two years on the Superman comics before leaving - after "leaving" put "in 1988", just to help contextualize the time period we are dealing with
  • A unique method of making the writers work together, the summit focused their attention on the next year's worth of stories. - reword to The summit was a unique method of making the writers work together, focusing their attention the the next year's worth of stories. That reads better to me
  • These meetings were often dysfunctional. According to Superman writer/penciler Dan Jurgens, "Generally,... - combine these sentences. Something like These meetings were often dysfunctional, with Superman writer/penciler Dan Jurgens noting, "Generally...
  • Carlin recalled that often had to act like a babysitter for the eighteen divergent, artistic egos crowded in one room. Often, the teams compromised. - missing "he" between "often and "had". Also, combine these sentences as well
  • You need to add a title for Paul Levitz so we know what he was within DC. Was he an editor at this time or the publisher?
  • so a fourth comic, writer Louise Simonson and penciler Jon Bogdanove's Superman: The Man of Steel, started - rephrase as so a fourth comic Superman: The Man of Steel, written by Louise Simonson and pencilled by Jon Bogdanove, started
  • While the teams - add "creative" before teams
  • "a fraction" of the numbers bestselling comics - there should be a hyphen in "bestselling" I believe. Also, can you see if there is a reference quantifying the sales numbers of Spider-Man. It would help for comparison to the Superman numbers
    • "Bestselling" is grammatically correct without a hyphen ([22]). I did find a reference saying that Spider-Man sold 500,000 copies on average in 1992. JOEBRO64 19:38, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Since that link is in regards to the Amazing Spider-Man title, and you had the prose formatted to go to the Peter Parker: Spider-Man title, I think you should adjust. Make the prose "a fraction" of the numbers bestselling comics featuring Spider-Man enjoyed (no formatting on Spider-Man to be talking about the character and not a single book). The Washington Post source doesn't indicate they were talking about the Peter Parker title anyways. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:07, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Development edit
  • Ordway's caption should have a citation because you are describing something he did, not simply identifying him
  • DC sister company Warner Bros. - make DC "DC's"
  • Superman brand to remain consistent across forms of media. - add "all" between across and forms
  • the teams needed new event to replace it - need an "a" after needed
  • Combine Carlin liked the idea. and In the documentary film Look, Up in the Sky: The Amazing Story of Superman, he recalled, "the world was taking Superman for granted, so we literally said 'let's show what the world would be like without Superman'." such as Carlin liked the idea,[ref] and in the documentary film...
  • Add (2006) after Look, Up in the Sky: The Amazing Story of Superman
  • Combine Jurgens formally pitched "The Death of Superman". and DC let the project move forward, which shocked Ordway. Probably just with an "and" between them, and then the ref for the old first sentence moving to after the period.
  • Siegel felt it was "a good way to shake things up." The teams felt better knowing he approved - use a semicolon to combine these sentences over two individual sentences
  • Bogdanove recalled the story - add "how" after recalled
  • Jurgens created the concepts of a monster tearing apart - add "had" after Jurgens. Also, just to clarify for myself and that I'm reading this correctly, the monster tearing apart Metropolis was one idea, and a singular fight was another. Those two got put together for this storyline, so it was a single fight that destroyed Metropolis.
    • Done. And yea you're reading it correctly JOEBRO64 01:12, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • the works of Image Comics inspired it. - what works? The titles published or existing characters and designs?
    • @Argento Surfer: I believe this was one of the bits I got from your sandbox. Does the source go into any detail? JOEBRO64 17:19, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • It only mean the general Image style. No specific title or author was mentioned. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:10, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks. I've reworded it slightly to make it clearer JOEBRO64 01:12, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks Argento! In that case, let's reword those sentences to the following: Jurgens' design—a massive, muscular humanoid with bones ripping through his skin—won,[5][10] and was inspired by the design style used by Image Comics. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:34, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Combine this sentence The writers thought giving Doomsday an origin was not important. with They chose to name this villain "Doomsday" after Carlin wrote the phrase "doomsday for Superman" on the whiteboard used for planning.. Perhaps like They chose to name this villain "Doomsday" after Carlin wrote the phrase "doomsday for Superman" on the whiteboard used for planning, and did not feel giving him an origin was important. Where it was felt out of place after all the good design info.
  • is not invincible and can be killed by something besides Kryptonite - I think "could" instead of can is correct here
  • had fun writing about peoples' reactions to his death - "peoples'" should be "other characters'"
  • They did not intend for Superman's death to be permanent - is "they" the creatives or DC?
  • would be temporary - add a comma after "temporary" for REFPUNC
  • However, they delayed all Superman comics - again, is "they" the creatives or DC?
    • Creatives. Clarified JOEBRO64 01:12, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The media attention (see At release section) - format as such [[#At release|The media attention]]
  • Furthermore, the teams knew bringing Superman back here would be illogical. They held an emergency summit at a hotel in Terrytown, New York, where they plotted the final parts of the story. - combine these as Furthermore, the teams knew bringing Superman back here would be illogical and held an emergency summit at a hotel in Terrytown, New York, where they plotted the final parts of the story.
  • Format The Supermen were created using several existing characters (Eradicator, Superboy, Hank Henshaw, and John Henry Irons). as The Supermen were created using several existing characters: Eradicator, Superboy, Hank Henshaw, and John Henry Irons.
  • Change Issue #500 was Ordway's last issue to The Adventures of Superman #500 was Ordway's last issue on the title
  • characters from DC's mature comics line appearing - EGG again
    • Done. I've also added a note explaining the ban. JOEBRO64 01:12, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Images: In addition to the Commons images you have in this section, I'd suggest adding an image of either the iconic spread of Lois holding the dead Superman, or perhaps a panel of Superman in his new look with long hair and black suit.
Publication edit
  • The second sentence is a bit confusing to me. Perhaps the first part of that before the semicolon could be adjusted to "Doomsday!" was first alluded to in Simonson's Superman: The Man of Steel #17 (November 1992);
    • Yea I see what you mean. Done JOEBRO64 20:23, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Combine the following to: "Doomsday!" began the following issue, in which Doomsday is unleashed and begins to carve a brutal path of destruction across America, leading to Superman's death in Superman #75 (January 1993) Also, only one reference tag is needed to cite all of that since it is the same reference.
    • Done. I've also removed the date for #75 because it's mentioned prior JOEBRO64 20:23, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • What was the platinum edition for issue #75? If there is some info available to describe that, that'd be great.
    • I've actually removed it because it was the exact same as the collector's edition, Superman's bloody logo was just silver instead JOEBRO64 20:23, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I found this source that talks a bit more on the platinum edition. If you think this is reliable, I'd say add the info back in along with stuff from this source. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:26, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think the site's interesting and useful but unfortunately not reliable. Strikes me as a hobbyist site and not a journalist with credentials. JOEBRO64 13:41, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The collector's edition cost more than the standard edition. - should be added to the listing in the previous sentence. So a collector's edition sold in a polybag with a black armband, poster, stickers, and a trading card, which cost more than the standard edition;
  • "Funeral for a Friend", which focuses - should start the second paragraph. Also, put some sort of wording in there to indicate this is the second story arc
  • all the Superman comics went on the hiatus - "the" not needed. I know you are referencing the info stated earlier in the article, but if a reader were to jump right here, they might be confused. Also, no need for the ref tag after "hiatus", as it is the same as the next ref tag that comes up
    • Done. The ref was a VE mess-up, I think. JOEBRO64 20:23, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • which ended with the release of The Adventures of Superman #500. - adjust to until the release of The Adventures of Superman #500 in June 1993.
  • The final part - change "part" to "story arc" for consistency
  • the 46th issue of Green Lantern - make Green Lantern #46
  • DC "aggressively" promoted "The Death of Superman". According to Vulture's Abraham Riesman, the company had financial incentives to do so, as comic book speculation was at its peak. - shift this info to According to Vulture's Abraham Riesman, DC "aggressively" promoted "The Death of Superman" since the company had financial incentives to do so, as comic book speculation was at its peak. this will help attribute the "aggressively" to Riesman
  • Link Vulture to Vulture (blog)
  • For Superman #75, DC issued a press kit... - this could maybe move up earlier in the section to where you talk about Superman 75, but I understand why it currently is where it is since it fits with the preceding sentence
  • Since this section seems tied with "Arcs" below, I would suggest combining the two of them. Alternatively, leave In May 1993, DC published a special issue... and the last paragraph in this section, and move everything else below the table in "Arcs".
    • I've shuffled most of the arc information down to overview. JOEBRO64 13:41, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Collected editions edit
  • You need sources for the 2007 omnibus collection and the 2016 reissues.
    • These technically don't need references because they're WP:PRIMARY. Anyone who has a copy of the collections can verify the details presented here. A similar thing is done at The Infinity Gauntlet, which is a GA.
      • The book themselves are PRIMARY, but I still would feel better having third party sources to cite the release dates and contents. DC's own website can be used for all of them. Also, it looks like there will be a new Omnibus printing in 2019, per that DC website link. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:36, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've added some of the DC website's info with sources.
  • This section may be better served as a level 2 header between "Reception" and "Adaptions"
    • I don't feel strongly about this, but the collected editions are technically part of the publication history so I feel like it'd be out of place to put it in between the plot and reception and adpatations. JOEBRO64 20:32, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was suggesting after reception, not right after the plot. Only because the collected editions are a bit "after the fact" and not really a thought when developing the story. This isn't major, but I think it would be good to consider moving the section where I suggested. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:36, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Arcs edit
  • I think it would be better to have individual rows for each title, so you can better indicate the creative teams for those titles. Here is an example of what I mean for "Doomsday!"
Title Issues Cover dates Writers Pencilers Inkers
"Doomsday!" Action Comics #684 December 1992 – January 1993 Roger Stern Jackson Guice Denis Rodier
The Adventures of Superman #497 Jerry Ordway Tom Grummett Doug Hazelwood
Justice League America #69 Dan Jurgens Dan Jurgens Rick Burchett
Superman: The Man of Steel #18–19 Louise Simonson Jon Bogdanove Dennis Janke
Superman #74–75 Dan Jurgens Dan Jurgens; Brett Breeding Brett Breeding
  • The wikicode needs to be updated for the table. Please use the code I have below:
{| class="wikitable" width=100%
! scope="col" align="center" | Title
! scope="col" align="center" | Issues
! scope="col" align="center" | [[Cover dates]]
! scope="col" align="center" | Writers
! scope="col" align="center" | Pencilers
! scope="col" align="center" | Inkers
|-
! scope="row" | "Doomsday!"
...
|-
! scope="row" | "Funeral for a Friend"
...
|-
! scope="row" | "Reign of the Supermen!"
Updated. JOEBRO64 13:41, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there any way to cite all the creative teams of the issues and the issues involved?
    • I think this also falls under WP:PRIMARY; the authors are on the cover/opening pages of every issue.
  • For "Funeral for a Friend", why does Superman jump from issues 76 and 77 to issue 83? That seems like something good to cover. Also, the "#" before 83 isn't needed
    • I've added a footnote explaining it—it was an epilogue issue. JOEBRO64 13:41, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for the footnote. If that information is at all possible to have a source attached to it, please do. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:36, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Characters edit
  • Add "Kal-El" to Superman, so "Superman (Kal-El / Clark Kent)"
  • Combine He is the last remaining resident from the planet Krypton; his father to He is the last remaining resident from the planet Krypton after his father
  • Link "Supergirl" to Supergirl (Matrix)
    • Done. Wasn't linked there because I'd mentioned her in development before reshuffling and copyediting the article before nominating it. JOEBRO64 13:41, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • but can also shapeshift - change the "but" to "and"
  • A reference is needed for the last sentence in Supergirl's description
  • Combine He is wealthy, powerful, and intelligent. He is also Superman's archenemy, viewing him as a threat to humanity. to He is wealthy, powerful, and intelligent, and Superman's archenemy, viewing him as a threat to humanity. to avoid back-to-back "He is" sentence starters
  • Remove making him a deadly threat to Superman.
  • Add Hamilton's first name, since you use it in the synopsis below
  • Swap the formatting of "Hal Jordan (Green Lantern)" to "Green Lantern (Hal Jordan)" to replicate the previously established formatting
  • Image: Add art credits for each of the promotional images in the caption
Synopsis edit
  • Does "the country" mean America? If so, please use "America" there
    • Yeah it's America. Done JOEBRO64 13:41, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jimmy, Ice, Bloodwynd, and Guardian are also present at the end - You might need to introduce Ice and Bloodwynd as part of the JLI earlier. Or, in this sentence, state Jimmy, JLI members Ice and Bloodwynd, and Guardian are also present at the end just so we know who they are
  • Jimmy should become Olsen for consistency with naming of other characters
  • Add "President and First Lady" (and a links to President of the United States and First Lady of the United States) before Bill and Hilary Clinton
  • Combine Superboy asks Steel to help him fight the Cyborg. Superman and Supergirl join the two and travel to Engine City. to one sentence
  • The gas kills Eradicator and passes to Superman, but, as it evolved in Eradicator, allows him to regain his powers and defeat the Cyborg - This (The gas kills Eradicator and passes to Superman) is awkward and the "him" needs clarifying
    • Reworded to The gas kills Eradicator, but also evolves, so when it passes into Superman he regains his powers and defeats the Cyborg. JOEBRO64 13:41, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm still not really happy with that. Would The gas kills Eradicators but also evolves within him. The evolved gas passes into Superman, allowing him to regain his powers and defeat the Cyborg. be work and still be accurate to the events of the story? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:36, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, implemented (I only made a minor change to avoid repetition.) JOEBRO64 20:04, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
At release edit
  • pounced upon the 'story.' - What is "the story"? Because it is quoted as 'story', does it mean "The Death of Superman", the actual killing of Superman, or the news story surrounding the crossover? Maybe end the quote after "upon" to clarify what Weldon meant.
    • The killing of Superman, modified JOEBRO64 20:22, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move The story made the front page of Newsday. to after Weldon's quote and combine it in that sentence
  • This sensation was partially caused by it being a slow news day. - this seems trivial
    • Yea I see what you mean. Removed JOEBRO64 20:22, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mark Potts (The Washington Post) - reformat to Mark Potts of The Washington Post
  • the event - make "killing Superman"
  • Move the Potts quote to the end of the paragraph, and in doing that, combine The story made the front page of Newsday. after Weldon's quote
  • hit the media - make "were covered by the media"
  • Black Lightning (Sinbad) - make "Black Lightning, portrayed by Sinbad,"
  • The Siegel info seems awkwardly attached to the end of the SNL info. I'm not entirely sure where it should go though instead of where it is
    • I've moved it down to the part about the success, as Carlin mentioned in the source that's when it happened. JOEBRO64 19:17, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link "collector's item" to Collectable
  • showed up - I think you mean "purchased" here
  • The month of release, sales from Superman #75 doubled DC's market share. - Make Sales from Superman #75 doubled DC's market share in January 1993.
    • Done, but changed it to November 1992 as that's when the issue hit stores (it's covered earlier in the article; January '93 is the cover date) JOEBRO64 20:22, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The four bestselling issues of 1993 were Superman-related. - I think it's worth listing these four titles
    • Done. JOEBRO64 20:22, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • You should put them in the actual sentence, no need for a note here. So The four bestselling issues of 1993 were The Adventures of Superman #500, Action Comics #687, Superman #78, and Superman: The Man of Steel #22. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:53, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • of the high traffic - make of the increased customers
  • fancy cover enhancements - remove fancy
  • thousands closed - If the thousands refers to retailers, which I'm assuming it does, make thousands of stores closed
  • investors - this doesn't seem correct, since one can't put investment in a single comic title. I'm looking at the book source and of course I can't access the full page the info is on, only a small snippet where I do see the use of "investors", but I'm assuming it means people who bought the comic?
In later years edit
  • The Death Of Sad Sack - "of" should be lowercase
  • Chris Sims believes that... Weldon speculates - "believes" and "speculates" should be past tense
  • Gerard Jones - who is he? Give him some declarative to identify him
  • Stern believed... - the quote here isn't needed
  • I think you should somehow move Potts' thoughts from the previous section some in these first three paragraphs, because they all are about the publicity stunt angle. Reading through and getting to this section after readings Potts' thoughts makes it seem like a weird break between them
    • My problem with moving it is that the Potts stuff is contemporary, so it'd be out of place to have it in a retrospective section. For now I've just changed it to say he didn't think it'd last JOEBRO64 13:20, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • For all the people/organizations listed, as with before, remove the () around the organization. To vary them, you can use "Person of organization", "Organization's person", or "Person, writing for organization" formatting
  • if well-done, central narrative."[96] - the ref here isn't needed, since it is the same as the one after the next sentence
  • On the negative side - make "Conversely,"
  • 90's - thought its quoted, to comply with MOS:DECADE, change to 1990s
  • "more of trading cards that intend to tell a story than an actual comic story." - adjust to "trading cards to intend[ed] to tell a story than an actual comic story."
  • disliked it - what is "it"?
    • The story. Clarified JOEBRO64 13:20, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Legacy in comics edit
  • "With the industry in freefall," wrote Weldon, - adjust this. Despite these similar story attempts, Weldon commented that the industry "was in freefall" and "death/disabling stunts offered only brief sales spikes."
  • portrayed by Superman fan - add basketball player before Superman fan
    • Not sure why I didn't think of this before, added JOEBRO64 13:25, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • was killed in Infinite Crisis (2005–2006), - ref not needed after this, as used after the Cyborg Superman info.
  • featuring Doomsday include - include should be past tense
  • called the New 52 - The is capital
  • relaunched - relaunch
    • I'd noticed this right before you commented but didn't have time to fix it... done JOEBRO64 13:25, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Adaptions edit
  • Link "young adult" to Young adult fiction
  • Unlink "video game" as a common term
  • Add "game" after "beat 'em up"
    • IMO this isn't necessary. The previous sentence establishes it's a game, and it's kinda tautological because all beat 'em ups are video games JOEBRO64 21:53, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • fight-to-the-death - can simply be "fight"
  • the franchise - make the Superman franchise and link all of that to Superman in film
    • Done, but didn't link because it's linked in the reception section. JOEBRO64 21:53, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Warner Bros. released an animated film adaptation, Superman: Doomsday, direct-to-video in 2007. - rearrange to Warner Bros. released an animated direct-to-video film adaption, Superman: Doomsday, in 2007.
  • to fit it within - remove the "it"
  • Superman's black suit from "Reign of the Supermen!" - remove "from "Reign of the Supermen!"
  • when he is resurrected in the films - when he was resurrected in the film
  • but scrapped the idea in the pre-production phase of Justice League. - make simply but scrapped the idea in pre-production
  • Link to The Death of Superman (film). Though you do link it earlier in the Legacy section, it is piped, so another link would be helpful here (or adjust the pipe in Legacy)
  • Compared to Doomsday - use the full title here for clarity
References edit
  • Please archive all online sources via WebCitation.org, Archive.org/Wayback Machine, or Archive.is to prevent WP:LINKROT
    • Done. JOEBRO64 19:41, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • You've since added some more online references since this initial comment. It doesn't have to be right now, but before the review closes and you address all editors' comments, please archive any remaining URLs you haven't. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:35, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 3 - link Random House
  • Ref 6 - link Vulture (blog)
  • Ref 7, 13 - is there an author(s) for these?
    • Yes for 7, no for 13. JOEBRO64 22:10, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refs 9, 10, and 23 are the same offline source. Make one citation, and where you use it in the article, after the </ref> put {{rp}} with page numbers you need
  • Refs 22, 59, 103 - SHOUTING
  • Ref 54 - link Superman: The Man of Steel
  • Ref 58 - Here's the live URL to use (with a subsequent re-archive)
  • Ref 110 - link Titan Books to Titan Publishing Group
Discussion edit

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

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

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

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

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

Added comments for "In later years" and "Legacy in comics". - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:55, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Favre1fan93, I just wanted to ask if you think the polybagged cover of Superman #75 ([23]) is technically a free image? The Superman logo is PD since it's just a triangle and an "S", and I don't think the drips of blood are original enough to make it copyrighted. JOEBRO64 19:25, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@TheJoebro64: I think you're correct. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:11, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've added it to the publication section. JOEBRO64 13:51, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
...aaaand someone's tagged it for deletion JOEBRO64 20:24, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should be fine. Maybe you did not use the correct public domain/trademark templates to tag it for use? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:08, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Last few comments added for "Adaptions" and the references. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:35, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All of my comments have been addressed. I give my support for this nomination. Well done! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:08, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Argento Surfer edit

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

Support from MaranoFan edit

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

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

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

Comments by Cognissonance edit

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

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

@Cognissonance, thank you so much for taking the time to review! I've responded to your points above and also did some copyediting to remove some repetition. JOEBRO64 00:51, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Count me in as support for the nomination. Good luck. Cognissonance (talk) 09:34, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47 edit

  • I do not believe that the following caption (Cover of Superman vol. 2, #75 (Jan 1993) Art by Dan Jurgens and Brett Breeding.) should have punctuation as it is a complete sentence.
  • For this caption (Interior artwork from Superman #75 (January 1993), depicting Lois Lane mourning the dead Superman. Art by Dan Jurgens and Brett Breeding.), I do not believe the second sentence needs punctuation as it is not a complete, standalone idea.
  • A wikilink for “mausoleum” seems unnecessary to me.
    • I see what you mean, removed JOEBRO64 22:57, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the “Den of Geek” parts, I believe that it should have an exclamation point at the end.

Great work with the article! Ths FAC has appeared to received a lot of commentary already, and it is very polished. Once my relatively minor comments are addressed, Once they are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this nomination. If you have time, I would greatly appreciate any feedback on my current peer review on an article that I would ideally like to put through the FAC process sometime in January. I understand if you are not interested or do not have time. Either way, I hope you have a wonderful rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 01:48, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47, thank you for taking the time to review! I've responded above and will look at your PR later this week. JOEBRO64 22:57, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for addressing everything. I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 23:04, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review by Hawkeye7 edit

Not a lot of images in this one.

All images have appropriate licences. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:31, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Laser brain edit

Oppose on 1a thus far. I've just been through the lead but I find the writing to be clunky and inelegant. It's possibly at a GA standard but not what's required for a Featured article. Some examples, and I hope to make it through the rest of the text today:

  • I had trouble following the explanation in the lead of why the marriage storyline was postponed. They wanted to ensure the comic was running the story at the same time as the show? Prose needs clarity.
  • "[T]he writing teams felt the concept would allow them to explore why the character matters" This strikes me as clunky writing and I'm sure the underlying idea can be conveyed more elegantly.
  • "The third sees the emergence of the Supermen, four individuals claiming to be Superman, and the original's return." This isn't particularly clear... I had to read through a few times to understand what you are conveying.
  • "'The Death of Superman' introduced a number of characters" You're switching tenses in writing about the arc, even in the lead. --Laser brain (talk) 14:15, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Laser brain: thanks for taking a look at this so far; I've just done a copyedit of the lead and Publication history. I'll get to the rest of the article very soon JOEBRO64 21:37, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

indopug edit

I might come in with a more detailed review soon. For now, I think you should remove all the ISBNs from the prose; they make the text ugly and somewhat unreadable. In any case they're probably useless; surely search for books by googling their names rather than looking up ISBNs?—indopug (talk) 16:39, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Indopug, done. Replaced the ISBNs with normal citations JOEBRO64 22:13, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sarastro edit

Oppose on 1b and 1c: It's actually quite hard to see what references have been used as there is no bibliography with this article. There are a few print sources used, but they are listed in among the references rather than in a bibliography. And I'm not sure how well used they are; for example, the phrase "to immediate success" is cited to the whole Larry Tye book, which seems a little strange. A whole book to cite three words? Has the book even been consulted?

Furthermore, I don't think we have consulted all the available sources. I'm a little concerned that we have few print sources when a huge amount of written (as opposed to drawn) material exists about Superman, some of it quite scholarly. For example, I'm not at all an expert on Superman, but I know there is a book "Superman: The Unauthorised Biography" which would probably have quite a lot on this topic. Our article on Superman, although no longer a FA, has a list of print sources which will presumably have plenty of information on his death. A quick check on Google revealed that there is writing on the death in The Ages of Superman: Essays on the Man of Steel in Changing Times edited by Joseph J. Darowski. And a search of JSTOR shows several academic articles looking at the death of Superman. Now, it is possible that none of these sources have much in them, but I suspect they will; they were easy enough to find with just a few minutes searching. The fact that they are not used, and have possibly not even been looked at makes me think we are failing on criteria 1b and 1c (particularly the "thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature" part). And more academic sources are preferable to the online reviews and specialist websites which we seem to be mainly using for references at the moment.

A final point (again with the qualification that I'm NOT a comics expert by any means): if I recall correctly, in the 1990s there was a huge collapse in the comics market, and we only hint at this in the article. But I'm pretty sure that this was attributed to a large extent to the cash in of Death of Superman, and things like multiple printings and variant covers. It's possible I'm not making sense as this isn't my area. Just a few points on the sourcing of this topic as well:

  • "However, many retailers say The Adventures of Superman #500 was the beginning of a decline in the comic industry. Retailers and distributors were stuck with unsold copies" is referenced to page 135 of the Gearino book. I cannot see the page numbers in a google preview but I'm interested in what the source says to back up this statement. "and thousands of stores closed" is referenced to a book on Batman.
  • "Additionally, those who bought Superman #75 could only sell first printings for cover price a few months after its release" is not quite the same emphasis as in the Randy Duncan book it is sourced to. The source says "They could only recover their purchase price if they had a first printing", which is very slightly different. Our article reads as if they were selling first printings and only getting the cover price. The source says that the only way to recover the cover price is if they had a first printing. Subtly different, but still different. Incidentally, this source covers this ground quite thoroughly.

I think this article has quite a way to go on sourcing to meet the FA criteria so I'm afraid I have to oppose. Sarastro (talk) 12:39, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sarastro1, I had spent days looking for sources on this article and never came across those... I can't believe that. @FAC coordinators: you can archive this one. I'll spend a month or so doing more research. JOEBRO64 20:24, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Tks Joe. Can I suggest that after doing your research and improvements you ping the reviewers above for a reality check (a peer review in effect, either formal or just a discussion on the article talk page) before renominating here? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:27, 10 January 2019 (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) 14:31, 9 January 2019 [24].

Lewis Hamilton edit

Nominator(s): Formulaonewiki (talk) 00:29, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Formula One driver Lewis Hamilton, and I believe it meets the Featured article criteria and is a example of wikipedia's best work. Formulaonewiki (talk) 00:29, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brief comment edit

Although generally well-cited (500+) there are several paragraphs which end with uncited statements. See "2001–2005: Formula Renault and Formula Three"; "2006 season: GP2"; "2010 season: Another title challenge". Check for others. Brianboulton (talk) 16:10, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have added all necessary citations for the uncited statements you highlighted (and removed one I could not find a source for). Let me know if there's any other you spotted. --Formulaonewiki (talk) 19:27, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External link checks:

  • Ref 177: is this the intended source page (title is different)?
  • Refs 268, 419 and 436 are dead links
  • Check 478: the details in the sources relate to the 2018 season, yet you are showing a retrieval date November 2014> Brianboulton (talk) 21:22, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced Ref 177, 268 and 419. I assume you meant 437 as 436 seemed fine to me, have removed that as was dead and not necessary. I'm not sure which ref you're referring to with 478, can you clarify and I'll fix it asap? Thanks. --Formulaonewiki (talk) 22:56, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've reinstated two of the sources you replaced. Replacement wasn't in fact necessary as they were easily salvageable through the Web archive. I'm still working on the last one.Tvx1 17:33, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads up Tvx1, I hadn't considered that. Will do when fixing dead links in future. --Formulaonewiki (talk) 17:51, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I believe that we should not nominate articles on active drivers, especially ones battling for the title each season, as Featured Article candidates. This is because it creates problems with the stability criteria. An and article like this one still changes significantly over the months. We currently do not have any Featured Articles on active drivers and there is good reason for that.Tvx1 17:15, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I hear you, although I would say that the changes would not be significant. The main changes will only be to the results summaries at the bottom (which aren't contentious) and to the season summaries which - if updated like they were this season - are generally maintained well by a few regular editors (including myself), and the article is semi-protected which should hopefully reduce poorly sourced, though good faith, edits. The majority of the article will stay the same. Interested to see some more opinions though. --Formulaonewiki (talk) 17:57, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, suggest withdrawal: I think this article needs a lot of work, away from FAC, to meet the FA criteria. From a quick look, there are quite severe problems. These are samples only. Sarastro (talk) 12:55, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Length: The article is 12,922 words in [this] version. That is far, far too long for a driver who has only been around for 11 years. This needs to be cut back drastically, and a lot of the detail needs to be removed and summarised.
  • Part of this problem is to do with structure: we don't need a (long) section on every season, and we don't need to refer to so many individual race reports. It is better to summarise the season much more concisely, and this could be done by finding better sources: don't use race reports but use books/articles that give more of a summary of his career.
  • We have a list of print sources which are not used at all in the article. I think they need to be used, to be blunt.
  • The Sun is used as a source. I'm not sure this should be used as a source anywhere at all, but it is not a source of sufficiently high quality for a FA.
  • What makes driverdb.com a reliable source? It seems to be user generated.
  • "Hamilton is regarded as one of the most complete drivers on the grid. The all-time record holder for most pole positions, Hamilton is considered one of the fastest qualifiers in the history of the sport, and has received praise for his ability to produce fast laps at crucial moments" is sourced to qualifying report which only verifies that he has more poles than anyone.
  • The section on the Rosberg rivalry is too long. What about the Alonso rivalry? What about something on his relationship with teammates in general? I seem to remember he didn't get along with Jenson Button, but did with Kovalainen.
  • There don't appear to be any sources giving an overview of his career. For example, most sources I've seen suggest he is a better driver now than he was, that he was hot-headed when he was younger, that he thrived with the greater freedom given to him at Mercedes. None of this is even hinted in the article which focuses too much on individual seasons and races. There is a lot missing, for example the content of this article.
  • The Personal life section is too long and list-y and does not seem to have a coherent structure. And it's too much like trivia. No one is going to read this article to find out about his music or clothing line.
  • I'm something of a Hamilton fan myself, but he is incredibly unpopular with many F1 people. We don't, from a quick glance, seem to address this at all. We should mention how divisive he is and why.
  • And the elephant in the room is racism. His race is a big deal and we skirt over it slightly. We don't mention the racism he has encountered and which he has talked about a lot, for example when he first got into racing. And we can't just limit his experiences of racial abuse to 2008 in Spain. There have been other instances. How much of his unpopularity is because of his racism? That has been suggested before, in numerous places. It needs to be covered, we can't just ignore this if it's covered in sources. And I find it hard to believe that, for example, his autobiography doesn't cover it.

I could go on, but these are samples only and I think there is more work to do than can be done in this FAC. Therefore, I'm afraid I am opposing. Sarastro (talk) 12:55, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- Based on the comments above, there does appear to be plenty of scope for improvement to the article, which should take outside the FAC process, so I'll be archiving this shortly. Per FAC instructions, pls allow at least two weeks before re-nominating. After actioning outstanding comments, I'd recommend that we get some eyes on the article before bringing it back, either a formal Peer Review or by inviting the reviewers above to give it the once-over and discuss any concerns on the talk page. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:31, 9 January 2019 (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/January_2019&oldid=881015250"