Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/July 2021

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) 28 July 2021 [1].

---

Frozen II

Nominator(s): Wingwatchers (talk) 02:59, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Promoted to Good Article by Pamzeis, and Chompy Ace and Wingwatchers

This article, a Good Article, is about two princess who sought to uncover the origin of Elsa's magical powers.

• Comment (I helped get this article so I may be considered a "significant contributor"): fair use rationale for File:Frozen2 Elsa Hairstyle Animation Development.jpg likely needs improvement. Pamzeis (talk) 05:00, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Fixed Wingwatchers (talk) 17:17, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Added Wingwatchers (talk) 17:19, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

• Please do not use graphics or templates on FAC nomination pages as it can slow down the page load time. This is in the FAC notes on the top of the FAC page. Aoba47 (talk) 18:17, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Fixed Wingwatchers (talk) 22:44, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Image review by Aoba47 (pass)

Addressed comments

File:Frozen II (2019 animated film).jpg: Everything looks good here. It has a clear and complete rationale, appropriate ALT text, and the source link works and goes to the appropriate image. File:Frozen2 Elsa Hairstyle Animation Development.jpg: The "Media data and Non-free use rationale" box is not complete. There are two areas that have "n.a." and those should be both filled out. I also think the following explanations, "It's too complex" and "I will respect and follow all the rules noted above", are not particularly well-written and I would expand on them with something stronger. I would also make the source link for the image not just a bare URL. The link for the post is a good example on how to avoid this. Hopefully, done. Pamzeis (talk) 02:40, 19 July 2021 (UTC) Thank you for this. It looks good to me. Aoba47 (talk) 17:56, 19 July 2021 (UTC) I am surprised that the article does not use any images from the Wikimedia Commons. For instance, both directors (Chris Buck and Jennifer Lee) have images that could be incorporated into the "Development" section. Added an image of Del Vecho, Lee and Buck. Pamzeis (talk) 02:40, 19 July 2021 (UTC) I am uncertain about this image (File:Disney Frozen 2 promotion brands.jpg). Even though it appears that the picture holder has released it to Wikimedia Commons, I am uncertain if it counts as a free-use image since it is a picture of products that are owned by multiple companies (i.e. Disney, Lego, and Hasbro Games). Aoba47 (talk) 18:01, 19 July 2021 (UTC) @Aoba47 I marked it as trademarked, and according to a source from How to Geek [2]: "Since the photographer owns the photo, you as the subject don't have any rights to it", the image is in no subjection to copyright. Wingwatchers (talk) 23:45, 19 July 2021 (UTC) Two notable examples are File:IPad Air 2020 (51012790753).jpg, and File:WestJet Boeing 737-8CT C-GWSV.jpg. Wingwatchers (talk) 23:50, 19 July 2021 (UTC) Thank you for the clarification. It seems fine by me, but I think it would be best to get an editor who is far more experienced in image policy to look at these two examples. Aoba47 (talk) 02:51, 20 July 2021 (UTC) @Bilorv:, Can you help with that? Thanks Wingwatchers (talk) 03:13, 20 July 2021 (UTC) The How to Geek article isn't really applicable because "the photographer generally owns the copyright" is only the very most basic rule and photos of copyrighted material are more complicated. It sticks out to me that the photographers doesn't actually own these products—the photo is of a shelf in a private store (presumably), but that likely doesn't change things. I think images like these are often acceptable but I would ask at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions if the file is appropriately licensed. — Bilorv (talk) 11:01, 20 July 2021 (UTC) @Aoba47:, the image violates c:COM:PACKAGING. I nominated for deletion and removed it from the article. Wingwatchers (talk) 00:28, 21 July 2021 (UTC) Thank you for the update. I had a strong feeling that it was not appropriate. The images in the article should be fine now. Aoba47 (talk) 00:30, 21 July 2021 (UTC) I hope this image review is helpful. If I have time, I will try my best to do a review of the prose, but I am not sure at the moment if I will be able to commit to that. Have a great rest of your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 23:38, 18 July 2021 (UTC) Yeah, I tried to add some images about the research trips from Commons but was reverted due to the lack of reliable sources. Disney has not yet disclosed the exact destinations, so I can't help with thta. Thanks for your review. Wingwatchers (talk) 05:32, 19 July 2021 (UTC) @Wingwatchers: I found a source that states they visited Norway [3]. Also, in "Journey to Ahtohallan" from Into the Unknown: Making Frozen II, I think they state they visited Norway, Finland and Iceland in 2016. Pamzeis (talk) 07:29, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Oppose. Unfortunately at this point I feel the article falls short of the FA criteria on several points.

• The prose would benefit from a comprehensive copy-edit for clarity and flow. Examples include "which were collaboratively rendered by multiple animation departments, artists, and technicians due to its level of comprehensive difficultness", "from steps by steps", "on the following 22nd"
• The article also needs some editing for MOS issues - eg "4-note", inconsistent capitalization (eg sometimes "enchanted forest", sometimes "Enchanted Forest"), and easter-egg links.
• Parts of the article are difficult to follow for those without subject knowledge. For example, what is a "scene prevention"? A "Snowgie"? "Archived sound"?
• Other parts are otherwise confusing. For example, Scandinavian and Nordic are often used synonymously - what are these terms being used to mean? Also the lead states this is the story of two princesses, but isn't one or the other queen for most of the movie?
• As per MOS:FILM, was a Themes section considered? Also note that guideline's discussion of review aggregators
• Some of the sources used are of questionable reliability - eg Daily Mirror
• Some of the sources aren't appropriate for what they are citing. For example, "Frozen 2 was localized through Disney Character Voices International into 46 languages by its original theater release, while the original was translated to 42 languages. Following the success of localized versions of the first film, which led to the release of a complete set album featuring all the official versions of "Let It Go" released at the time" is all cited to an Amazon record for the complete set - which is sufficient to prove that the complete set exists, but not some of those other details. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:24, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

To be completed. Wingwatchers (talk) 22:47, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately. Wingwatchers (talk) 01:38, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Can you disclose the location of each issue is located? Thanks. @Nikkimaria: Wingwatchers (talk) 03:28, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Also, where is "scene prevention"? A "Snowgie"? "Archived sound" and Easter-Egg? The theme is preferred, nut not required, same with a film article who has been already awarded featured status, Atlantis: The Lost Empire. Wingwatchers (talk) 04:39, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

@Wingwatchers:

• "scene prevention" is in the lead: The first completed scene prevention was exhibited at the Annecy International Animated Film Festival in June 2019.
• "snowgie" is in the plot section: In a post-credits scene, Olaf visits Elsa's ice palace and recounts the events he experienced to Marshmallow and the Snowgies.
• "archived sound" is mentioned a few times in the cast section: Hadley Gannaway and Livvy Stubenrauch (archived sound) as young Anna, Mattea Conforti and Eva Bella (archived sound) as young Elsa, Archived sounds are used in the Ahtohallan scene for Tudyk as the Duke of Weselton and Santino Fontana as Hans, a Prince from the Southern Isles who tried to take over Arendelle.
• An "easter egg" is a link that "require the reader to open them before understanding what's going on" (WP:EASTER)

Hopes this helps. Pamzeis (talk) 04:58, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. That clarifies :) Wingwatchers (talk) 19:47, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria:, hopefully, Done.

I appreciate your efforts, but some of your changes have actually introduced new problems. For example in the lead we now have "with many concerning the risk of disappointment, though the obstacle was later renounced due to the paralleled success of the original, and particularly because of the puzzling fanon comments regarding Frozen's future" - it is not clear what all this means. Perhaps a WP:GOCE request would be helpful? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:35, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria:, how about now? Wingwatchers (talk) 04:34, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Same answer, unfortunately. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:54, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

How about now? @Nikkimaria:. Hopefully. Wingwatchers (talk) 21:08, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Oppose: I agree with Nikkimaria that unfortunately, the prose is not strong enough for a featured article. I do not think this article meets 1a. of the featured article criteria. I would encourage the nominator to put this article through the peer review process and I second Nikkimaria's suggestion for a GOCE copy-edit request (and if you do so, make it clear in your request that you want to put this article through the FAC process again in the future). Aoba47 (talk) 21:26, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

The nominator is sick of unfortunate, and as you wish. @Ian Rose:, please close it. Wingwatchers (talk) 23:11, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Wingwatchers, I notice you've put this up for PR now, which I think is a good move before a renomination here -- can I suggest pinging Nikki and Aoba when you've addressed issues they raise above so they can re-review during the PR if they have time... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:28, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 00:28, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 26 July 2021 [4].

---

Nonmetal

Nominator(s): Sandbh (talk) 05:54, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Carbon, bromine, helium and like chemical elements is what this 78 KB article is about.

It has had several global iterations since my first edit in 2013, as influenced by input from WP:ELEM.

I’ve drawn on my experience with three other FAs.

Thank you, Sandbh (talk) 05:54, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose significant uncited text, use of images where it's not clear what they are showing about nonmetals (t · c) buidhe 06:57, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Where are the citations? There are chunks of text without a source. Graham Beards (talk) 10:37, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
• Comment Thank you buidhe and Graham Beards. Citations were included for all potentially controversial text passages and harder to verify statements. Citations were otherwise not included. The gallery images, and the black P image, have now been embellished. Sandbh (talk) 07:07, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

• For Featured Articles the standards are high and it is most unlikely that this candidate will be promoted unless these citation issues are addressed rather than dismissed. Graham Beards (talk) 09:17, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

​​ Quoting WP:FACS, at FAC it is practice to require that every material statement, unless self-evidently true, be supported by a citation, not only material likely to be challenged (per WP:V).. Once all the immediate citation concerns here are addressed, a full source review will also be required. I'll also note that many book sources are used, which may not be available online to everyone.

ComplexRational (talk) 14:13, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

​Thank you User:ComplexRational. 1. WP:FACS is not wp policy, it is a personal opinion, nor is it mentioned in the FAC criteria. 2. There is no FAC requirement to conduct a full source review. It is normal practice to audit of a selection of sources for an FAC put up by a first time author. This is a fourth time FAC. 3. That many book sources are used which may not be available online to everyone is not a consideration of the FAC criteria. Libraries are still available to everyone, including overseas interlibary loan services. Sandbh (talk) 04:09, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Of course. I never said book sources are a problem, it was just a quick observation for the source reviewer to note. (On my end, I have a digital copy of a couple of sources, though with university library access or similar, some others may be available as well.)

OTOH, I have seen pretty rigorous source reviews even for (semi-)regular FA contributors, so while first-time nominations may be treated differently, I have no reason to believe the standards are any more lax here. ComplexRational (talk) 17:56, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Of course ComplexRational, such a rigorous "full" source review can be conducted at any time. Is this a requirement of WP:FAC? No. Is this custom and practice at FAC? No. Sandbh (talk) 03:10, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

@FAC coordinators: - for input into the existence or nonexistence of this requirement. Hog Farm _Talk 03:11, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose, and probably send through WP:GAR. Too much uncited text. Hog Farm _Talk 00:36, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
• Thank you Graham Beards and Hog Farm. Are there some unwritten expectations that FAC need to go well beyond the FA criteria?

The FA criteria say claims need to be verifiable and supported by citations as per WP:WTC. The latter says sources are needed for quotations; close paraphrasing; contentious statements about living people; exceptional claims; and opinions, data and statistics, and statements based on someone's scientific work. Sources may not be needed in cases of general common knowledge; subject-specific common knowledge; and when something is cited elsewhere in the article. As far as I can see, the article currently meets these requirements.

I'll be very glad to add to the 120 current citations if you feel there are some specific passages that do not yet meet whatever the unwritten FA criteria are. Did you have one or two specific examples in mind? Thanks again. Sandbh (talk) 01:10, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Essentially, if it's not self-proving or reasonably obvious, the current FAC expectation is that it will be cited. For instance, it's not obvious where the citations for a lot of the stuff in the tables are, "Radon does not appear to be available commercially." is another likely citation need. Radon and astatine were discovered in 1898 and 1940, with the former credited to Marie and Pierre Curie. is another spot that likely needs one, especially since RS such as this and this attribute the discovery to F. E. Dorn in 1900. Hog Farm _Talk 01:16, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you muchly. I'll strive to add at least one citation to any paragraph lacking such, aside from statements of the obvious. Clarifying the data sources for the lack of commercial availability of radon could be tricky since I wasn't able to find any commercial supply sources but I'll look again. Maybe I'll just list the chemical suppliers I checked. And I'll add a source about the discovery of the elements, and maybe a note about any dispute to do with Rn. Sandbh (talk) 01:26, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
  • The virginia.gov and RSC sources on Rn discovery do not seem reliable. I've added a note to the discovery section of the article to this end. Sandbh (talk) 02:21, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
    • The RSC source is the Royal Society of Chemistry, which I'm very confident is reliable. My guess is just that what constitutes the "discovery" of an element that wasn't all that well-understood all the time depends on what each sources determines "discovery" constitutes. Hog Farm _Talk 02:33, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
      • It seems very odd to me to suggest that the Curies discovered radon. In 1899 they did not think that it was a substance, whereas Rutherford and Owens had the idea right from the start: see this journal article for a historical summary. This historical retrospective from Nature makes it clear: the Curies only noted an "induced radioactivity" (and, as the first article I linked states, mistook its nature), but Rutherford and Owens understood that it was a substance. In Bull. Hist. Chem there were some articles just after the turn of the millennium pointing out that Rutherford has the best claim to be called the true discoverer of radon: one, two. The authors of the first have written another detailed exposé here. If you want more, Norman E. Holden prepared a history of the discovery of the elements for the 50th IUPAC General Assembly Conference, and he wrote: "Dorn had followed the procedure of Ernest Rutherford, who earlier the same year had isolated and characterized “thoron” (²²⁰Rn, half-life 55.6 seconds), the gas emanating from thorium. Hence, Rutherford should be considered the discoverer of radon."
      • As for why the RSC lists Dorn (who cannot be the discoverer, since he cites Rutherford's work): this is classic confusion between radon the isotope and radon the element. See, in the past the element was often called "emanation", and "radon" just meant the isotope of atomic weight 222. But later "radon" became the name of the element. Except that the old informal use of it meaning just the 222 isotope still persists, making for ambiguity. Dorn discovered radon in the sense of ²²²Rn but not in the sense of Rn the element. And, incidentally, he did not correctly figure out its nature either.
      • It seems to me that the need for such a long explanation is precisely why these things need citations and probably explanatory footnotes. Double sharp (talk) 03:19, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Thank you, Double sharp. In 1901, Rutherford and Brooks credited the Curies for the discovery of the element: Rutherford E & Brooks HT 1901, "The new gas from radium", Trans. R. Soc. Can. 7: 21–25. Sandbh (talk) 03:31, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
  • 14 citations have been added to the article. It now seems the only stuff needing more citations is the comparative tables. I hope to attend to this shortly. Sandbh (talk) 03:31, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
    • Yes, they did. But while they certainly found the element, they didn't have a correct idea of what it was. That, as I just demonstrated, seems to be the criterion being used by most of the sources focusing on this knotty question of history: thus they credit Rutherford and Owens. Those that do not focus on it, but mention the discoverer in passing, mostly credit Dorn. The Curies are seldom the ones credited.
    • In any case, perhaps we should point out the comments of Marshall and Marshall: "We have found that identifying “the” discovery date of an element can be difficult, owing to uncertain criteria for the elements previous to modern times..." This is of course an even more serious issue for the elements before Rn (e.g. dephlogisticated air for oxygen). Double sharp (talk) 04:12, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
      • The reference to the Curies has been removed and replaced with a comment about At. I'll continue the Curie discussion at Talk:Radium. Sandbh (talk) 23:31, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
  • I've added a further 23 citations in an attempt to nail down the stuff in the tables. @Double sharp: I'll revisit the radon discovery question tomorrow. Thank you. Sandbh (talk) 13:28, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose, for now. Sandbh, I strongly believe that a peer review would be more appropriate at this stage in the article's development in order to tidy it up and ensure it complies with all the featured article criteria. At the moment, from close-reading a few sections, I'm not sure that the article meets criteria 1a (well-writen), 1b (comprehensive; this is one thing I believe a PR will help with), and 1e (it is still being heavily edited and expanded), and I see several sections where citations are insufficient by modern FAC standards (from what I understand, one per paragraph is rarely enough). Additionally, since this entire article has been rewritten, it hasn't even been checked against the good article criteria (GAR?), which makes this FAC feel all the more hasty.
• Below are a few things I noticed, in no particular order, though should we go to a PR or the FAC not close quickly, I can offer some more detailed comments.

• 1. We should firmly establish an WP:ENGVAR, then do a full copyedit and MOS check. I, and a few other editors, have made a few minor MOS fixes over the past few weeks.
• 2. Section Origin and use of the term – more citations needed, one in the footnote won't cut it.
• 3. such as their capacity to conduct heat or for their "earths" (oxides) to form basic solutions in water, quicklime CaO for example – citation needed. Also, though summary-style is a fundamental component of an article like this, this really feels rushed and doesn't read too well. It introduces some more technical terms such as specific heat capacity (?) with which a layperson may not be familiar, at least not before reading the section on properties. Could also use more wikilinks (such as the one I linked here if that's correct) and a few other MOS fixes.
• 4. Subſtances ſimples non-métalliques and métalliques, as Lavoisier put it – inline citation needed, preferably from Lavoisier himself.
• 5. Section Properties – it might be helpful to introduce some of the more technical terms, or at least what they mean in a practical (application) or observational sense. I'd do this before highlighting the contrast with metals.
• 6. Physically, nonmetals nearly all exist as diatomic or monatomic gases – I wouldn't use the term nearly all when 6/17 (or 12/23 if metalloids are counted as nonmentals) are solid or liquid. If this was not the intended meaning, parts of this paragraph may need to be written. The next part of the sentence, or polyatomic solids, could also be covered under the nearly all...; I suggest breaking up this run-on sentence.
• 7. unlike metals, which are nearly all solid – with a bit of rephrasing, this would be a good place to start a new sentence.
• 8. and tend to have significantly lower melting points and boiling points than those of most metals. – this may be clearly presented in a data table, but an inline citation is needed here.
• 9. Under certain conditions a hydrogen atom in a molecule can form a second, weaker, bond – what conditions?
• 10. They are generally regarded as being too diverse to merit a collective examination. – WP:SELFCITE, especially when saying generally regarded. To fix this, I suggest having another editor review and perhaps elaborate on this, as well as additional citations from other authors to make it clear that this really is a generic statement.
• 11. Consequently, their chemistry is taught disparately, according to their four respective groups. – inline citation needed, preferably from Lavoisier himself.oops
• 12. In 2021 it was reported that the unclassified nonmetals – reported by whom? Also, for such a short section, this really feels like undue emphasis on the recent classification of one author. Has the subset of unclassified nonmetals been historically considered as such? This section could also be expanded to describe the various classifications of these elements.
• 13. Section Nonmetal halogens – also feels too short and only has one inline citation (plus another in a footnote).
• 14. In periodic table terms they occupy the outermost right column. – too colloquial. This would read better as "In periodic tables, they occupy the rightmost column" or something similar. It's a fairly straightforward fix, but I just included it as an example for 1a.
• 15. albeit more reactive than either xenon or radon. – citation needed.

• This is not an exhaustive list, but I hope this gives a clear(er) idea of where this article still needs some considerable work before meeting FAC standards. I'm not sure how much time I'll have to commit to the review process (whichever it may be), but I'll happily nitpick specific sections or help with copyediting in the next couple of weeks. ComplexRational (talk) 15:26, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you ComplexRational, including for your interim oppose. I'll address your observations shortly. Sandbh (talk) 05:07, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

ComplexRational: I've numbered your dot points, and my mine, to make things easier to follow.

• Re: "…it is still being heavily edited and expanded" — since posting to FAC, and judging by eye,[5] the sizeable majority of edits have been to add citations (49 now added), the rest has been some trims, converting some text to a table; and some ce's. B4 posting the article at FAC, criteria for FAC and MOS were checked, including the requirements for support by inline citations where appropriate. The article was GA when work started to bring it up to FA standard. This involved trimming from 125K to 89K; rearranging and refining existing content into 3 to 4 classes; and adding citations and notes. Copyediting was undertaking several times.
• 1. The language variety was checked pre-FAC and found to be US. That being so, no language notification was posted. Spelling was checked and corrections made for US language.

  Was it? I still see mixing of en-US and other varieties. We have both oxidize and recognised, as well as vapour, and inconsistent use of, for instance aluminum, potassium and iron and chlorine, bromine, and iodine. One way or the other, this should be consistent. If we go for en-US (if ENGVAR permits), I'll help with the copyediting.

  Yes, it was, manually, in the absence of a tool. After pasting into Pages (Word not permitting a language change), and picking US Eng., ca. 17 further instances of non-US spelling have now been amended. "Aluminium" is the IUPAC spelling. Sandbh (talk) 04:54, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

  The WP style is documented in MOS:ALUM YBG (talk) 05:20, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

• 2. The Origin and use of the term section was/is supported by four citations, rather than one. To make this clearer a note has been added saying, "(see the taxonomy table in this section)".
• 3. A citation referring to the basicity of quicklime has been added. "Specific heat capacity" was/is nowhere used in the article

  Citation looks good. I only mentioned specific heat capacity because I'm not sure if that's what you meant by capacity to conduct heat – be it correct or incorrect, a wikilink would help here if there are technical details to discuss.

  Changed to "ability to conduct heat"; link added to thermal conductivity. Sandbh (talk) 04:54, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

• 4. Subſtances ſimples non-métalliques and métalliques had no inline citation since the work in which these words appeared i.e. Traité élémentaire de chimie was wikilinked in the same sentence. A citation can be added if this will not represent citation overkill?

  It won't be citation overkill because the article currently states that Lavoisier described nonmetals as such, but not actually sourcing this claim directly. Only if both Lavoisier's work and a secondary source describing that were included would there possibly be overkill.

  Thanks; citation added. Sandbh (talk) 04:54, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

• 5. Section Properties. Technical terms in this section were/are wikilinked.
• 6. Physically, nonmetals nearly all exist as diatomic or monatomic gases goes on to say—as noted above—"or polyatomic solids". Here, of 23 nonmetallic elements all but Br are diatomic or monatomic gases, or polyatomic solids. The sentence has been edited and broken up into two smaller sentences.
• 7. unlike metals, which are nearly all solid—as above
• 8. and tend to have significantly lower melting points and boiling points than those of most metals.—cite added.
• 9. Under certain conditions a hydrogen atom in a molecule can form a second, weaker, bond—copy edited and wlink added.
• 10. They are generally regarded as being too diverse to merit a collective examination.—That the subject elements are too diverse for a collective examination has been discussed and acknowledged on and off for about the past ten years at WP:ELEM. Four more citations have been added to this effect—two specific across four authors and three referring to the expression "other nonmetals".
• 11. Consequently, their chemistry is taught disparately, according to their four respective groups. "– inline citation needed, preferably from Lavoisier himself." Lavoisier (1789) only distinguished between metals and nonmetals. As discussed at WP:ELEM over ten years, there is no record in the literature of a widely accepted name for the unclassified nonmetals. Citations are now there for the originators of the names metalloid, halogen, and noble gas.

  My mistake on including Lavoisier here (oops), I meant that in point 4 with Lavoisier's quote. In the case of there not being a widely accepted name, it would be best to give equal weight (NPOV/UNDUE) to the most commonly used names. The citations you added look good at first glance, as does the mention of other nonmetals.

  Thanks for that. Sandbh (talk) 04:54, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

• 12. In 2021 it was reported that the unclassified nonmetals "– reported by whom?" Reported by: Cao C, Vernon R, Schwarz E, Li J 2021, " Understanding periodic and non-periodic chemistry in periodic tables", Frontiers in Chemistry, vol. 8, doi:10.3389/fchem.2020.00813. The nonmetal article states: "After the nonmetallic elements are classified as either metalloids, halogens or noble gases, the remaining seven nonmetals are hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus, sulfur and selenium."
• The proposal to refer to "unclassified nonmetals" was notified to WP:ELEM and well received. If followed the decision by WP:ELEM to deprecate the use of fixed colour categories in the lede periodic table appearing in that article in order to provide more flexibility in discussing sets of elements, and given how many variations there are in the literature around the borders aside from the alkali metals in group 1. As noted, the unclassified nonmetals are what is left after the nonmetallic elements are classified as either metalloids, halogens or noble gases. A basic taxonomy of the nonmetals involved was set out in 1844 by Dupasquier. To facilitate the study of metalloids (i.e. nonmetals), he wrote that, “they will be divided into four groups or sections, as in the following: Organogens (O, N, H, C); Sulphuroids (S, Se, P); Chloroides (F, Cl, Br, I); 4th Boroids B, Si." But his taxonomy never caught on. See: Dupasquier, A.: Traité élémentaire de chimie industrielle. Charles Savy Juene: Lyon, 1844, pp. 66–67. Since that time the closest there is in the literature is to the "other nonmetals", as supported by three citations. There is a wp article on the CHON elements and CHONPS, however this does not cover Se. The pre-FAC version of nonmetal surveyed various arrangements of the nonmetals. Since none of these caught on in the literature, whereas metalloids are, albeit inconsistently; and halogens and noble gases are universal, and that leaves the unclassified nonmetals, the previous various arrangements of the nonmetals were left out of the current iteration of nonmetal. They could easily be spun out into their own child-article if preferred.

Re "This section could also be expanded to describe the various classifications of these elements", a new article has been created, List of alternative nonmetal classes, and a foonote added to Nonmetal. Sandbh (talk) 03:45, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

• 13. "Section Nonmetal halogens – also feels too short and only has one inline citation (plus another in a footnote)" — It is short as it has its own hatnote referring to the Halogen main article. Four more citations have been added.
  • 13a. Greenwood & Earnshaw 2002, pp. 789‒887 – page range too wide, this is the entire chapter on halogens, can you narrow it down or include multiple cites?
  • 13b. the remaining nonmetals tend to form predominately covalent compounds with metals – I skimmed some of that chapter while checking the source, and I see many types of bonds on a spectrum from ionic to covalent are described (p. 823, for instance). Perhaps this might be worth a brief mention somewhere if it's pertinent in the context of nonmetal chemistry. Also, although it's in the table already, you might want to note that O is an exception to the remaining nonmetals (i.e., it forms mostly ionic compounds with metals) because of its high electronegativity. This looks like a very nuanced matter, though, so the more intricate details can be saved for a sub-article.
• 14. "In periodic table terms they occupy the outermost right column. – too colloquial. This would read better as "In periodic tables, they occupy the rightmost column" or something similar." — What is colloquial and what is more formal will vary from person to person. For example, "In periodic table terms" appears in the FA periodic table article. The former + "outermost right column" appear in literature. The accompanying table further illustrates the location of the noble gases in the outermost right column. I have edited the passage in question.
  • Reads much better now. Indeed formality is subjective, and different authors have their own unique style. I also find sometimes that it's not only a matter of formality, but when the same ideas can be equally well described with fewer words, it's usually better to do so.

Thanks for that. Sandbh (talk) 04:54, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

• 15. "albeit more reactive than either xenon or radon. – citation needed." – Extant citation relocated.
  • Good. I'll double-check this later and maybe add a citation used in another article. Of course I assume good faith, though a more accessible citation may also aid the reader.

Thanks. Sandbh (talk) 04:54, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Grateful for advice on items 4, 12. Thanks again, Sandbh (talk) 10:28, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Glad to help, Sandbh, and thank you for numbering the points. I am responding slowly and in pieces; some things I crossed out, and some things I left additional comments on. I also think everything would be kept neater if you replied indented (as I have here) rather than echo the list. ComplexRational (talk) 13:51, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks muchly ComplexRational. Elsewhere it has been written that indented replies are considered to be less than civil. Never mind. When in Rome… Sandbh (talk) 04:54, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Coordinator comment

Given the number of unstruck and reasoned opposes I am going to have to archive this. It wasn't and probably isn't yet ready for FAC. I suggest that the issues flagged up above are resolved off-FAC, possibly at WP:PR, before a renomination is considered. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:19, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

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 Sdkb via FACBot (talk) 25 July 2021 [6].

---

Pomona College

Nominator(s): {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:35, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

This article is about Pomona College, a liberal arts college in California and one of the four level-5 vital article liberal arts colleges.

The context for this nomination is an increasingly dire trend of featured article delistings for higher education institutions. In the past year, there have been four such delistings, with two three more articles currently at FARC; if they do not survive, that will leave only five four featured institutions, most of whom will not survive the next sweep. At this level, WikiProject Higher education lacks adequate model articles to demonstrate the project's best practices and serve as inspiration for improving less-developed articles.

I have been working on improving Pomona's page for the past several months, which has included a lot of underlying work such as creating the admissions infobox. Having recently passed a thorough GAN from HAL333, I believe the article is ready to help rebuild the roster. I look forward to addressing your comments and concerns. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:35, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

• Image review
  • File:President Roosevelt speaks at Pomona College, 1903.jpg the source given indicates it is still copyrighted. Remember that US copyright is based on publication, not creation date.

    I have commented at the deletion nomination page at Commons, showing that it was published in newspapers in 1903 and has therefore entered the public domain. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 16:30, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

  • File:Soldiers Drilling at Pomona College (1943).jpg what's the basis for the license tag?

    See this thread on Commons. Pandakekok9 helpfully looked through the 1971 copyright renewal log, where it was not listed, so it has therefore entered the public domain. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 16:30, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

    • As noted by Prosfilaes in that discussion, there's no evidence it was published to begin with. If wasn't published different rules apply and there's no need for renewal to maintain the copyright. (t · c) buidhe 16:55, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

      The photo was taken by Will Connell; as a professional photographer, I'm fairly confident it would've been distributed somewhere, not just stashed away as might happen with a personal photo. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:10, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

      I reached out to the Pomona archivist about this photo seeking more information about its publication history. Your patience is appreciated, as it'll likely take him a few days to get back to me. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:26, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

  • I do think that two galleries are excessive in the campus section, so I removed them, as well as one other image that was sandwiching. I think that the current section keeps the images that are most helpful for reader understanding of the topic "Pomona College", without including all the images that would belong in a stand-alone article for List of buildings of Pomona College or Pomona College campus. (I also moved the gates to north campus from south campus as the text indicates that they are on the northern edge of the campus).

    I understand that the extent to which galleries are appropriate in articles is a somewhat unsettled question. WP:GALLERY gives some general advice, but it's not very specific and leaves a lot of room for interpretation. Personally, I'm not generally a big fan of them, as they're formatted differently than other images and I wish they allowed for finer tuning. But I feel they're needed here to help convey the range of different architectural styles used on the campus and how they cohere. Including them also creates room for images of several buildings and artworks significant enough to have their own pages that would otherwise have to be cut. I have a sense given your recent image review for Inuit clothing that you feel the uses of galleries should be pretty restricted, but I hope the rationale here is compelling enough to persuade you to make an exception, or if not that you might be willing to defer to my preference as the primary article author. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 16:30, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

    • As noted by NickD below there seem to be issues with giving too much weight to the campus appearance. Adding lots of images, regardless of how they're formatted, simply exacerbates this issue. If the issue is showing different architectural styles that are discussed in reliable, independent sources, then I don't see why not "Building A and Building B are examples of architectural styles X and Y at Pomona" with pictures of A and B in a multiple image template would work. If it's not discussed in reliable, independent sources, it's hard not to see this as WP:UNDUE. (t · c) buidhe 16:55, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

      • To throw in my two cents, I think the campus image galleries are desirable. It is near impossible to actually give an impression of the campus just with prose. However, there are some minor sandwiching issues in the "Campus" section that might be resolved by removing a single image. ~ HAL333 21:33, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

        I moved up the Marston Quad image to remedy the minor sandwich. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:00, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

      I've replied to Nick-D below regarding how long the campus section ought to be, showing that it's pretty average length compared to existing college FAs. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:12, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

    Regarding the college gates, they are actually on South Campus, as they're located just south of Sixth Street. They marked the historical northern edge of campus in that it was the edge before North Campus was built. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 16:30, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

  • The athletic section sandwiches between the table and the images. I'll leave it to you what to remove.

    Hmm, that's tricky, as the removal of either would be a loss to the page: tables of varsity teams are standard for college article athletics sections, and the image is the only one of contemporary athletics at the college. I've redesigned the table so that it is significantly thinner, and the image is already thinner than average. Their combined width is now no more than that of an image with |upright=~1.5, so together, I hope that's sufficient to alleviate the MOS:SANDWICH concerns. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 16:30, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

  • File:Football team of Pomona College class of 1907.jpg unclear copyright status and no indication it was published before 1926

    The photo was taken circa 1904 and is part of the Boynton Collection, which is described here. The page notes that many photos in the collection were published in Pomona's yearbook, but I don't have access to that, so I'd have to reach out to the Pomona archivist to confirm; I can do that if necessary. Alternatively, it'd be pretty inconceivable to me that the copyright license would've been renewed, so if anyone knows which copyright renewal log to look through, we could confirm it's PD that way. Image copyright isn't my specialty, so I'd appreciate any help anyone here can give figuring this out. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 16:30, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

    • As noted above unpublished images do not need renewal to maintain their copyright. (t · c) buidhe 16:55, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

      I reached out to the Pomona archivist seeking info about this photo as well, and I will update when I hear back. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:27, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

  • Not related to image review, but the "Traditions" section has a lot of stubby paragraphs. Excerpting in good and featured articles raises concerns with stability (see Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations/Archive_25 search "excerpt") so I've hardcopied the 47 section. However, I think some of it may be undue for this article. Also, I think the transportation section is more relevant under "campus" than "student life".

    Good observation; I merged some of the paragraphs to make them less stubby (short paragraphs is a habit of mine carried over from my journalism writing, where it's more of a norm). Regarding transcluded excerpts, I realize that they're another phenomenon with some unresolved norms. They do make it a little harder to read the article history, but the exact same phenomenon happens with templates. Overall, I'm a very big fan of them as a tool for helping prevent quality content from decaying over time, as they mean that information only has to be updated in one place rather than several, which reduces the editor effort needed for maintenance. If it'd help, I'd be happy to upload a screenshot of the article after this FAC to supplement the diff link. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 16:30, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

• Note that I did not check licensing for any images removed from the article for non-licensing reasons. (t · c) buidhe 03:52, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

  I noticed that you removed File:Men protest opening of Frary Dining Hall to women.jpg because it is strictly speaking never mentioned in the text, making it hard to satisfy NFCC (the relevant text is He also ended the gender segregation of Pomona's residential life, first with the opening of Frary Dining Hall (then part of the men's campus) to women beginning in 1957). I'm not enough of a copyright specialist to know how strong a connection is needed for NFCC, but since the photo was published in the Metate in 1957, I think the better option is to establish that it's in the public domain per commons:Template:PD-US-not renewed and place it on Commons. I've gone ahead and done that, noting that there appears to be no record of a copyright renewal in the logs. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 16:30, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

  • There's no mention of this protest in the text, so I conclude it's not that important according to reliable sources for understanding Pomona's history. It's unclear if it was ever published before 1977, and if it wasn't, it does not need renewal to maintain copyright. (t · c) buidhe 16:55, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

    I see you've nominated that photo as well for deletion. We should probably try to keep discussion consolidated in one place, either here or there. Anyways, the link I put above indicates to me pretty clearly that it was published in the Metate. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:13, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

    I've asked the Pomona archivist to review the 1957 Metate to confirm this photo was published in it; I'll update when he gets back to me on that. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:28, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

  Regarding the other sandwich edits, there are more tradeoffs there between being able to include useful images and avoiding sandwiches. I've never viewed MOS:SANDWICH as the most urgent part of the MOS—like all guidelines, it includes the occasional exceptions may apply disclaimer, and instances in which minor one-or-two line sandwiches are unavoidable when retaining useful images may be a time to invoke that provision. But I'd be interested to hear from someone who takes a strong stance against sandwiches about why they're damaging, and I could be persuaded that they're the greater harm than removals. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 16:30, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

• Lean oppose unaddressed image copyright issues, concern about excessive images lending undue weight to certain topics. (t · c) buidhe 14:51, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Oppose from Nick-D

I've never heard of this college before seeing this FAC, and as an Australian have only a hazy understanding of US liberal arts colleges, so I guess I can optimistically describe myself as having fresh eyes! After reading through the article, I'm leaning oppose on this nomination, as the text has a promotional tone (including through language choices, the level of detail and how some topics are handled) and I'm not convinced that many of the sources are actually independent and reliable.

Thanks for your thorough comments, Nick-D! It's particularly helpful to have your perspective as a non-American, since FAs should be understandable to a global audience, and your comments reveal some changes that are needed to achieve that. I'll go through and address them below, and I hope I can turn you around. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:00, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

• "it became the founding member of the Claremont Colleges consortium" - I don't understand what this means, or why is it so important it needs to be in the first para of the lead - some brief explanation of what this consortium is would help. Edit: it's also a bit odd to call this the "founding member" of a consortium - surely the consortium couldn't have existed if there had only been a single member?

  Yeah, this is a bit tricky of a passage to write. You likely have a better understanding of the consortium now from having read the academic affiliations section further down, and while we unfortunately don't really have room to add all the detail from that to the lead, I did add a few words. Readers who want to understand further can always click the wikilink.

  Regarding why it's due for the first paragraph, the consortium is integral to the college because of the geographic proximity and level of integration: many students take multiple classes at another consortium member per semester, eat a significant fraction of their meals at another member's dining hall, study in the joint library, or participate in joint clubs or athletics teams.

  Regarding "founding member", Merriam-Webster defines it as "an original member of a group (such as a club or corporation)", and Collins Dictionary has "A founding member of a club, group, or organization is one of the first members, often one who was involved in setting it up." Pomona is considered the founding member of the consortium because it's the one whose president came up with the idea and worked to establish the other initial institutions. Claremont Graduate University was established at the time the consortium was formed, so I guess one could argue it was technically a founding member as well, but no one seems to describe it that way—Claremont Graduate University on its own website describes Pomona as "the founding member" (with the "the" indicating it makes no such claim for itself), and news coverage of the consortium takes that cue. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:00, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

  That text looks OK Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

• Why highlight only successful alumni in the lead and later in the article? Surely some of the graduates have also been noteworthy for unsavoury reasons as well? (e.g. if we're going to credit this college with contributing to various successes, surely it also needs to be credited with its graduates' failures)

  "Noted people" lists are very standard for higher education institution articles; they're described at UNIGUIDE and present at Georgetown University and other featured articles. I fully agree with you that, to be neutral, we need to choose alumni to highlight based on their significance, regardless of whether that significance is positive or negative. I did a fair amount of research into Pomona alumni as part of bringing List of Pomona College people to featured status, and the college (like anywhere) has a few not-so-savory alumni—Thomas J. Minar is a recent one who comes to mind. But I don't think any of the really unsavory alumni rise to the level of prominence needed to be listed here rather than at the list page. Ultimately, among really prominent people, there are just statistically a lot more of them known for good or neutral reasons than bad ones, and that's reflected here. Some of the people listed here do have more mixed reputations, though—see David P. Barrows (racist), Marianne Williamson (nutty), and Stephen Reinhardt (accused of sexual harassment). I would revert any editor who tried to remove these people on the basis of them being bad people. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:00, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

  I still don't understand why the lead only highlights successes. I'd personally delete the whole para: it's absurd to suggest that this college led directly to those people winning major honours and having highly successful careers. Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

  The paragraph is very similar to others at other college/university FAs, particularly for more selective institutions. In addition to Georgetown, see e.g. the leads for Duke University and United States Military Academy. An institution obviously can't take direct credit for the successes of its alumni, but I think it's plenty reasonable to think it often has a big influence. For instance, Pomona's most prominent alum recently, 2020 Nobel laureate Jennifer Doudna, has described her time at the college as having significantly influenced the course of her life. Of course, there are also alumni like John Cage, who dropped out in 1930 after an amusing observation described on his page, but trying to parse which alumni had impactful vs. unimpactful college years would be a fool's errand. Ultimately, if you disagree with the prevailing norm for these paragraphs be allowed, that goes beyond the scope of this individual FAC and I'd suggest that you start a discussion at WT:HED proposing a change to our guidance and the other FAs. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:03, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

  WP:UNIGUIDE is an essay, so I'm sceptical about how wide a consensus this approach represents. I would like to see a reference for the university having a significant role in each of these awards and individuals' careers for this to be included. Nick-D (talk) 10:31, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

  In your (very well-written) advice on FACs, you recommend pointing to an example of an existing FA that follows a practice to establish that it has consensus. I've provided multiple such examples; I don't know what else I could do. Many of the references here and at the people list page do speak to how the individuals' experiences at Pomona influenced their careers, but this article does not assert anything other than that they are alumni, so that is all that is required to meet criterion 1c. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:09, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

  I'm not disputing that they're alumni, but my concern is that this is an example of boosterism. The sources on this college seem to often refer to it as "elite" and the article notes that entry is highly competitive. As a result, it's not surprising that many of the very smart people who've studied here have gone onto good things (non FA articles on Australian universities suffer from a similar flaw - Australia has a relatively small number of relatively large universities, so not surprisingly they all have lots of notable alumni - this reflect the fact that they're big rather than they're particularly good producing notable citizens). I'd suggest that you should be aiming to produce a better article on a higher education institution than those other articles by justifying this content. Nick-D (talk) 05:14, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

• Why did the founders of the college establish it? Were there no colleges aligned with their religious beliefs or similar?

  The Inland Empire at the time was just starting to be widely settled (by Americans, at least; native peoples had been there for millennia and there's some history of Spanish colonization), so there were no colleges at all. Pomona and a bunch of others were founded roughly around the same time, with a bunch of Christian denominations getting in on the action. Occidental College, for instance, was founded by the Presbyterians the same year as Pomona. Does that help clarify? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:00, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

  Add that to the article. Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

  Done. Let me know if you think there needs to be any more; I'd prefer not to add too much more detail on the founding era, as there's 133 years of history to cover and it'd be undue to focus overly on just that one. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:03, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

• "the college remained almost all-white throughout its early years" - why? - was it run by racists?

  Higher education in the U.S. at the time was something only the most elite members of society could afford, and due to systemic racism in broader society, my understanding is that almost the entire college applicant pool was white. Many schools explicitly denied non-white applicants, so it's mildly noteworthy that Pomona had a few non-white students; Congregationalists were one of the more racially progressive religious groups of the era. Still, I'm sure whoever was in charge of admissions at the time (which used to be a lot less competitive; see JFK's amusingly mediocre Harvard app) held some racist views that affected how they viewed non-white applicants. If you're interested in learning more, "The Erasure of Winston M.C. Dickson, Pomona’s First Black Graduate" is a very well-researched account that I'd recommend. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:00, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

  Add something along those lines to the article, if only to note that it was common for colleges to be almost all white. Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

  Done. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:03, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

• "faced the choice of whether to grow the college into a large university that could acquire additional resources or to remain a small institution capable of providing a more intimate educational experience. Seeking both, he chose a third path " - I really don't like this formulation, which is getting close to PR language. It seems misleading to say that the president was faced with two choices, when there was actually a third option. This kind of text is commonly used to promote things (e.g. to imply that the college has been led by brilliant free thinkers).

  Fair point—I've rephrased the language to avoid the only-two-paths formulation. I definitely understand the hesitation about characterizing Blaisdell as a brilliant free thinker, but I don't think it's PRish to note that the Claremont Colleges have a very unique model. No other college president of the era made a similar choice, and the consortium has been widely characterized as a unique in reliable sources (example). {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:00, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

  That looks good. There are groupings of universities all over the world, so I don't see how this is a particularly unique model though (most of Australia's universities share resources and have combined study programs, for instance through several groupings). Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

  I'd say the unique part is how the institutions all having adjoining campuses but are still autonomous from each other. If I work on the Claremont Colleges article at some point, I'll improve how it's described there, but for here it sounds like we're good. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:03, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

• "Edmunds, who had previously served as president of Lingnan University in Guangzhou, China, also inspired a growing interest in Asian culture at the college." - what did this involve?

  Per the source, it "result[ed] in such things as the College’s first (informal) study-abroad program—a group of 11 students who, in 1929, organized a year of travel and study in China and Japan—and the establishment of a brand new Department of Oriental Study, which would evolve over time into today’s Asian Studies Program." That history might be something to delve into if a history article is ever split off, but for here, Asian Studies is only one of 48 majors at the college, so I'm not sure if it'd be due to go into it further. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:00, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

  The material needs more meat to it. Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

  Okay, I've added a bit. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:03, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

• "During World War I, the college reoriented itself toward the war effort" ... "it once again reoriented itself toward wartime activities during World War II" - what did this involve?

  Good suggestion; I've added some details. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:00, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

• " He also ended the gender segregation of Pomona's residential life, first with the opening of Frary Dining Hall (then part of the men's campus) to women beginning in 1957" -this is the first time that female students are mentioned, I think. Were they able to enrol from the establishment of the college, and what were their experiences like up to this time?

  Yep, female students were able to enroll from the start; that's connoted by "coeducational" at the top of the history section. I presume that early female students faced the same sorts of sexism that all women of the era did. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:00, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

  Surely something can be said about the experiences of female students during the era in which men dominated higher education? Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

  I'm ordering a copy of the Lyon 1977 history per HAL333's comment below, so I'll see if there's anything relevant in there. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:03, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

  Searching through the book, I'm afraid I'm not seeing anything from before the 1950s that really warrants adding to the article. I've read before about the fact that Phebe Estelle Spalding, Pomona's first female faculty member, was paid less than her male counterparts, and I cover the weigh-in, a quite odious example of sexual harassment, at the traditions spinoff article. But neither of those factoids seem due for the main article here. Lyon talks in a few places about improvements to the women's campus, but that doesn't seem especially pertinent either. Ultimately, we're limited to covering what's discussed in the available sources. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:48, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

  I didn't have any luck searching for material on this topic on JSTOR, so that sounds OK. I'd suggest keeping an eye out for material on this after the FAC though. Nick-D (talk) 05:25, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

  Will do! A lot of women's history is being rediscovered these days, so I'm hopeful that the next history of the college that is written will include information we can add. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:03, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

• "During the tenure of president David Alexander from 1969 to 1991, Pomona gained increased prominence on the national stage" - what did this involve?

  I'm following here the language used by the Los Angeles Times (the newspaper of record for the Western United States and RSP-greenlit, so a pretty solid source), which says that Alexander brought national standing to Pomona College. It expands: The racial, ethnic and geographic diversity of the student body also grew under his leadership, turning the prestigious liberal arts college — the largest in the private Claremont Colleges system — from a regional institution to one with a national reputation that draws the majority of its students from outside California. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:00, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

  Do other sources allow this to be explained? Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

  The LA Times piece also mentions the number of new building constructions and the increase in the endowment, implying a connection without directly stating it. We already mention both those things, but directly using them to explain the reputational change would be improper synthesis. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:03, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

• "In 1991, the college converted the dormitory basements used by fraternities into lounges, hastening a lowering of the profile of Greek life on campus" - why?

  Are you asking here why the college took the move it did, or why the move lowered the profile of Greek life? Regarding the first, The New York Times said it was because the college didn't like that a minority of students were controlling so much space on campus. Regarding the second, a major role of American fraternities is to throw parties. Without a dedicated space in which to do so, frats have a diminished role on a campus. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:00, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

  Add that to the article please. Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

  Could you clarify which? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:03, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

  The college's rationale for this change - it's really quite interesting. Nick-D (talk) 05:25, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

  I've added a mention. I'm not sure I totally believe the college's explanation—it could be that they did have an explicit goal of diminishing the frats and just used the space argument as a less controversial excuse—so I included in-text attribution. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:03, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

• "These efforts, combined with Pomona's longstanding[76] need-blind admission policy, " - PR language. From the sources, it seems that this "longstanding" policy was only about 20 years old.

  Need-blind admission is a technical term; it means that a college does not look at applicants' financial information when determining whether or not to admit them, thereby not discriminating against lower-income applicants. It's a pretty rare practice that only a few dozen of the wealthiest colleges in the U.S. can afford and that significantly increases the diversity of a college's student body, which is what makes it noteworthy in the context of the college's efforts to diversify. Since this is the history section, I really wanted to note the specific year when the practice was first adopted rather than just using the imprecise "longstanding", but unfortunately when I reached out to the college archivist about it, the best he could find was the article from 1982 noting that the practice existed at the time. To me, two decades is long enough to qualify as "longstanding" (especially considering that if you go much further back, you get to the era when college was a very elite thing and financial aid didn't really exist), but if you have in mind another weaker adjective we could use instead, I'd be fine with changing it. The main thing we need to communicate is just that the need-blind policy wasn't new in the 2000s. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:00, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

  The elite angle is what I'm getting at here. Twenty out of 120 years doesn't seem 'longstanding'. Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

  Do you have a suggestion for an alternative word to "longstanding"? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:03, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

  I'd suggest saying when it started, so readers can reach their own conclusion on this. Nick-D (talk) 05:25, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

  I wish we knew the year the policy started, but per above the archivist couldn't find it for me. We know it was around in 1982, but it could've started a decade or more earlier. I managed to come up with an alternative way to phrase it, though; is this better? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:03, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

• "In 2011, the college drew national media attention when it requested proof of legal residency from employees in the midst of a unionization drive by dining hall workers" - is the 'media attention' significant here? Surely the use of immigration authorities to harass staff members seeking to form a union is the issue.

  That's true. I included "drew national media" as a way to connote the level of significance of the event, but it's probably better to just emphasize the event itself. I rephrased; does it look better now? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:00, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

  That looks good. Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

• "A 2013 rebranding initiative sought to emphasize students' passion and drive, drawing criticism from students who thought it would lead to a more stressful culture" - is this really a significant part of the college's history? The only source is the student newspaper, which suggests not.

  According to the article, it was covered more than a dozen times in The Student Life, which for a weekly newspaper seems pretty significant. Zooming out a little broader, the authoritative source for the question of what is or isn't significant in the college's history would be a scholarly history of the college. Unfortunately, the last such history was published in 1977, so for everything since then, a little editorial judgement is required. I've tried not to rely solely on the official college timeline for anything in the 21st century, as that has become less objective as it nears the recent past. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:00, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

  As per the below, I doubt that the student newspaper is a reliable source, and it's certainly not a good marker of notability of things (if I was to check my university's student newspaper from when I was an undergraduate it would have run dozens of stories about the coffee shops and why it was outrageous beer was no longer $1 a bottle at the uni bar - neither seems likely to be very significant to outsiders looking in!) Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

  I'll comment further on The Student Life where we're discussing it below. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:03, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

• "As a result, the present campus features a diverse blend of architectural styles." - PR language cited to the student newspaper. One person's 'diverse blend' could be another's 'mish-mash'

  I changed the wording to use "varied" instead. To clear something up, though, there is a major difference between a PR publication (which for Pomona is the Pomona College Magazine) and the college newspaper, The Student Life. I use Pomona College Magazine in a few places for uncontroversial or historical information, but ultimately it's a self-published house publication, and I would never rely on it alone for controversial recent history. The Student Life, on the other hand, is completely editorially independent from the college and includes as part of its mission adversarial journalism seeking to hold the college administration accountable. If you browse its Wikipedia article, its recent news articles, or the articles where it's cited here, you'll see a bunch of examples of that. The perennial sources list states that Reputable student media outlets, such as The Harvard Crimson, are considered generally reliable sources for news on their school and local community, so I consider The Student Life to meet WP:RS. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:00, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

• The 'campus' section is much too long and overly detailed. Does it really matter what goes on in each building in this small educational institution?

  The length of the campus section is roughly in line with other college FAs. It's about 9500 readable characters out of 54,000 total, 17% of the page. Georgetown University is 11,000/63,000, also 17%. Florida Atlantic University is 7800/39,000, 19%. University of California, Riverside is 6000/42,000, 14%. Duke University is 12,000/62,500, 19%. Qualitatively, I think the campus can be said to have a fair amount of significance. An institution's campus is an integral part of it. Pomona's is valued at nearly US$1 billion (if I'm interpreting the difference between endowment and total assets correctly), has been assessed as eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, and contains six facilities and three public artworks historically notable enough to already have their own page (and probably several more where we could create pages if we wanted). We don't cover some of the more minor facilities (e.g. Renwick House, a small administration building), but I do think we ought to mention all the major ones and to describe aspects of the campus that go beyond individual building listings. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:00, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

  Yes, but those are huge universities and/or have famous campuses. This is neither, so this depth of coverage is excessive. I'd suggest reducing the level of detail by describing the general character of the campus and its notable buildings and other elements only. Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

  Another way to look at it is that, per WP:BALASP, part of the due weight section of the NPOV policy, articles should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. Nearly every new building constructed on Pomona's campus receives coverage in multiple non-local media outlets like the Los Angeles Times—for recent buildings, here's its review of the studio art hall and its coverage of the new art museum. Both of those buildings receive only a single sentence in the prose, which I think is about as condensed as possible. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:03, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

• "Pomona operates under a shared governance model, in which faculty and students have a degree of control over decisions" - how? Are there student and staff representatives on the various decision-making bodies?

  Yep. I've added a bit to note that. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:00, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

  Looks good. Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

• "For the 2020–2021 academic year, Pomona charged a tuition fee of $54,380.[219] 55 percent of students received a financial aid package, with an average award of $56,395.[167] 49 percent of international students received financial aid, with an average award of $66,125.[167]" - this doesn't make sense - it implies that all students end up receiving more assistance than the huge fees they pay!

  The reason the average financial aid packages are higher than tuition is that tuition is only one of the two main parts of the total estimated cost of attendance, room and board being the other. Financial aid packages also cover room and board for students with enough financial need. You're right that this is confusing without the context; I've added the total cost of attendance to make it clearer. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:00, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

• More broadly, the 'costs and financial aid' section feels evasive. This college clearly has a very expensive teaching model (and lots of money stashed away) and charges high fees as a result, but the section seems to be trying to avoid saying it.

  Financial aid is a super complex area; I would not envy anyone who tried to take Student financial aid (United States) to FAC. But to give you the informal, non-wikispeak gist of it, the sticker price at Pomona is super high, so wealthy students are charged a ton. But the financial aid policies are also very generous, so students in the middle of the socioeconomic spectrum are given heavily discounted tuition and poorer students often have their entire tuition covered. If you'd like to hear it from someone who's not me, I'll courtesy ping ElKevbo, a professional scholar of American higher education, who I hope can attest that what I just said is accurate. Overall, I wouldn't want this section to grow super long with details about how costs/financial aid works in U.S. higher education, as that would be undue and off-topic, but if there are small things or footnotes we could add to help clear up confusion, that'd be welcome. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:00, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

  The material is much improved now. Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

  Replying to the courtesy ping: Sdkb is absolutely correct that university finances, tuition and fees, and financial aid are very complex topics especially for private institutions that have much more flexibility and more options than public institutions. I agree that this article is not the appropriate place to delve into that complexity. I don't think it's appropriate for editors to make assumptions or accusations, particularly in these very complex areas, without firm evidence. ElKevbo (talk) 06:41, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

  I actually have professional expertise in understanding the costs of university-level teaching. Believe me when I say that the teaching model described in this article is a very expensive one. The text now explains this, as well as how it works out for students, which is good. Nick-D (talk) 10:41, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

• "The college has enrolled higher numbers of low-income students in recent years,[77] and was ranked second among all private institutions in The New York Times' 2017 College Access Index, a measure of economic diversity." - also evasive. How does this compare to public institutions and large universities?

  Pomona was ranked eighth among all institutions (i.e. including private and public, small and large). The cost structure at public institutions is so different than that at private institutions that I'm not sure how much sense it makes to compare them on the same scale, but I've added the rank among all institutions for completeness. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:00, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

  That looks good. Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

• "Overall, drinking culture is present but does not dominate over other elements of campus life,[9][169] nor does athletic culture." - PR language

  Hmm, I'm not sure I follow how this is PR language—university PR departments typically take the approach of never mentioning alcohol, even if they're Arizona State, since no one wants to be known as a party school. And every school's PR department touts its athletics program; saying "athletic culture isn't big here" is the opposite of a PR approach, no? More broadly, this sort of information is absent from a lot of our college pages because it's somewhat hard to source. I think we have an obligation to include it if we want to be comprehensive, though, as alcohol and sports are a major part of student life at many American institutions. The references here are to the Fiske Guide to Colleges and the Yale Daily News' Insider's Guide to the Colleges, which are independent college guides with no affiliation to Pomona. The Fiske Guide in particular is known for being willing to criticize institutions when necessary, so I'd argue it's the most reliable available source for this area. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:00, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

  Delete it: this is PR language. Alternately, explain what the drinking culture comprises. Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

  Is there something you'd like me to try to explain about the drinking culture beyond what we already mention earlier in the paragraph? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:03, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

• Delete the para starting with 'Pomona's dining services are run in-house' as it's basically trivia. If anyone wants to know what they can eat here, surely the college's website has this.

  I have to disagree that we should remove all mention of dining services from the article. Nearly all students are on the meal plan and eat nearly all of their meals from the dining halls, so it's a major aspect of student life. Dining services also employs a sizable percentage of Pomona's staff. The fact that the services are run in-house is mildly noteworthy, as it's much more common for institutions to contract out to a provider like Sodexo. This is a single paragraph pretty far down the page, so it doesn't have a huge bar to clear to be due, and I think it meets it. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:00, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

  It's trivia. Delete it: this is something I'd expect to see on the college's website in material aimed at prospective students, but I don't see how it's encyclopedic. Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

  Whether or not we ought to cover dining services in college articles is a broader question where we should be consistent between institutions. I've started a thread at the higher education talk page to garner wider input and hopefully reach a consensus. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:03, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

  I honestly don't give much credence to the opinion of Wikiproject members on FAs, and this kind of approach risks creating a walled garden-type approach. When I develop military history articles to FA standard, I try to ensure that they are understandable and meet the expectations of people with no knowledge of or interest in military history. Nick-D (talk) 08:51, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

• Do we really need the table of varsity sports? If so, when is it as of, and what is the reference?

  I guess we don't strictly need it, as we could list the teams in the prose instead, but I think a table is a neater way to present the information. I've added a reference. The sports offered by an institution don't typically change year to year, so it doesn't need an {{as of}}. Overall, athletics is a major part of American higher education, and I've been pushing recently to deemphasize our coverage of it, but a table seems warranted. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:00, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

  It definitely needs an as of. Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

  I think there may be some confusion here. {{As of}} is supposed to be used for information that changes frequently enough that it's likely to become outdated if not regularly updated. The sports teams hosted at a college don't change around every year—comparing to 2004, it appears that only one new team has been added at Pomona-Pitzer, and when a college sports team is dissolved, it's the kind of thing that makes The New York Times and causes grudges among alumni that can last for decades (welcome to the weirdness of American sports haha). {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:03, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

• Note c needs a reference

  The reference for it is 136, the college bylaws. I tried to signify that by having the sentence end a term limit of 12 years.^[c][136] rather than a term limit of 12 years.^[136][c]. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:00, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

  Still unreferenced. Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

  The reference for it is at the end of the sentence in the article body, consist with WP:CITEFOOT; the explanatory footnote is part of the sentence. I asked a little while back for clarification about whether there are any rules about the ordering of explanatory footnotes and references. It appears that there are none, so I hope it's alright to use the schema I've established for this page: if a reference supports only material within a footnote, I put it within the footnote, and if it also supports material outside the footnote, I put it at the end of that material in the body. Does that work? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:03, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

• The article is overly reliant on Pomona College's website and sources associated with the college (for instance, various pages for each year of the college's existence are key sources for the history section and the student newspaper for various statement). I doubt that these sources meet WP:RS given their lack of independence. Nick-D (talk) 23:50, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
  • For the last point alone, I recall either a de facto or de jure—might actually be written out somewhere—convention that primary sources are okay for statistical information (which it seems is the main use of them here—though I would have to look closer), mainly since often times it is the only source of that information at all. Aza24 (talk) 15:46, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

    The relevant convention I'd say is WP:ABOUTSELF, part of the verifiability policy. This discussion at WT:HED from two months ago is relevant. It's the nature of college pages to have a lot of basic factual information be available mainly through primary sources, and sometimes the available secondary sources were so transparently lifted straight from the college that they seemed less reliable than the direct source. However, for controversial or qualitative information, I tried to be scrupulous about using secondary sources, and if I slipped up on that anywhere that I haven't addressed yet, please let me know. Regarding the specific sources you raised, I spoke to the reliability of The Student Life above. For the timeline, it appears to be largely derived from Lyon's account, which editors at RSN seemed to consider reliable (but to which I unfortunately don't currently have access). As I mentioned above, though, I consider it much less reliable for the recent past and haven't used it as the sole reference for anything in the 21st century. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:00, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

    • Sorry, but I'm not convinced. The website of something obviously isn't a neutral source on that topic, and the history section relies too heavily on the college's website. I'm highly sceptical that the newspaper of a small college (even one with very high standards of education and students, as seems to be the case here) has high editorial standards: can you provide sources which attest to this? Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

      Regarding the timeline, as mentioned above/below, I'm acquiring the Lyon 1977 history and will convert some references to that. Regarding The Student Life, the main area of interpretation left after the WP:RSSM guidance is whether or not it can be considered an example of a "reputable student media outlet". To me, the main distinguishing characteristic is whether or not the publication is editorially independent from the college administration; as mentioned above, The Student Life meets that criterion. Of course, being independent doesn't necessarily guarantee that a paper has high editorial standards. For that, the paper says it abides by the Society of Professional Journalists code of ethics, and it has won quite a few awards in the past few years, indicating that it's living up to its aspirations. Its alumni have been quite successful—for instance, the spring 2019 editor-in-chief, Kellen Browning, is now a technology reporter at The New York Times, and if you go farther back you find Pulitzer winners Mary Schmich and Bill Keller. I can't find external news coverage that specifically praises the paper's editorial standards (the most recent L.A. Times article about it mentions some of its policies but without judgement), but still, putting all that together, I think you'd have a difficult time arguing that the paper doesn't qualify as an example of a "reputable student media outlet". {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:03, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

      Update: see my reply to HAL333 below on obtaining The History of Pomona College, 1887–1969; the references I've added from there hopefully address your concern about the timeline. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:50, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

      While this book attracted positive reviews by historians at the time (all the reviews in JSTOR are positive), I note that it was written by the college's recently-retired president and seems to have been published by the college directly (which is rather unusual, given that a university press would have had higher standards). Do modern sources consider this still a useful source? Nick-D (talk) 10:31, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

      I would say yes, modern scholars of higher education consider it a useful source, since ElKevbo is such a scholar, and he commented in support of its reliability at the reliable sources noticeboard discussion that found it to be reliable. I agree with what you wrote above that we should be cautious about leaning too heavily on subject experts when determining how to write articles accessible for a general audience, but when it comes to determining which sources are reliable, leaning on subject experts is precisely what we should be doing, as they are the people best qualified to know what is or isn't reliable. I acknowledge it isn't ideal to have to rely on Lyon, but the fact that he was a professional historian and that the reviews of the book uniformly praised his ability to write in a detached and objective manner (see quotes/links at the RSN thread) are major mitigating factors.

      Overall, I think its pretty clear that Lyon's account is the most definitive available history of the college. Our only alternatives would be The Story of Pomona College (Pilgrim Press, 1914; only covers the very early history, and author has just as strong ties to Pomona as Lyon), Granite and Sagebrush: Reminiscences of the First Fifty Years of Pomona College (Ward Ritchie Press, 1944; author was a Pomona astronomy professor), and Pomona College: Reflections on a Campus (Pomona College, 2007; author is a Pomona art history professor, and the book limits its scope to the history of the campus). If we were to go with none of those, our only remaining option would be to rely entirely on newspaper coverage, which would not be sufficient to write a comprehensive history section, as newspapers don't take a broader historical perspective, and to try to piece together coverage to derive one would be inappropriate synthesis. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:09, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

      The test here is whether recent reliable sources cite this work. I tend to think it's an OK source, but would like assurance given its authorship and publishing details. You've convinced me about the student newspaper being a reliable source, but I won't rely on it to demonstrate notability of aspects of the college and its history given it's targeted at the college's staff and students. Nick-D (talk) 05:14, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

      Looking through the first pages of the Google Books results, here are some recent books that cite Lyon's history:

      • McClain, Molly (2017). Ellen Browning Scripps : new money and American philanthropy. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. ISBN 9781496201140.
      • Religious Colleges and Universities in America : a Selected Bibliography. London: Routledge. 2019. ISBN 9780429810411.
      • Levine, David O. (2021). The American College and the Culture of Aspiration, 1915-1940. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. ISBN 9781501744150.
      • Wang, Dong (2007). Managing God's Higher Learning : U.S.-China Cultural Encounter and Canton Christian College (Lingnan University), 1888-1952. Lanham: Lexington Books. ISBN 9780739157473.
      • Symons, Van Jay; Wilson Barnett, Suzanne (2000). Asia in the undergraduate curriculum : a case for Asian studies in liberal arts education. Armonk, N.Y.: M.E. Sharpe. ISBN 9781315500645.

      There are a bunch more examples available; let me know if you'd like me to list more. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:03, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

  • To counter one of the points, I really do not believe that this article has a promotional issue. The anti-female protests are mentioned and pictured. And I do not believe that any notable notorious people attended Pomona. If they did I am sure that they would be included. ~ HAL333 00:09, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
• Whew, that ended up being a lot. Apologies for the length, but I hope I've managed to address your comments in enough detail, and I'm happy to continue discussing any lingering concerns that remain. Thanks again for taking such a thorough look at the article. I recognize that there's an added layer of trickiness with reviewing something outside your normal wheelhouse, and I truly appreciate it and think the article has benefited from it. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:00, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
• Shifting to oppose given the responses to some of my comments. Nick-D (talk) 08:51, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

  @Nick-D: I spent several hours yesterday addressing your comments about the article, so it's extremely dispiriting to see that you now have a less favorable view than the one with which you began. Looking through the comments above, I think I've managed to address the vast majority of your concerns. The two outstanding issues seem to be the weight given to the campus section and the existence of the paragraph on the dining services (if there are others, please let me know and/or reply above). For both of those, we seem to be at an impasse: I've explained why I feel the content is warranted, you disagree, and I cannot in good conscience make edits to the page that I consider clearly detrimental just to win your support. Something you advise in your essay for when this happens is to try to determine if it's a big issue or whether you can agree to disagree. In the spirit of that, what needs to happen to, if not win your full support, at least get you to a neutral? - {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:10, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

  I'm sorry, but I think that my comments are reasonable. While I'm happy to agree to disagree on some content (especially material on alumni, but I really think that you should be aiming higher here rather than falling into the rut other articles have fallen into), you are ignoring some pretty basic and easy to action requests, and - to be blunt - I'm irritated by the attempt to use a Wikiproject to dispute what I think is a reasonable comment. The underlying theme is that you seem unwilling to move away from boosterism (especially through excessive detail) about this college. The sources clearly illustrate that this is an excellent educational institution that punches well above its weight, but the article lays it on a bit thick. Nick-D (talk) 05:14, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks for answering some of my queries above; I've now actioned them in the article. I was waiting for clarification, but it seems that may have come across as reticence to make changes, so my apologies for that. Regarding the dining hall thread, apologies about that as well—this is my first FAC nomination, so I was unaware that seeking input that way isn't considered appropriate. I've trimmed down the paragraph on dining services in a way I could live with, which I offer as a compromise. And I appreciate your willingness to agree to disagree on the alumni material. Please let me know if there are any particular remaining roadblocks, and thanks again for all the effort you've put into this review. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:03, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Comments from HAL

As the GA reviewer of this article, I think the prose and scope are up to snuff. The one thing I would like to see is the integration of available and relevant literary sources on Pomona, such as The History of Pomona College, 1887–1969 and what JSTOR has. I will support promotion to FA if that is done. ~ HAL333 00:12, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Hmm, it looks like I'll finally have to pony up and purchase a copy of the history; I probably should've done that a while ago haha. It may take a little bit to arrive, but I'll reply once I've received and mined it. Regarding JSTOR sources, are you thinking of anything specific? Looking through what's on there, it seems to be a lot of quite dated historical documents, e.g. [7]. Limiting the search to the past 25 years turns up stuff like [8], which is already covered by other more thorough sources, [9], which is interesting but doesn't seem to contain anything I'd want to add to the article, and [10], which I can't access but presume is too niche/technical to add much. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:55, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

There is not much on JSTOR, but there may be a few bits. After skimming a few articles, here are a few things I found:

• It was founded by the "Southern California Association of Congregational Churches" [11] You may be able to squeeze some other stuff out of this one, like info on Phi Betta Kappa at Pomona.

  Looking into Phi Beta Kappa more, it does appear that having a chapter is significant. I've added a line on it. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:58, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

• There is another article on Oriental Studies that may (or may not) be helpful for the history section.

  Looks like it was published before the expedition took place, which somewhat limits the usefulness. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:58, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

• This article on the minstrel show connection may be able to replace primary sources.

  It wouldn't do any harm to add it, but it doesn't look as comprehensive as the Los Angeles Times account, which is the main reliable source I'm using for song controversy (the Pomona College Magazine article isn't as reliable, but is kept because it's potentially useful to readers who want more detail than what's in the L.A. Times piece). I recall coming across an essay at some point cautioning against choosing sources just since they come in a more academic-y format, which is something I try to keep in mind. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:58, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

• Here's an article on the school's (former) herbarium.

  I added it to California Botanic Garden, to which the herbarium was transferred. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:58, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

• These articles ([12][13]) may replace primary sources on the murals.

  Added. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:58, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

• Pomona's physics building was somehow notable enough for Science to publish a whole article on it.

  "Article" might be a bit generous of a label; it appears to be one paragraph long haha. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:58, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

• To be honest, the JSTOR stuff is sparse and I don't expect you to cite a lot of journal articles. But I do think you could find a few things.

It would be cool if Wikimedia had a program that gave 10 or 20 bucks to editors so they could buy copies of the more obscure books for work on Featured Articles. Maybe some day. ~ HAL333 16:56, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for those JSTOR suggestions! I've looked through them and made changes accordingly. I was also able to obtain an e-copy of the Lyon history, and I've gone through the history section to add references to it to support pretty much everything through 1969. I'm keeping the timeline refs around since they're easier to access than the book for readers who might want to learn more, but they're no longer being leaned on to support major historical facts. I hope that's sufficient to address your concerns; let me know if there's anything else, and thanks again for your thoroughness! {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:58, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Oppose. I find myself agreeing with the concerns raised by Nick above, particularly with regards to a tendency towards promotion and the use of non-independent sources. In addition I have some further concerns:

Thanks for taking a look at the page, Nikkimaria. Regarding non-independent sources, Nick and I seem to have come to agreement above; the timeline is (unless I missed something) no longer being used to support anything in isolation, we've agreed The Student Life can be considered reliable, and (if my examples of recent citations to it are sufficient) I hope we've found agreement on The History of Pomona College, 1887–1969 as well. Are there particular facts where you have concerns about sourcing? If so, please let me know and I'll do my best to address them. Regarding promotionalism, I'll address your specific points below, and I'll also give a broader overview for you and Nick of how I've sought to keep the article neutral (update: might not have a chance before this is archived). Together, I hope that'll be enough to win your support. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:27, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

• In the past few years this school has received significant media coverage related to sexual-assault issues; I was surprised not to see this addressed

  I mention the Campus Advocates in the student life section, but I had left out the 2010s protests since the reckoning over campus sexual assault is more of a national trend than something particular to Pomona. On reflection, though, I think it'd be fair to say that the protests at Pomona have been a lot louder than at many other institutions, even if there wasn't a single catalyzing incident akin to the Emma Sulkowicz protest or the Duke lacrosse case, so I'll add a mention. I'll also add a mention in the student life section of the 7C Empower center in addition to the advocates. I'd be hesitant to add too much more due to recentism concerns—as I put it in the hidden note, if a bomb exploding on campus in the 60s only gets one sentence, the latest protest doesn't warrant three paragraphs. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:27, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

  Googling the topic shows quite a lot of stories on the issue over several years (e.g. [14], [15], [16], [17]). Nick-D (talk) 01:52, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

• What is a "college of the New England type"? This seems to be a pretty central concept of the founding, but it's never elaborated

  Most of the Congregationalists that were settling in Southern California in the late 19th century grew up in New England and attended college themselves there, so they looked to institutions such as Williams, Harvard, and Yale as models to which to aspire. This was made pretty explicit in their choice to name the streets of the city of Claremont after New England colleges, something discussed on the city's page. I've tweaked the wording so that it's no longer using a quote. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:27, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

• I don't see any mention of code of conduct?

  Pomona has a student code of conduct, but there's not too much that's distinctive about it the same way as, say, the honor code at Haverford College. The place where it's mentioned so far is the paragraph on alcohol policy; I'll add a mention there that infractions are handled by a student judiciary. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:27, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

• How is the college's budget allocated? The Finances section is overall very short

  I've added a breakdown of the budget based on the disclosures on page 4 of the 2020 financial statement. WP:CALC permits the conversion from raw numbers to percentages, which I think is more accessible. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:27, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

• The lead is quite short relative to the length of the article

  Looking at MOS:LEADLENGTH, the recommendation for articles longer than 30,000 characters is three or four paragraphs. This page is currently 41,786 characters with a four-paragraph lead, but admittedly they're fairly short paragraphs. When I was crafting the lead, I tried to ensure that each section of the article is touched upon at least a bit. If there are any areas where you'd particularly like to see me add more detail, let me know and we can discuss how to cover them. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:27, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

• The article's organization results in significant sandwiching of text between images/tables

  I've rearranged the layout to remove the sandwich in the admissions section, which was the major remaining one. For the athletics section, see my reply to Buidhe (ctrl+f "athletic section sandwiches") above. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:27, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

• There appear to have been surveys assessing things such as campus climate, student satisfaction, etc - is there a reason this data was not included?

  Yes, I found a whole bunch of surveys when looking up various data. To get to the alumni satisfaction one, go here, then click the satisfaction tab at the top. The reason I didn't include it was, frankly, that it felt promotional to add a line saying "10 years post graduation, 94% of alumni reported being satisfied with their education". But I suppose data being positive isn't a reason to omit it. If you feel it'd be a plus and others don't object to it, I'd be willing to add it. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:27, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

• Does the college have a land acknowledgement statement, or other initiatives around recognizing traditional lands?

  I can't find a formal land acknowledgement statement on the college's website, but this article quotes the college's president making a land acknowledgement statement as part of his remarks. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:27, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

• Are there any metrics regarding faculty achievement - grants, publications, bibliometrics, etc?

  The college regularly puts out press releases about faculty achievements (recent example for Stephen Ramon Garcia), but I'm not aware of any systematic metrics on that hosted by Pomona, and the lack of such information at other college pages indicates to me that no external organisations are collecting the data. It would be excellent information to include, so if I'm wrong about that, please let me know where to look and I'll add it. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:27, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

• Citation formatting needs cleaning up - some books include locations and others don't, some citations are missing info (eg FN248 is missing date, FN379 is missing date), etc. Also, if Lynn is to be cited, it shouldn't be a Further reading entry

  I added a date for FN248. 379 is Zmirak currently, which has a date; did you mean to mention something else? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:27, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

• {{FJC Bio}} is an attribution template meant to indicate that text from this public-domain source has been incorporated, which doesn't appear to be the case here; it's not a citation template. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:11, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

  I had a lot of trouble getting that template to work properly as a citation, so the fact that it's not meant to be a citation might help explain that haha. I'll replace with standard CS1. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:27, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Coord note -- I think we need to work on improvements to this article outside FAC; once that's done a Peer Review would seem appropriate before considering a re-nom here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:54, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 00:55, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

@Ian Rose: I am currently in the process of replying to Nikkimaria, and I've addressed comments from HAL333 and Nick-D that I hope may impact their !votes. Would it be okay to leave this open for at least a little longer to let that happen? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:18, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

On second thought, actually, I'm okay with this being archived. I'll take it through a peer review and then come back here for a fresh start. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:37, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 19 July 2021 [18].

---

In His Own Write

Nominator(s): Tkbrett (✉) 20:12, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Fifty years on and the music of John Lennon and the Beatles remains as relevant as ever, even among new generations. But in the decades since, many have forgotten that amidst the hysteria, John managed to release two collections of Lewis Carroll inspired prose and poetry. This article is about the first of those books – In His Own Write, published in March 1964. Tkbrett (✉) 20:12, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

• Image review: Licensing looks OK except File:John Lennon - In His Own Write - first drawing.jpg. The fair use rationale seems weak since this drawing doesn't appear to be actually discussed in the text. Lennon's art style is briefly discussed in other sections of the article but I'm not convinced as it is that "its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding" as required by WP:NFCC. (t · c) buidhe 20:36, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
  • buidhe: I was afraid this might happen. The book's drawings factor largely into things, but most commentators only discuss them in general and don't mention any specific drawings. I've gone ahead and removed it. I added an image of Lennon and McCartney that is PD thanks to the Dutch. Tkbrett (✉) 14:08, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
    • Looks good! (t · c) buidhe 15:54, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
      • buidhe: I added an image that is PD b/c it was produced by the US federal government. Tkbrett (✉) 13:59, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
        • 👍 (t · c) buidhe 19:58, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Coordinator note

This has been open for more than two weeks and has yet to pick up a general support. Unless it attracts considerable further attention by the three week mark I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:33, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. I'd be sad to see this archived without any discussion of the content. (I haven't been at FAC for almost 15 years, so please take my comments with a helping of salt). This is a very nice article about an interesting book of nonsense, and I will right now only talk about possible concerns with comprehensiveness (but am open to be persuaded that more detail would be harmful, and that satisfying my curiosity isn't worth bloating the article). I've read Lennon's book in its German translation In seiner eigenen Schreibe as a teenager, many years ago. Or more precisely, in a mostly (or even completely, I don't remember) bilingual edition. I do remember that "The Famous Five Through Woenow Abbey" was given in the original, together with a similar German version that was not referencing Enid Blyton, but Karl May. I'm curious whether other translators employed similar techniques of not just translating the text, but also adapting the references to a different cultural background. Do you know anything about the content of the translations other than that they exist? Another concern is that the analysis in the article is very much focused on the text, and the images play very little role. They do seem to differ from what I can see of Thurber's work online enough that one could try to say how they differ, or generally to comment on Lennon's style a bit more, even if just to say that while the texts make us (or Paul) wonder "Is he deep?" the pictures just make us go "I like the drawings too". Having a sample of art here to compare with one of Thurber's could help. To put this into context, did Lennon's style change for his next book that seems to have (relatively) more illustrations or was it just more of the same? —Kusma (talk) 22:51, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks Kusma for your incisive comments. I wish I could write more about the translation process. I assumed – and your description of the German version confirmed – that a direct translation of a book like this, filled with English puns and British pop culture references, would obviously not be sufficient. The article hints at the difficulty involved by mentioning that the Finnish publishers hired their Joyce translator to do the job. Unfortunately though, I do not have much else to work with from available reliable sources. I haven't found any discussion on how translations differed, nor how effective they were. What is in the article is really all I have found.

  I also wish I could add more on the illustrations. I have unfortunately been limited in that the sources do not generally refer to individual pictures, but only speak about John's drawings in general. (Refer to the image review above). The focus in all the sources is almost entirely on the text; the contemporary reviews that James Sauceda excerpts in The Literary Lennon do not refer to the drawings at all, except Christopher Ricks who says the book contains "[a] few expressive drawings". In Tom Wolfe's review, he says the drawings are like a cross between James Thurber and Paul Klee, but other than that the rest of his review is dedicated to discussing the text. Sauceda provides an interpretation of every one of the book's illustrations, but he is chiefly concerned with the literary aspects, and so does not describe the artwork itself and how it relates to John's influences. Maybe this is an option: both Sauceda and Tim Riley interpret a drawing of a woman accompanying the book's piece "A Letter" as depicting Christine Keeler. I'm not sure if that's enough to warrant its inclusion by the fair use standards, but that's the only drawing that Sauceda and another source both interpret, so I don't think there are really another other options. Tkbrett (✉) 00:22, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

  @Tkbrett: I appreciate that it is difficult to write much about the illustrations, as the focus of most of the scholarly literature is the text. I'm wondering whether books focusing on Lennon's art like John Lennon: The Collected Artwork have more information? There's an amazing auction catalogue with many originals relating to In His Own Write (the auction was very successful). But if there's no thorough discussion in the literature, there shouldn't be a thorough discussion of the drawings in this article.

  I've searched a bit for German literature relating to the translations, and will try to add a sentence or three with my findings. A highlight that may be interesting enough for this article is that the publisher tried and failed to persuade Arno Schmidt to translate the book (Schmidt later worked on translating Finnegans Wake into German). There also appears to be a revised translation that didn't do much except modernise the cultural references (replacing Sepp Herberger by Jogi Löw, for instance). But it is rare for Wikipedia articles to write in-depth about translations into other languages, even in cases where dedicated scholarship exists (Translations of Alice's Adventures in Wonderland is one), so perhaps I'm the only one who cares :) —Kusma (talk) 10:13, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

  Wrote something much longer than one sentence, see the top of User:Kusma/sandbox. Probably too long to include in the article, so I haven't done that yet. —Kusma (talk) 21:27, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

  You could also try to use some of what Doggett writes on p. 49 of "The art & music of John Lennon" to mention a tiny bit more about the drawings, and use one of the illustrations he mentions. —Kusma (talk) 21:41, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

  And I have found something structural (with a little on translations, but mostly about the language transformations used by Lennon), a 1967 article by a German linguist that you can find on TWL. She says on p. 147 (all following translations mine), "its translation into other languages [..] does not depend on the objective equivalence of the German and English expression, but on a (not to be defined here more precisely) structural equivalence of the linguistic signs that in both cases can be connected by means of similar derivation relations to standardised forms of German or English." She then goes on and analyses at length how Lennon's replacement of standard English by nonsense English works (and perhaps the fact that such a scholarly study exists could be mentioned in the Wikipedia article?). Possibly interesting also to the non-linguist is her observation on p. 192: "This consequence is equivalent to the conclusion that the human author, too, is operating inside a frame of limited possibilities when creating linguistically distorted constructions. It is therefore unsurprising that, when reading the second volume A Spaniard in the Works, a feeling of tiring repetition gradually ensues for the reader: although new expressions are coined incessantly, he recognises — probably not consciously — the known method of formation." So if you think the second volume is just more of the same, there's a linguist who agrees with you. —Kusma (talk) 23:14, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

• This is all fascinating, but does not move the nomination towards a consensus to promote, or not. I am archiving and suggest that the discussion be continued elsewhere, WP:PR would seem best as further contributions may be elicited there. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:21, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 4 July 2021 [19].

---

Armenian genocide

Nominator(s): (t · c) buidhe 07:28, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

This article has gone through GAN and ACR reviews with some final tweaks to make it ready for FAC; my thanks to the many reviewers who gave helpful feedback and to Ovinus who copyedited the article. The article already received a thorough image review at the ACR by Nikkimaria so it shouldn't need another one, as no images have been changed since then. (t · c) buidhe 07:28, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks for the all the comments that have been posted so far. I am working through them but it may take a while to fully address all the points that have been raised. (t · c) buidhe 00:06, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Wretchskull

• The Armenian genocide (also known by other names)[...] You could perhaps replace the parenthesis with a note mentioning the terminology, but that could just be personal preference. Example: The '''Armenian genocide'''{{refn|group=n|Example text}}.
  • There's a separate article that explains the terminology. There's too much to say to explain very well in a footnote. (t · c) buidhe 18:59, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Buidhe Sorry, I think I didn't explain properly. I meant that you can have a note that says something along the lines of "For other names, see (link)" instead of having it within parenthesis. Wretchskull (talk) 09:20, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Done (t · c) buidhe 09:25, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

• With the destruction and expulsion of Syriac and Greek Orthodox Christians, it enabled the creation of an ethnonational Turkish state. Remove "with" and ", it" for conciseness.
  • "With" and "it" include the Armenian genocide. It could be rephrased to list all three but that wouldn't be more concise.
• Turkey denies that the deportation of Armenians was a genocide or wrongful act. Remove "a", as "Genocide" is an uncountable noun (plus it is in definitive form). After that, "a" must also be added after "or" because "act" is countable.
  • Done
• Although Armenians had been called the "loyal millet" in contrast to Greeks and others who had previously challenged Ottoman rule, after 1878 Armenians became perceived as subversive and ungrateful. The comma after "rule" is correct, but to keep it without causing a grammatical error, a comma must also be added after "1878" or else the subordinate clause before the first comma would be awkwardly woven with the main clause.
  • Rephrased
• [...]where a series of transit camps were set up to control flow of victims to the killing site[...] Add "the" after "control" as it is in definitive form.
  • Done
• The first arrivals in mid-1915 were accommodated in Aleppo, but from mid-November the convoys[...] Add a comma after "mid-November" to correct the main-subordinate-main clause sentence.
  • Split into two sentences
• In some cases local officials gave Armenians food, and in others they were able to bribe officials for food and water. Add a comma after "cases" and "others", same reason as above.
  • Rephrased to "Some local officials gave Armenians food, while others took bribes..."
• [...]Talaat Pasha ordered a second wave of massacres in early 1916. I understand what you mean with "a second wave of massacres", but "the second wave of massacres" fulfils definitive form in the past tense, and states Pasha's massacres specifically. Your version is still grammatically correct though, so it is up to you.
  • I think it reads better with indefinite article because the reader hasn't heard about this second wave yet.
• [...]resulting in the displacement of more than a half million people. What about "[...]resulting in the displacement of more than half a million people."?
  • Done
• Lemkin recognized the fate of the Armenians as one of the main cases of genocide in the twentieth century. "one of the main cases of genocide" is perfectly fine, but what about "one of the most significant genocides"? Readers may confuse "main cases" as a typo for "main causes".
  • Done
• I understand if some of those comma-suggestions feel like "comma-soup" (a common complaint), but they are 100% necessary grammatically. Spoken language has corrupted their proper usage.

That's all I have for today. I have seen some confusing sentences here and there, but I'll dig into that later. Buidhe, your impressive article rewrites never disappoint me! Wretchskull (talk) 14:25, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks for the suggestions! I have been able to improve most of the sentences by rephrasing. (t · c) buidhe 18:59, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
• Wanted to say thank you for your keen grammatical eyes; I'm rather new to copyediting and your findings are very instructive. Cheers, Ovinus (talk) 18:20, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Shooterwalker

I don't know a lot about this topic except that it's tricky, and you're a strong soul for working on this. Going to work through the prose as much as possible and see how far I get. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:56, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Armenians in the Ottoman Empire

• "supremacy" is sort of a vague term. Is there something that makes this more clear?
  • I don't want to elaborate because I am trying to keep this article barebones and concise. This should be discussed in a separate article, but Suny mentions various things both symbolic (non-Muslims had to dismount from horses if a Muslim approached) and substantive (i.e. Ottoman courts favored Muslims, it could be very difficult to punish a Muslim for crimes against non-Muslims).
• Honestly, so far the prose is excellent. No run-on sentences, and lots of clear language.

Land conflict and reforms

• "semi-feudal conditions" -- is this in addition to, or in summary of their forced labor? If the former, I might want to understand more clearly what semi-feudal means, especially as it compares to the rest of the empire. If the latter, you might say "semi-feudal conditions such as..."
  • Basically for the reasons mentioned, in that they had to pay tax and/or forced labor to the lord in exchange for "protection". Suny states, "Travelers and diplomats reported that in Van, Bitlis, Diyarbakır, and elsewhere the Kurds held the Armenians in a kind of semi-feudal servitude. Not only did Armenian villagers pay taxes in kind and money to the Kurdish chieftains, but they were also obligated to work a set number of days for the Kurds and to board and feed them in Armenian villages during the winter months. In some areas Kurdish lords bought and sold Armenians like sheep or cattle and seized their land, homes, and women."
• "when Abdul Hamid II came to power," -> I'm intelligent enough to infer that he came to power as the head of the Turkish state, but you could make this clearer. "became Sultan of Turkey", for example.
  • Clarified that he was the sultan
• "Abdul Hamid suspended the 1876 Constitution of the Ottoman Empire the following year after parliamentarians criticized his handling of the Russo-Turkish War of 1877–1878." -> the sequence of this sentence leaves the timeline feeling a little unclear. Maybe invert it: "Parliamentarians criticized Abdul Hamid after the Russo-Turkish War of 1877-1878, leading Abdul Hamid to suspend the Constitution of the Ottoman Empire."
  • It's not really important to this article why he suspended the constitution, so I deleted it and moved the information on the constitution to the beginning of the Young Turk Revolution section.
• "Armenians were for the first time used to interfere in Ottoman politics" -> the meaning of the word "interfere" is unclear here, and maybe there's a better word choice.
  • I'm not sure what wording would be clearer? The point is that other countries were using the Armenian issue in order to pry into what was considered Ottoman domestic politics.
• "by Ottoman soldiers, crowds incited to violence, and Kurdish tribes" -> "by Ottoman soldiers, Kurdish tribes, and mobs incited to violence."
  • Done
• "Armenian villages were forcibly converted" -> "Armenians were forcibly converted" (people convert to religion, not places)
  • the point is that Armenians didn't convert individually, but en masse, as explained here, for example.
• "unquestioningly accept Muslim supremacy" -> this is again unclear, and if there's now a big old revolt and an "Armenian question", the word "unquestioningly" is confusing here.
  • The sentence refers to the "previous social order", rather than the present one in which indeed some Armenians did not unquestioningly accept their inferiority.

Young Turk Revolution

• This section is very well-written and I'd be nitpicking. Great job.

Balkan Wars

• "The 1912 First Balkan War resulted in the loss of almost all of the empire's European territory[65] and the mass expulsion of Muslims from the Balkans.[66]" -> "In the 1912 First Balkan War, the Ottoman empire lost almost all of its European territory, leading to the mass expulsion of Muslims from the Balkans."
  • Not done, I don't think that the loss of territory automatically leads to mass expulsion. It wouldn't have if the Balkan League states had pursued different policies.
• "pursued a policy of changing the demographic balance of border areas" -> "pursued its demographic goals" or "tried to transform the population of border areas". Trying for something less wordy here.
  • Reworded along the lines of your suggestions
• "When parts of Eastern Thrace were reoccupied by the Ottoman Empire during the Second Balkan War in mid-1913, local Greeks, and Armenians—who had not fought against the empire—were subjected to looting and intimidation." -> this one is a tough read. I understand you're trying to pack in a lot of information.
  • Simplified

Entry into World War I

• Perhaps "Start of World War I" or "Onset of World War I" is a better title, since this article isn't about a single actor
  • I don't think so, if it used that title, people would expect to hear about the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand and July Crisis. Instead, this is about the Ottoman entry to WWI.
• "Wartime requisitions, often corrupt and arbitrary, were used to target Greeks and Armenians in particular." -> "Wartime requisitions were often corrupt and arbitrary, and frequently targeted Greeks and Armenians."
  • Done
• ", of all ethnicities and religions," might remove these commas, but I usually see the benefit for sentence flow.
  • Done
• "and met a favorable response already before 1915" -> this feels tacked on. I feel like it could be dropped, but if it's important, maybe there's a clearer rephrase.
  • The point is that anti-Armenian policies were already escalating even before the Battle of Sarikamish, often seen a turning point. Akcam states, "In this event, the December decisions of both the Erzurum Central Committee and the Istanbul government can be seen as important intermediate steps toward the final government decision to exterminate the empire’s Armenian population... it remains significant that these earlier local decisions were taken in a period before the empire had experienced serious military setbacks and faced the prospect of actually losing the war."

Onset of genocide

• "Returning to Constantinople, Enver Pasha publicly blamed his defeat on Armenians in the region, saying they had actively sided with the Russians, which became a consensus among CUP leaders" -> the three commas kind of break this up awkwardly, and might be better if you can eliminate one sub-clause, or just break it into two sentences.
  • Rewrote
• The interpretations of Akcam and Grigor might be better paired back to back. As is, it sort of interrupts the tone of the rest of the prose.
  • Reworked
• "ethnically cleansed" -> probably worth at least a wikilink. I know it's linked in the lead, but worth linking in the body too. Ideally, more clarification of what this term means.
  • Removed this sentence
• "During the night of 23–24 April 1915, at the orders of Talaat Pasha, hundreds of Armenian political activists, intellectuals, and community leaders—including many of Talaat's former political allies—were rounded up in Constantinople and across the empire." -> this sentence makes my head spin a bit. Could we break it up or re-organize it somehow?
  • Done
• "eventually" -> "eventual"

We'll pause there. The prose is excellent, these comments aside. Generally the goal of these suggestions is to improve clarity, and remove confusing phrasings. If you think they take you in the wrong direction, feel free to push back a little. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:40, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Going to keep going with this.

• So far...
• Won't dig in too hard on anything so far, except that I think the suspension of the constitution is important in its chronological context. I would strongly suggest re-adding it, just because there is a subtext here of "what were the major turning points that took the conflict closer to genocide". My suggestion was more that the phrasing of why it was suspended felt a little confusing, and you might not even need to get into it, as readers can always follow a blue link to understand more. The suspension of legal processes is always a major turning point, IMO.

• Except that it doesn't really. That was back in 1878 and the constitution was restored again during the Second Constitutional Era, so the constitution doesn't really have anything to do with the genocide.

• I might also suggest renaming the section "Ottoman entry into WW1" for clarity.

• Done

• Systematic deportations
• There is some overlap between the end of the last section here, but I think it's worth starting with the deportations themselves, as the section makes it sound like he is reacting to deportations that haven't happened yet.

• ? There are some deportations mentioned in the last section, but it's only at this point that they become truly systematic across the empire.

• "Deportation amounted to a death sentence" -> I think you need to give a little more context here. I'm trying to infer that maybe this is because they were sent to the Syrian desert? In which case, this goes back to my previous point of adding that to this section, as I think it adds more clarity than redundancy.

• This sentence is primarily aimed at those who say that the Ottoman government just tried to relocate the Armenians and if they died, it was due to factors out of its control. I could add that they were deliberately sent into places incompatible with their continued life.

• "sources of deportation" sounds confusing and could be rephrased. "Targeted areas," maybe?

• I don't think that makes it more clear. "Targeted" in what way?

• "these deportees were often allowed to travel by rail" this fragment kind of floats in the middle. If the means of deportation is important, it's worth rephrasing and adding more context. As is, it seems less relevant and I'd consider cutting it.

• Moved

• "Overall, national, regional, and local levels of governance, as well as power-brokers in the party, government, and army, cooperated willingly in the perpetration of genocide" -> "Numerous actors willingly cooperated in the perpetration of genocide, including the military, the [X] party, and government at the local, regional, and national levels." (trying to get the list of actors to flow better)

• Reworded

• "Some Ottoman politicians opposed the genocide; they faced dismissal or assassination" -> I think there's a better connector here than a semi colon. "But" would be fine.

• Done

• Death marches
• "Although the majority of able-bodied men" -> Armenian men I'm guessing? I'm learning a lot as I go so it helps to make it clear for readers.
  • Done
• "remained if they were too old or young, had deserted, or had paid the exemption tax" -> "deserted, paid the exemption task, or fell outside practical age range." (flow of the list)
  • Reworded
• "during the first few days" -> could probably strike this and improve flow, without losing much clarity
  • I think it is worthwhile to establish the time frame.
• "The convoys would stop at a nearby transit camp and the escorts would demand a ransom from the Armenians; those who were unable to pay were murdered." -> "The convoys would stop at a nearby transit camp, where the escorts would demand a ransom from the Armenians. Those who were unable to pay were murdered."
  • Done
• "the majority of those deported from Erzerum and Trebizond, as well as many from Sivas" -> "most from Erzerum, Trebizond, and Sivas" (shorter. don't need to say deported deportees.)
  • Reworded a bit, but mostly not done as "most" would misrepresent the quantities according to the source.
• "where a series of transit camps were set up to control the flow of victims to the killing site" -> "where a series of camps were positioned to steer victims to the killing site" (trying to make this less wordy)
  • That isn't the correct meaning here, I believe. The purpose of the camps were to hold people temporarily so that the executioners got a consistent and steady flow of victims rather than more than they could handle at a time.
• "off the cliffs into valleys from which the only escape was into the lake" -> the geography is confusing here.
  • Reworded
• "having passed through the plain and approaching the Kahta highlands" -> "having passed through the plain to approach the Kahta highlands"

• Done

• "in one of the deadliest areas during the genocide" -> maybe attach this to the previous sentence for flow. "More than 500,000 Armenians passed through the Firincilar plain south of Malatya, in what would become one of the deadliest areas during the genocide."

• Done

• "Many others were trapped in valleys of tributaries of the Tigris, Euphrates, or Murat River by members of the Special Organization; their bodies were thrown into the river." -> "Many others were trapped in valleys of tributaries of the Tigris, Euphrates, or Murat River, killed and thrown in the river by members of the Special Organization." (flow)

• Reworded

• "These corpses arrived in Upper Mesopotamia before the first of the living deportees" -> "before the first" makes it sound like a time thing, when I suspect you mean that the living deportees literally saw them.

• No, the source talks about the time interpretation and doesn't mention deportees seeing them.

• "Arab populations" -> just Arabs? Thus far this has hit the Persian gulf, under Ottoman/Turkish rule, with lots of other ethnic minorities, so just want to be sure this isn't a mistake.
  • It's what the source says. The lower regions of the Tigris and Euphrates are overwhelmingly populated by Arabs.
• "the Ottoman government also wanted the corpses cleared to prevent photographic documentation. The Ottoman government ordered the corpses to be cleared as soon as possible, which was not uniformly followed" -> "The Ottoman government also wanted the corpses cleared to prevent photographic documentation, ordering the corpses to be cleared as soon as possible, though this was not always followed."
  • I separated this into one sentence talking about motive for the orders and another discussing the order with regards to corpses and how it applied in practice. I don't think it helps to recombine them as you suggest especially it seems to create a bit of a run-on.
• "and those from farther west, who made up most of those surviving to reach Syria" -> "and those from farther west who survived to reach Syria" or "those from father west who were more likely to reach Syria".
  • Disagree, this change alters the meaning.

Pausing again here. The suggestions are mostly around structure, clarity and flow, so focus more on the spirit of the suggestions than the exact letter. We'll knock this out soon at the rate we're going. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:04, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Found some time to keep going:

• Islamization
• "Islamized" and "Islamization" are both WP:neologisms that lack clarity. If it's just conversations to Islam under duress, then say that.

• That's the main term used in the sources, along with "assimilation". I don't think it's a neologism or a particularly technical term as it just means making something Islamic, similar to Christianization.

• "and was as integral to genocide as killing" this is a big equivalency. Not to negate the horrors of forced / blackmailed conversion, but this goes under one of those extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary backing. If you're making the point that forcing someone to change their language and culture is itself a form of genocide, then that bears worth stating clearly and factually.

• That's what the sources say: "assimilation was as much a structural element of genocide as physical destruction". "Religious conversion and forced assimilation of Armenian women and children into Muslim households were two of the most significant structural components of the 1915 Armenian Genocide. In other words, Islamization of Armenian women and children – as well as imposition of Muslim culture, education, and traditions upon them – was one of the most significant aspects of the Armenian Genocide." (Other sources say the same thing). Note, they do not say that forced conversion is equivalent to killing, and neither does this article.

• I have felt this only a few times while reading, but I'd recommend reading the essay Wikipedia:Let the reader decide. This is clearly a horrific event, and the more I read the more I understand the challenge and importance of healing from such a systemic . Phrases like the last one add a lot of editorial color without adding any real information. You can trust that a reader will form an intelligent opinion about conversions under the threat of deportation and/or death. It's a good essay to bear in mind for a few moments in an otherwise excellent article.
• "physical destruction" -> if we mean death, just say death. If we're talking about destroying property, we can clarify that too.

• I don't know. It doesn't read right with death to me. The source says "physical annihilation".

• "Although the first and most important step was conversion to Islam, the process also required the eradication of Armenian names, language, and culture, and for women, immediate marriage to a Muslim man" -> "After the conversion to Islam, many/most/all were forced to give up their Armenian names, language, and culture. Women were required to marry a Muslim man."

• Not done, this loses information and I don't think it is an improvement

• The article is unclear on what language they would then speak. Did they speak Turkish? Arabic? Were they effectively Turks now? The actual language and culture of the converts is an important fact that is missing.
  • They would have had to learn the language of their captors, most likely Turkish, Kurdish, or Arabic. Some, especially younger children, effectively blended in with their assumed identity.
• "permitted marriage of Armenian females into Muslim households, as these women were forced to convert to Islam" -> these two subphrases are confusing, mainly the inconsistency between "permitted" and "forced"

• Reworded

• Less so than "islamization", "rape" is another word where "sexual assault" would be the more accurate term. (Where you already state "sexual abuse", this is preferred.)

• I don't see why the term "rape" is inaccurate or should be disallowed especially if it's used in the sources.

• "Although Armenian women tried various means of avoiding sexual violence, often suicide was the only available means of escape" -> "Although Armenian women tried to avoid sexual violence, suicide was often the only alternative." (shorter and better flow)

• Done

• Several aspects of the last paragraph feel disconnected from the section, which was set up to be about forced conversion. You raise some aspects about what happened to the deportees in the next section about "destination", and perhaps it would be more at home there.

• I can see how it might seem that way, but these aspects are discussed in the chapters of the sources dealing with "assimilation" or "Islamization".

• Destination
• "Childless Turks, Arabs, and Jews would come to the camps to buy Armenian children from their parents; thousands of children were sold in this manner" -> "Thousands of Armenian children were sold to childless Turks, Arabs, and Jews, who would come to the camps to buy them from their parents."

• Done

• "Armenian ability to adapt and survive was greater than the perpetrators expected" -> "The Armenian people proved more adaptable than their oppressors expected."
  • I don't think this is an improvement, because both sources note the larger number of Armenians surviving than envisioned and the POV overtones of "oppressors".
• "After hearing from Matthias Erzberger that Germany expected surviving Armenians to be allowed to return home after the war, Talaat Pasha ordered a second wave of massacres in early 1916" -> "German politician Matthias Erzberger expected their Ottoman allies to allow Armenians to return home after the war. Upon hearing this, Talaat Pasha ordered a second wave of massacres in early 1916." (making this more clear and flow better. "expected" might not be the right word, if it was a command, or a communication, or what.)
  • Rewrote this sentence.
• "to kill" -> can strike this without losing meaning.
  • Done
• On the whole, this section is really well written. Great job.
• Confiscation of property
• "A secondary motivation for genocide was the destruction of the Armenian middle class to make room for a Turkish and Muslim bourgeoisie" -> "A secondary motivation for genocide was to make room for a Turkish and Muslim bourgeoisie, by destroying the Armenian middle class" or even "by confiscating Armenian property". (to make the connection clearer)
• The statement asking them to employ Muslims is confusing next to the statement where Muslims took over the business. It's missing a very important event in the middle.

• Reworded

• "Republic of Turkey" is a new political state at this point, and readers will need some context about when the transformation took place.

• Added

• "many lower-class Turks (i.e. peasantry, soldiers, and laborers)" -> "Many Turkish soldiers and laborers"

• I can't access this source so I'm not confident rewording it in a way that changes the meaning.

• The "statist national economy" doesn't square up with verifiable statements about market economy of Turkey, and might just need more context since we're talking about a state with 100 years of history now.

• It can be statist and still partly market based—see mixed market economy. Since the 1980s, the Turkish economy was reformed to be much more market based than it was previously.

• "All traces of Armenian existence, including churches and monasteries, libraries, archaeological sites, khachkars, and animal and place names, were systematically erased" -> "All traces of Armenian existence were systematically erased, including churches, monasteries, libraries, archaeological sites, khachkars, and Armenian names for animals and places."

• I don't think that's an improvement

• "second half of the twentieth century" should be more specific, as we're talking about a vague window of 50 years here

• That's what the cited source says. I would guess that it's hard to pinpoint an end date to it, but you can read about individual examples at Confiscation of Armenian properties in Turkey.

Will pause again here. This article is generally excellent, considering its density. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:36, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Coming back with additional review of the prose. I'm hoping to get through to the end, and then circle back on a few areas where some of the issues are still creating a lack of clarity. There are a few places where I understood more from your explanation on this talk page than the article itself, but we can come back to those. As always, the spirit of the suggestions is more important than the exact letter.

• Death toll
• " Talaat Pasha's estimates, published in 2007, gave an incomplete total of 924,158 Armenians deported; officials' notes suggest increasing this number by 30 percent. The resulting estimate of 1.2 million deported is in line with estimates by Johannes Lepsius and Arnold J. Toynbee." -> I feel like there's a better way to make this flow, but admittedly everything I come up with feels like a lateral move.
• "Based on contemporary estimates, Akçam estimated" -> a lot of estimating. Akçam surmised? Inferred?
  • Reworded
• "While in Bitlis and Trabizond 99% of the Armenian population vanished from the statistical record between 1915 and 1917, in Adana 38% were missing and the others survived in another province, or were not deported at all." -> "According to the statistical record between 1915 and 1917, 99% of the Armenian population vanished from Bitlis and Trabizond, while 38% went missing in Adana. Others survived in another province, or were not deported at all." (striving to make this flow better)

• I don't think that's an improvement.

• International reaction
• "The Ottoman Empire tried to prevent journalists from reporting on the atrocities[206] and threatened foreigners who photographed the atrocities" -> "The Ottoman Empire tried to prevent journalists from reporting on the atrocities, and threatened foreign photographers." (shorter, less redundant)

• Reworded

• "The genocide was condemned by world leaders such as" -> was "genocide" in the vocabulary of Churchill and Wilson? it's important to square this with the later section that there has been a lobbying effort to recognize it as a genocide, and this wasn't resolved in the early 20th century. Here's a situation where it's better to stick close to the words of said leaders.

• Obviously the word "genocide" was not used, as it hadn't been coined yet. I can't quote each one, which is not given in the sources and anyway would be UNDUE. So I just removed the sentence.

• Postwar
• "not including those forcibly converted and held captive by Arab tribes" -> "not including the converted captives of the Arab tribes." (avoids a flow-breaking conjunction for an already long sentence)

• Reworded

• "Following the genocide, remaining Armenians organized a coordinated effort known as vorpahavak (lit. 'the gathering of orphans') to reclaim kidnapped Armenian women and children." -> "Armenian survivors organized a campaign known as vorpahavak (lit. 'the gathering of orphans') to reclaim kidnapped Armenian women and children." (cut some redundancies)

• Reworded

• "The 1920 Treaty of Sèvres awarded Armenia a large area in eastern Anatolia, but was not ratified." This could use even a small elaboration. Who pushed for it. Why it wasn't ratified.

• Aargh... this is really too complicated to deal with here without going way too long :(

• Trials
• Is it important to rename the link to "Istanbul trials of 1919–1920"? The actual article title is more clear to me and conveyed more information.

• It's not a fully accurate name, as the city was still named "Constantinople" in 1920.

• Grand Vizier Damat Ferid Pasha publicly recognized that 800,000 Ottoman citizens of Armenian origin had died as a result of state policy[224] and was a key figure and initiator of the Ottoman Special Military Tribunal.[225] -> "Grand Vizier Damat Ferid Pasha became a key figure of the Ottoman Special Military Tribunal, publicly recognizing that 800,000 Ottoman citizens of Armenian origin had died as a result of state policy." (flow / grammar)
  • Reworded
• "The trial of his admitted killer, Soghomon Tehlirian, focused on Talaat's responsibility for genocide and became "one of the most spectacular trials of the twentieth century", according to historian Stefan Ihrig. Tehlirian was acquitted." -> The sequence of this feels off, and I feel like this could be rephrased for both flow and impact.
• Turkish War of Independence
• "In September 1918, recognizing that the empire had lost the war militarily, Talaat Pasha emphasized his completion of the most important war aim: "transforming Turkey to a nation-state in Anatolia"" -> "In September 1918, recognizing that the Ottomans had lost the war, Talaat Pasha focused on completing his more important aim: "transforming Turkey to a nation-state in Anatolia" (trying to be more succinct and clear)
  • No, that changes the meaning to something that is wrong. At this point he is reflecting on his "accomplishments".
• "fight against both native Christian minorities and foreign powers" -> "fight foreign powers, as well as native Christian minorities". (for flow. "both" sort of leads to a funny meaning here.)
  • Reworded
• "From 1918 to 1920, there were revenge killings of Muslims by Armenian militants, totaling at most 40,000 to 60,000, but providing a retroactive excuse for genocide" -> "From 1918 to 1920, Armenian militants retaliated by killing between 40,000 to 60,000 people. However, the perpetrators of the genocide used these deaths to retroactively justify their actions." (flow / clarity.)

• Reworded

• "third phase of genocide, this time planned by the Kemalist authorities" -> the direct quote gets in the way more than it adds, mostly because of the introduction of the opaque term "Kemalist". You'd probably be better off with a summary, and saying "the Turkish government" or even "Turkish authorities under President Kemal Atatürk."
  • Reworded
• "In early republican Turkey, courts did not enforce the property rights that non-Muslims were granted on paper.[257]" -> this sentence is interesting, but breaks up the paragraph that seems to be about something else. It's worth keeping, but placing somewhere else. It may be enough to just switch it with the previous sentence.
  • I do agree it's worth mentioning. Gocek states "The Lausanne Treaty theoretically guaranteed the legal rights of non-Muslim minorities remaining in Turkey. Militant Turkish ethnic nationalism practiced by state authorities, as well as the local Muslims, ensured, however, that they did not have much, if any, legal protection. In addition, the inability of these non- Muslims to recover their properties left them in reduced circumstances; they were not only forced to give up their education but often ended up working as servants in Turkish households. Any transaction with the Turks carried the danger of nonpayment, forcing the withering communities to interact only with their own." Some of the examples she gives are quite shocking and there's more in Suciyan's book. I don't understand what's out of place with the sentence, the paragraph is about the conditions faced by Armenians in post-1923 Turkey.
• Legacy
• A full stop seems more appropriate here than a semi-colon. Admittedly, I dislike semi-colons more than most, but particularly this one.

• Done

• I mentioned why I think there's clearer language than Kemalist.

• Rephrased

• Turkey
• "support Armenian genocide denial" -> "deny the Armenian genocide happened" (I understand you're trying to preserve the article title, but there is this awkward construction of supporting a denial.)

• Changed to "promote". Subtle difference in meaning: these political parties don't just reject that a genocide happened but actively promote the denial ideology.

• "Many Kurds" -> leaders? citizens? both? this is an interesting point worth elaborating even slightly.

• Both. I don't think more elaboration would be helpful, since there's a separate article on it.

• "Historian Donald Bloxham recognizes that since "denial has always been accompanied by rhetoric of Armenian treachery, aggression, criminality, and territorial ambition, it actually enunciates an ongoing if latent threat of Turkish 'revenge'", threatening the security of Armenia" -> the quote makes for a run-on sentence here. If you really want to keep it, I might suggest breaking this into two sentences: the conclusion, and the quote that led him there.

• Reworded

• Armenia and Azerbaijan
• The first sentence is quite complicated in its construction and could be rephrased, or broken into two sentences.

• Reworded

• "Azerbaijan also joined the Turkish effort to deny the 1915 genocide" -> was this in response to the conflict? It's worth making this connection. Or if not, then placing it in its chronological context.

• Position of this statement in the paragraph about the conflict is intended to convey this impression. Azerbaijan was not an independent country before the conflict. For more details, see the section about Azerbaijan in Armenian genocide denial.

• International recognition
• No comments here. Reads very well.
• Cultural depictions
• Same thing. By the way, the connections here are fascinating and chilling.
• Archives and historiography
• The parenthetical part is important enough to not be in parentheses. Take two sentences, if you need it.
  • Done
• This is otherwise very well written.
• While not strictly needed for a featured-article, as a reader I find myself wondering how much of the slow recognition of genocide has been due to the semantics that the word "genocide" was coined more than 25 years after it happened. It would be worth a paragraph, IMO, but you've painstakingly covered a lot of ground as is.

• I think that question is more relevant to Armenian genocide recognition.

Let's pause there and circle back on any outstanding stuff once you get through it. Thanks for your hard work. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:26, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Wrap-Up

I greatly appreciate the work that has been done on this important article. With some self-awareness, I've been using my post-graduate education on articles about entertainment, and I'm now evaluating something much more vital to human knowledge. But this subject is so important and so difficult that it does need the highest scrutiny to be featured, to communicate the subject clearly to readers. With that, I've been able to evaluate the lead, before circling back to some other unresolved issues from my prior comments. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:09, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

• Lead
• The first sentence in the lead is overly complex and tries to pack a lot of information into one shot. If it cannot be simplified, it might be better to break this into two sentences. The first sentence is meant to give readers an entry point, and it's really important that it is the most readable. Consider whether you need to name the specific regions, the political party, and the timing, all in the first sentence. (e.g.: could you just say Armenians in the Ottoman Empire during World War I, and cover the rest after?)

• I suggested some possible alternatives below, search "ALT1".

• The article is pretty dense, but I'm not remembering this as fear of Armenian "attempt to break free of the empire" (in the lead), and more as they "joined revolutionary political parties" for "improved conditions" (in the article). I'd generalize the lead to match the article. Or, if you have the steam, you could tweak the article to talk about Armenian efforts towards independence. This sentence (first one in the second paragraph) is also pretty long and complex, and worth rephrasing.

• The point isn't that Armenians were killed because they tried to break free of the empire (which was not popular among Armenians until after the genocide), but because the CUP thought they might. This is the most important reason for committing the genocide so I don't think it can be omitted.

• "series of concentration camps; in early 1916" --> a full-stop is more appropriate here.
• "With the destruction and expulsion of Syriac and Greek Orthodox Christians" -> having read the article, I know what you mean, but there might be a phrasing that more clearly connects the Armenian genocide to the other two acts of ethnic cleansing, in terms of the overall goal / outcome.
• The rest of the lead reads very well, and I'd reiterate the importance of getting the first couple sentences to that level of readability.
• Background pt. 2
• You article inspired me to read outside the lines, including Ottoman_Empire#Decline_and_modernisation_(1828–1908), The Forty Days of Musa Dagh, and numerous others that filled in some important gaps for me as a reader. I understand the "background" section can't cover everything, but I believe there are some omissions that are essential to understanding this subject.
• It was a mistake to take the constitutional struggles out of the "Land conflict and reforms" section, and if anything, the first constitutional era should be more clearly noted.

• I don't think so. I'm not aware of sources that highlight the first constitutional era in the context of the Armenian genocide.

• The fact that the Armenian middle class grew substantially in the 19th century seems like an omission, as it would provide essential context, particularly to some of the confiscation that comes up later.

• This is mentioned at the end of "Armenians in the Ottoman Empire" section. Although Armenians made up a significant part of the Ottoman bourgeoisie, "middle class" has the potential to be misleading as the vast majority of Armenians were poor peasant farmers.

• For more context, the article should name some of the recent territorial losses for the Ottomans, such as Serbia and others. This might also tie into an earlier comment about the lead, with fears of a (perceived or real) Armenian independence movement.

• Serbia is one of the countries that annexed Ottoman territories following the Balkan Wars. I don't see a reason to single it out.

• The background section should at least mention the obvious, that the Ottoman Empire was in decline. (The "sick man of Europe".)

• I mean, what is decline? It's a vague concept and in some ways the empire continued to grow and develop up to the start of WWI. The section already discusses territorial losses which sources directly tie to the genocide.

• "Sharia law encoded Islamic supremacy but guaranteed property rights and freedom of worship to non-Muslims (dhimmis) in exchange for a special tax." -> I maintain that the chosen phrasing of "supremacy" is sort of an empty term, as it could imply any number of social structures, from slavery, to serfdom, to suzerainty, to segregation. There are innumerable phrasings that would paint a clearer picture for the reader, even just "more legal rights for Muslim subjects".

• The rest of the sentence explains the status more concretely. We can't go on endlessly about the exact status because it varied. I don't agree that your suggestion is more clear because slavery is also a state where the slaveholder has more legal rights than the slave.

• "the previous social order in which Christians would unquestioningly accept Muslim supremacy" -> likewise, I appreciate your clarification on the talk page, but the article remains unclear. I would try to explain the previous social order in more clear terms, or if it's easier, just say "previous social order" and leave it to readers to recall what the article already stated.

• I think from the context it should be as clear as it can be... Armenians make no more demands for reform and quietly accept whatever treatment is meted out to them.

• To be clear, none of these issues require a lot more writing. Some of it can be done by using clearer language, clearer sequencing, or an additional sentence or two.
• Remaining issues
• On the whole, the article reads better, and it already read quite well considering its density.
• "These pressures played a key role in the intensification of anti-Armenian persecution and met a favorable response already before 1915." -> this remains unclear in the article
• When you introduce Akçam, you should explain who he is. E.g.: Turkish historian

• Done

• "The first deportations of Armenians were proposed by Djemal Pasha in February 1915 and targeted Armenians in Cilicia—specifically Alexandretta, Dörtyol, Adana, Hadjin, Zeytun, and Sis—who were relocated to the area around Konya in central Anatolia" -> I'd still say this could be rephrased for readability.
• "these deportees were often allowed to travel by rail" -> I'm still unclear on the significance of this, and it needs more context.
• "off the cliffs into valleys from which the only escape was into the lake" -> this is still confusing. I'm imagining being pushed off a cliff would be certain death, so it's hard to understand how they're escaping valleys into a lake. I'm sure you can rephrase it to make it more understandable.

• Reworded

• "These corpses arrived in Upper Mesopotamia before the first of the living deportees" -> the meaning of "before" is still ambiguous here and this could be phrased in a clearer way

• Removed

• "Islamization" should be rephrased, primarily for clarity. The lead says "forcibly converted". The sources say "religious conversion" and "forced assimilation". These are all more clear.
• "was as integral to genocide as killing" -> the language in the sources is clearer here, too. The sources describe this as a "structural element", "structural component", or "significant aspect".

• Reworded

• "eradication of Armenian names, language, and culture," -> you introduce the idea of language here but don't really elaborate on what that linguistic transformation is. If there's no appropriate way to elaborate, you could probably just say "eradication of Armenian culture", which preserves most of the meaningg, without raising loose threads for the reader.
• I maintain that "sexual abuse", "sexual assault", and "sexual violence" are clearer and more academic language than "rape", but I do understand that older references use this term.
• I reiterate that the statement asking minorities to employ Muslims is confusing next to the statement where Muslims took over the business. If they're employing them, how would the Muslims take over? I'm not sure if there's a missing piece of information, or if this is just in need of rephrasing.
• I also reiterate, the "statist national economy" doesn't square up with verifiable statements about market economy of Turkey, and needs some sort of clarification.

• state capitalism is a thing. Statism was one of the original pillars of Kemalism.

• "Confiscation of Armenian assets continued into the second half of the twentieth century" -> some specificity would be helpful here. But having followed some blue links, I can see how this does have to stay general, given the complexity.
• "While in Bitlis and Trabizond 99% of the Armenian population vanished from the statistical record between 1915 and 1917, in Adana 38% were missing and the others survived in another province, or were not deported at all" -> this sentences remains awkwardly constructed
  • Removed as this is displayed on the map.
• * The comment about Churchill and Wilson is important enough that it shouldn't have been removed. Just if they didn't actually call it a genocide, you could simply say they condemned the atrocities, or the violence, or the events.
• "In September 1918, recognizing that the empire had lost the war militarily, Talaat Pasha emphasized his completion of the most important war aim: "transforming Turkey to a nation-state in Anatolia" -> this one too. If he's reflecting on his accomplishments, that could be made more clear, as the meaning is ambiguous here.

• Reworded

• "both native Christian minorities" -> also creates a funny meaning. You could probably drop "both" and improve clarity by subtraction.
• "From 1918 to 1920, there were revenge killings of Muslims by Armenian militants, totaling at most 40,000 to 60,000, but providing a retroactive excuse for genocide" -> this one is also awkwardly constructed, and probably stems from the passive voice used in the middle of it.

• Reworded

• "In early republican Turkey, courts did not enforce the property rights that non-Muslims were granted on paper." -> this is out of place in a paragraph mainly about the where the survivors ended up. While there's no obvious place for it, I suggest putting it before the part that says "While Armenians in the capital faced discrimination", as those thoughts do connect better.
• "Most Turkish citizens[268][269] and all major political parties in Turkey except the Peoples' Democratic Party promote Armenian genocide denial.[270]" -> "With the exception of the Peoples' Democratic Party, all major political parties in Turkey promote an ideology of Armenian genocide denial, which is reflected among Turkish citizens." (The word promote is better here, and it's worth re-sequencing to see the citizens as targets of those promotions.)

• Rewrote

• "Many Kurds" -> the link refers to political parties, NGOs, and newspapers

• The cited sources also discuss the attitude of Kurdish population.

• "Azerbaijan also joined the Turkish effort to deny the 1915 genocide" -> I think the 1915 is what's confusing the timeline here, and could probably be removed without losing any clarity. I'm open to other phrasings too.

• Rephrased.

• The first sentence in the "archives" section should just be broken into two, for readability.

• Reworded

Once again, I empathize with the painstaking effort that goes into a topic this challenging. I can imagine these last efforts become tiring, but these are necessary for a subject of this importance. So much of the article is excellent, and my hope is to iron out these last few issues so that the article is ready to be featured. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:09, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Trying to pick this one back up. Hoping we can wrap this up. Some issues are less important than others, so I've tried to focus on the pieces that would be essential for a featured article.

Lead: I like "ALT3" – introducing the basic idea in one sentence, and elaborating in the second. The lead otherwise reads better now, and the phrasing is clearer that the Ottomans feared an exaggerated threat of independence, which is more consistent with the article.

Background: I really do insist that some context is missing, or unclear from the phrasing you've chosen. Not that we want to completely re-duplicate the causes of the Armenian genocide article, but I'd cite a few examples of enormously illuminating context that is missing or obscure. Quoting from that article:

• "Traditionally the Ottoman millet system offered non-Muslims a subordinate but protected place in society. The nineteenth-century Tanzimat reforms abolished the protections that members of the Armenian millet had previously enjoyed, but did not change the popular perception that they were different and inferior." (The phrasing from the causes article of "subordinate but protected" helps explain the status of Armenians, along with the juxtaposition of abolishing the millet system without addressing their perceived inferiority.)

• Done

• "It is widely accepted that the Balkan Wars put an end to Ottomanism, the movement for pluralism and coexistence within the empire. Instead, the CUP turned to an increasingly radical ideology of Turkish nationalism to preserve the empire. Analogies with the Balkans led to an increasing anti-Armenian positioning within the CUP around 1913, as ethnic and religious pluralism was increasingly viewed as a dangerous liability." (This is such a clear and succinct summary about the political currents in the Ottoman empire – both successful and failed. Even without naming specific reforms or policies, it addresses it. Again, I consider it a mistake that you removed the constitutional changes from their proper place in the chronology. But these quotes from the "causes" article at least provide some sort of overview.)

• Done

• "Although most Armenians in the Ottoman Empire were peasant farmers, they were overrepresented in commerce. As middleman minorities, there was a great disparity between wealth of some Armenians and the overall political power of the group, making them especially vulnerable." (You briefly mention the economic status of a few Armenians, but even your explanation on the talk page paints a clearer picture. These two sentences from the "causes" article are very clear.

• Done

• Even comparing the "causes" article, I feel this article could be a lot more clear that the CUP first came to power in a 1908 revolution. The current article seems to bury it.

• Add clarification that the CUP came to power in 1908.

• "In his memoirs, United States ambassador Henry Morgenthau, Sr. states that the Turks had expelled the Greeks so successfully that they had decided to apply the same method to all the other races in the empire. Historian Matthias Bjørnlund states that the perceived "success" of the Greek deportation meant that even more radical measures could be seen as not only possible, but as yet another extension of a policy of social engineering through Turkification." (These are both clearer statements on the comparison between the ethnic cleansing of the Greeks and the Armeninans. You likely wouldn't need both sentences, if you summarized them together, or slightly tweaked the language of what you already have in this article. This would inform how the Greeks are compared to the Armenians in the lead)

• Done

• This also seems like an important omission about the question of Armenian independence: "While the Dashnaks sought improved conditions within the empire, the rival and less influential Hntchaks proposed an independent state in eastern Anatolia"

• Done

• The causes article isn't as well-written from a prose standpoint, but I find it covers some essential aspects of the topic more clearly – often in fewer words. There are instances where your phrasing on this talk page are more clear than the article: "that Armenians make no more demands for reform" is clear, where "restoring the previous social order in which Christians would unquestioningly accept Muslim supremacy" raises contradictions that are left unexplained. I know you've worked hard on this FA, but the background of the genocide needs to be as clear as possible to do right by our readers.

Rest of article: The article on the whole reads a lot better, but there are some statements that seem like pivotal facts, where more clarity is needed:

• "and met a favorable response already before 1915" doesn't have a clear meaning in the article. Most of all, who was responding favorably. Let alone what specific events before 1915 were receiving that response.
• "before the first of the living deportees" was more clearly explained on this talk page than in the article.

• Removed as this isn't really important.

• "Islamization" is an opaque term, like many neologisms. The lead says "forcibly converted". The sources say "religious conversion" and "forced assimilation". Even your blue link for "forced islamization" is such a specific and opaque re-naming of real article name, hidden Armenians, which refers Armenians "who converted to Islam to escape". All of these are more clear than what's in this section.

• I'm struggling to understand what makes these terms more understandable than the present one. The sources do prominently use Islamization along with other terms. Religious conversion doesn't say what religion. Forced assimilation doesn't say what they assimilated to. I'm open to changing this but only if there is some alternate terminology that can convey the right meaning. Saying that Armenians "converted to Islam to escape" is partly true, but makes it sound like an individual decision rather than a structural aspect of the genocide and systematic state policy.

• "eradication of Armenian names, language, and culture," -> you introduce the idea of language here but don't really elaborate on what language they took. You elaborated on it on this talk page, but if it's not relevant enough to cover properly, then just say "eradication of Armenian culture". That conveys essentially the same meaning without raising the same loose threads.

• For the CUP, it was most important that Armenians abandon their original identity in all its aspects. It wasn't considered as important whether they subsequently became Turks, Kurds, or Arabs.

• "In September 1918, recognizing that the empire had lost the war militarily, Talaat Pasha emphasized his completion of the most important war aim: transforming Turkey to a nation-state in Anatolia" -> this is confusing the way it's written. My best try: "In September 1918, Talaat Pasha recognized that the empire had lost the war, but emphasized his success on a more important goal: ..." If I'm wrong in my phrasing, it's because I don't understand what the sentence is trying to say, and it should be clarified either way.
• I would still re-add the Churchill and Wilson comments acknowledging the atrocities, just without any anachronistic language from the benefit of hindsight.

You've put in a lot of excellent work so far, and hoping we can get this across the finish line. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:09, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks so much for these comments! Especially comparing with the causes article (which I wrote later) I can see that there are some things that were better explained over there, and I've brought them back here. I apologize that it's taking me quite a while to get through them all. (t · c) buidhe 03:00, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Support and outstanding issues

Life got busy, but I came back to support this article, given all the hard work and continued improvements. The "causes" section paints a much clearer picture now, and the article is excellent overall, with an important contribution to human knowledge. That said, this is an important topic and I wanted to give you a few outstanding notes. I hope you consider them, particularly if other reviewers start poking in the same direction.

• In general, watch for long sentences with multiple clauses, joined by multiple commas, semicolons, or dashes. Two simple sentences are better than one complicated one.
• "Islamization" is still WP:JARGONy and a bit of a WP:NEOLOGISM. Elsewhere, you use plain language to convey a clearer meaning (e.g.: "conversion", "forced conversion", etc.), and that is more consistent with the sources. It's better form to use plain words in place of 5-syllable words.
• For opposite reasons, I'd suggest replacing "rape" with "sexual assault", "sexual abuse", etc.
• The chronology of the suspension of the constitution is important enough that it should be mentioned under "land and reforms", as it was in this version (before my review).[20]
• "These pressures played a key role in the intensification of anti-Armenian persecution and met a favorable response already before 1915" -> this remains unclear, perhaps due to the grammar. Aside from who is giving this a favorable response, it makes it sound like it is a response to "these pressures".
• The "eradication of Armenian names, language, and culture," remains unclear, and could likely be changed to just "culture" with no loss in meaning.
• "Akçam and Ümit Kurt argue that The Republic of Turkey and its legal system were built, in a sense, on the seizure of Armenian cultural, social, and economic wealth, and on the removal of the Armenian presence." -> as this refers to two commentators looking back from 2015, this might fit better at the end of the paragraph
• I disagree with removing the reactions of Churchill and Wilson, from this version.[21] It could be re-added without the anachronistic "genocide" terminology, reflecting their reaction at the time.
• "The Turkish state perceives discussion of the genocide to threaten national security" -> there is probably a more grammatical way to say this
• "The genocide is extensively documented in the Ottoman archives, despite systematic efforts to purge incriminating material,[304] and those of Germany, Austria, the United States, Russia, France, and the United Kingdom.[305]" -> this too

None of these are so crucial as to keep this from being promoted to Featured Article status, but do consider them on the merits of making this important topic more clear and readable. Once again, excellent work, and happy editing. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:09, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Nick-D

It's always good to see a top-tier importance article like this at FAC. I'd like to offer the following comments:

• "mass murder and ethnic cleansing of around one million ethnic Armenians from Anatolia" - this figure seems to differ from the 'Death toll' section, which says that around 1 million are believed to have died and "between 800,000 to 1.2 million Armenians were deported" which forms part of the ethnic cleansing noted here.
  • Yes, I think the first sentence needs to be rephrased. I will think about the best phrasing. OK, here are some ideas for the first paragraph of the lead; let me know what you think:
    • Current: The Armenian genocide was the systematic mass murder and ethnic cleansing of around one million ethnic Armenians from Anatolia and adjoining regions by the Ottoman Empire and its ruling party, the Committee of Union and Progress (CUP), during World War I.
    • ALT1: The Armenian genocide was the systematic mass murder of around one million ethnic Armenians in the Ottoman Empire during World War I.
    • ALT2: The Armenian genocide was the systematic mass murder of around one million ethnic Armenians in Anatolia and adjoining regions by the Ottoman Empire and its ruling party, the Committee of Union and Progress (CUP), during World War I.
    • ALT3: The Armenian genocide was the systematic mass murder of around one million ethnic Armenians in the Ottoman Empire during World War I. Spearheaded by the ruling Committee of Union and Progress (CUP), it was accomplished primarily through mass executions, death marches leading to the Syrian Desert, and the forced Islamization of Armenian women and children.
• The lead should note the discrimination and violence Armenians experienced before the genocide
• "Until 1908, non-Muslims in the empire were forbidden to carry arms, leaving them unable to defend themselves" - this seems to repeat toxic American pro-gun ideology (which also crops up in the context of the Holocaust - e.g. Nazi gun control argument). Given that the empire was disintegrating with groups leaving it for decades beforehand (e.g. Greece) I'm sceptical about the significance of this point. There are also obviously other ways which individuals and groups can defend themselves other than with guns, especially against mob violence. The article also later notes multiple occasions where Armenians were armed. As the attacks were also driven by the Ottoman state, it is unlikely that armed resistance by untrained civilians would have achieved much. Does this reflect a consensus in the literature on the causes of the genocide?
  • The claim isn't that Armenians could defend themselves from a state-sponsored genocide but that other types of crimes against them were facilitated by unequal access to weapons based on religion. The Ottoman east had very low levels of law enforcement compared to Europe. However, Suny doesn't emphasize this point so I've taken it out.
• "Russia's decisive victory" - the context here (e.g. the war?) isn't clear.
  • Oops, I forgot to mention the war. Now added.
• "has been described by historian Taner Akçam as "a trial run for the Armenian genocide"" - what does this mean? Was this literally a trial to prepare for the genocide (which implies years of pre-planning), or is he being loose with words here? If it's the latter, I'd suggest replacing the quote with a summary of the argument.
  • I see how this could be misleading, so removed it. Neither Akcam nor most other historians are suggesting that the Armenian genocide was planned prior to World War I, but they have argued that the Ottoman state was already considering radical measures to deal with the perceived problem of its minority populations, including the Armenians.
• "the Ottoman Empire entered World War I on the side of the Central Powers by launching a surprise attack on Russian ports in the Black Sea." - this is a bit simplistic: the Black Sea Raid article states that the Ottoman leader hoped to provoke a naval battle, but the commander of the two German ships who had been transferred to the Ottoman Navy bombarded the ports instead.
  • It's supported by the cited source: On October 29, the German admiral Wilhelm Souchon, commanding a joint German-Ottoman fleet, attacked and sank two Russian ships in the Black Sea. Without written orders from Istanbul, but with a clear understanding that leading cabinet officials approved, Souchon went on and bombarded the Russian fortress-city of Sevastopol... the attack was a deliberate move by Berlin and a small number of high officials in Istanbul—Enver, Talat, and Cemal—to start a war with Russia.
• "On 25 February 1915, Enver Pasha ordered the removal of all non-Muslims serving in Ottoman forces from their posts" - why? Was this linked to the attempts to turn the war into a religious conflict? (e.g. by having the Muslim religious leaders declare a jihad in the hope that the Muslims in India would rise against the British?)
  • It doesn't appear so. Suny states, "In this moment of defeat and desperation, the triumvirate in Istanbul decided to demobilize the Armenian soldiers and other non-Muslims in the Ottoman army, disarm them, and move them into labor battalions". At the same time the Ottoman General Staff issued an order accusing Armenians in various places of collaborating with the enemy.
• "Dashnak leaders attempted to keep the situation calm, warning that even justifiable self-defense could lead to escalation of killing" - the grammar is a bit off here.
• While organisations/groups carried out the deportations noted in the 'Systematic deportations' section? Was this done by the army?
  • Kaiser says that the deportation convoys were guarded by "mostly gendarmes or local militia". Added mention in the article.
• "Confiscated Armenian properties formed much of the basis of the Republic of Turkey's economy, endowing it with capital." - this seems both an over-statement and contradicts the previous material which notes that the genocide was an economic disaster.
  • I don't think there's any contradiction or overstatement. Aryanization was similar in that it created inefficiencies but due to the sheer amount stolen ($230 billion to $320 billion in assets) Jewish wealth also played a significant role in European economies.
• Was the genocide used to motivate Allied troops fighting the Ottomans about the justice of their cause?
  • If so, it's not mentioned in any of the major books on the topic that I've examined.
• The para starting with 'Relief efforts were organized in dozens of countries to raise money for Armenian survivors' seems out of place
  • Well, there have been entire books and many studies written about humanitarian responses to the Armenian genocide[22] so it would not be comprehensive to omit this aspect.
• "Eighteen perpetrators were sentenced to death, of whom only three were ultimately executed as the remainder had fled and were tried in absentia" - were these senior government officials?
  • No, the ones who escaped were the senior officials, (see Assassination of Talat Pasha#Talat Pasha's exile in Berlin. Those who were executed were fairly low-level perpetrators.
• "Turkey's century-long effort to prevent any recognition or mention of the genocide in foreign countries " - is 'any mention' really true? I suspect that "Turkey's" should be replaced with "The Turkish Government's" as well
  • Turkey's efforts surpass simply lobbying against Armenian genocide resolutions. Turkey has taken action against private organizations (such as MGM, a US film studio that wanted to film The Forty Days of Musa Dagh), privately organized conferences (see International Conference on the Holocaust and Genocide), and the Turkish ambassador to the US even wrote a letter to Robert Jay Lifton for mentioning the Armenian genocide in his book on Nazi doctors.[23]
• Do most Turks and political parties really see themselves as supporting "Armenian genocide denial"? It seems more likely that Turks are taught a false history in schools, and political elites actively suppress efforts to correct this/
  • Well, you could consider it both ways. Of course, Turkish schools do not teach a balanced history of Armenians (see Armenian genocide denial#Education) and people who do not admit that an Armenian genocide occurred don't consider themselves to be "denying" it. However, denial is the terminology used in many reliable sources. There's more detail in Armenian_genocide_denial#Society and #Politics. Gocek notes, "To this day, the Turkish state officially denies that what happened to the Armenians in 1915 was genocide... Such an official stand is also strongly supported by the majority of Turkish society." Galip says, "There is consensus in respect of genocide denial in all Turkish left- and right-wing parties apart from the pro-Kurdish HDP."
• "Acknowledgment of the genocide is punishable under Article 301 of the Penal Code" - but only since 2005: why? (I presume that this is part of Turkey's decent into autocracy?)
  • Before that it was censored by other laws. For example, the one-party-era press laws criminalized publication of anything deemed at odds with state interest, including publications on the Armenian genocide. This is covered in more detail in the Armenian genocide denial article.
• Why does the Turkey Government put so much effort into suppressing knowledge and acknowledgement of these events from so long ago?
  • There are different theories, discussed in Armenian genocide denial#Causes. Among other reasons, the genocide issue challenges core beliefs about Turkish national identity and is perceived as a threat to national security.
• What's meant by 'recognition' in the 'International recognition' section?
  • As noted in the Armenian genocide recognition article, "formal acceptance that the systematic massacres and forced deportation of Armenians committed by the Ottoman Empire... constituted genocide".
• A source is in fact needed for the claim in File:States recognising the Armenian Genocide.svg that the Armenian parliament has passed a resolution recognising this genocide. No source is provided for the claim that two "States ... deny there was an Armenian genocide". The caption in the article also needs the date this is as at added given that the situation has evolved and will continue to do so. Nick-D (talk) 08:19, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
  • The detail on Armenia turns out to be incredibly difficult to source. Bizarrely, Armenia's foreign ministry doesn't count itself as one of the countries that recognizes the Armenian genocide.[24] I added a source for Turkey and Azerbaijan, and I did eventually find a source for Armenia. (t · c) buidhe 23:32, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Super Dromaeosaurus

Hello, I am just here to mention something I had wanted to note since quite a long ago. Super Ψ Dro 20:11, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

• Is it possible to mention the fate of Eastern Thrace Bulgarians after the Ottoman Empire regained the area during the Second Balkan War at the Balkan Wars section? I do not mean to belittle anything but I am pretty sure the Bulgarians suffered more incidents than the Greeks and Armenians (the only mentioned peoples) in the region since, as I've heard, they were completely eradicated from there, which is most likely worth noting. There's an article about a book explaining this in Wikipedia: Destruction of the Thracian Bulgarians in 1913.
  • All I can say is that it isn't mentioned in any of the sources I consulted for this article, so I guess it isn't considered relevant to the Armenian genocide. (t · c) buidhe 20:38, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
• There's also a link to a disambiguation to Springer at the citation of Taner Akçam's 2018 Killing Orders: Talat Pasha's Telegrams and the Armenian Genocide.
  • Fixed. Thanks for your comments! (t · c) buidhe 20:38, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

• @FAC coordinators: I looked back at the article and there's some things I feel should be changed. Already there have been significant changes from the original version, so I think the right thing to do is to withdraw it and re-nominate in two weeks. The comments have been very helpful, so I'd like to thank everyone who commented here. (t · c) buidhe 00:37, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi Buidhe, do you mean significant changes from now? It is not that uncommon for hindsight to indicate that a nomination probably wasn't ready, but by that time for the nominated article to be more or less FAC ready, thus making withdrawal/archiving moot. Not ideal, but it happens. Obviously if you wish to withdraw the nom for any reason that is your prerogative. Equally, if you feel that as the article stands now it is not FAC ready, it should be withdrawn. But don't feel a need to withdraw because issues which have since been resolved suggest that it shouldn't have been nominated in the state it was then in - sorting that sort of thing is one of the functions of FAC. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:32, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Gog the Mild, Yes I'd still like to withdraw it. Thanks. (t · c) buidhe 16:56, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.