Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/March 2019

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 30 March 2019 [1].

Early life of Cleopatra edit

Nominator(s): Векочел (talk) 16:20, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the early life of the pharaoh Cleopatra. This is her story from her birth until she assumed power upon her father's death. Little is known about her early life compared to her reign, and in general little is known about the Ptolemaic rulers. Her mother's name is uncertain and it is thought that she accompanied her father into his exile, but this is also uncertain. With that said, this article tries to cover her early life. Векочел (talk) 16:20, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article before nominating it." Have you consulted with User:PericlesofAthens before making this nomination? He did write 97% of this article. RetiredDuke (talk) 18:11, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have not. I'll ask him if this can be nominated. Векочел (talk) 18:17, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pericles says it's OK to continue with the nomination. Векочел (talk) 20:53, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Векочел: I just want to clarify that I didn't mean to imply that you need to ask for anyone's permission to start a nomination. My question had more to do with at least consult with Pericles if the article is ready for the process or even if it is suited for it. Some in-depth questions by reviewers can prove to be tricky to someone who does not know the article well. Like FunkMonk's meta question of why does this article even exist. Or more challenging questions about coverage and availability of sources. RetiredDuke (talk) 19:36, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder why this needs to be a separate article to begin with? Much of the text seems to be identical to that in the Cleopatra article. FunkMonk (talk) 10:50, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @FunkMonk: this sub-article might superficially appear that way because it was a split article from the main Cleopatra one, the latter needing to be smaller for its own FA nomination (which was successful). However, Early life of Cleopatra contains a significant amount of detail not seen in the biography section of the main article (such as her father's political dealings with Rome), and follows a convention found in other articles at Wikipedia, such as Early life of Augustus. Whether or not you think this article is FA material, it earned and deserved its current GA status, as I put a lot of hard work into this and the other sub-articles about Cleopatra (including Death of Cleopatra, which is also now an FA article). Pericles of AthensTalk 14:24, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nomination is perhaps a bit hasty; personally, I would have nominated my other GA article Reign of Cleopatra instead. However, I think this article's content is certainly FA material and I'm almost certain it thoroughly covers the topic of her rearing and childhood given how much more we know about her later life and career as queen of Ptolemaic Egypt. I'll leave that assessment up to you guys, but the one thing that would obviously hinder this article's nomination is its small size. Some might interpret that as an indication that it is incomplete or fails to show the entire picture, but really it's just a reflection of scholarly sources and the limitations of our knowledge about her due to ancient primary sources. Pericles of AthensTalk 14:24, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Pericles. I dont think the size matter. Its a comprehensive article and since I also have an interest in Hellenistic kings, I understand that sometimes we dont have much info about them. However, Im more concerned with the nominator's knowledge regarding the topic. If you would take the nomination, Im sure the reviews will be more meaningful since you are familiar with the historigraphy and the sources. I think the article wont have troubles passing if its writer is the nominator.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 14:37, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Attar-Aram syria, I have some knowledge on Cleopatra, and I have a few books about the queen to help me. Векочел (talk) 15:48, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again, Attar-Aram syria! I'm pretty much retired from Wikipedia aside from doing small edits in the background. I actually had no plans on nominating any more articles for FA status. If others wish to do that, then that's fine, but only if they are fully prepared for this. Векочел, could you offer us a list of the sources you have available? Do you have any of the sources already cited in the article? It seems that someone made edits to the lead section at some point in time and introduced serious errors that I have just now fixed. There's no evidence Ptolemy XII Auletes traveled to Rome in exile with his entire family minus Berenice IV and Cleopatra V Tryphaena. The sources only say he did so with a daughter, and it's safe to say this was Cleopatra VII Philopator, not Arsinoe IV, the latter who doesn't seem to have had a close relationship with him. From what I've read, there's no evidence suggesting that her brothers Ptolemy XIII or Ptolemy XIV joined them either. For that, please see Joann Fletcher (2008: pp. 76–77, 80, 84–85) and also Duane W. Roller (2010: p. 22). Pericles of AthensTalk 15:32, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Pericles and Attar-Aram syria, I have Roller's Cleopatra, Fletcher's Cleopatra the Great, and Burstein's The Reign of Cleopatra. Векочел (talk) 23:04, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, cool! Those are incredibly important, critical I would say for continuing this FA candidacy, since they make up a majority of citations. If you have those, then I think you'll be more than able to handle this nomination. That said, I would suggest trying to get a hold of Günther Hölbl's A History of the Ptolemaic Empire (2001) and Michael Grant's Cleopatra (1972). Best of luck, Векочел! If you need any help with any problems that may arise here, just leave a message on my talk page. Pericles of AthensTalk 00:32, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I cant help but doubting that Векочел read those sources. Pericles, can you take a look at this, so you can know why I think that Векочел is nominating this article for reasons not related to improving the content of Wiki.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 09:24, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Attar-Aram syria: thanks for sharing. In that instance, yes, it does not look like he consulted any sources, and this was just several days ago. I can't read anyone's mind through my computer, so I can't say for certain that Векочел has or has not consulted any of the academic works mentioned above. Векочел, would you mind offering an explanation about this and how you plan on conducting this FA nomination by addressing all of these concerns? Also, could you provide us with some excerpts of the sources you've listed? I think that would put reviewers at ease and would also demonstrate that you are ready to tackle this subject. Pericles of AthensTalk 14:35, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I will give you excerpts from the sources.
  • "Octavian used his divine connections to become 'divi filius', 'the son of a god', albeit by adoption" Fletcher, p. 222
  • "This autograph of Cleopatra VII certainly is one of the more exciting discoveries of recent years" Roller, p. 134
  • "Cleopatra won Antony's recognition of Alexander Helios and Cleopatra Selene as his children" Burstein, p. 24

I would also appreciate your help, Pericles. You were, of course, the main contributor to this article. Векочел (talk) 21:50, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Векочел: Very good. Thanks for providing those excerpts. You can count on my assistance with the FA nomination should you need it. Just leave a message on my talk page if and when that need arises! Regards, Pericles of AthensTalk 23:28, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note edit

Three weeks into this nom and the only discussion is whether this should be a separate article, who should get credit for it, and whether the nominator is familiar with the sources. FAC isn't the place for this so I'm going to archive and ask that the next step be peer review (formal, as at WP:PR, or informal, on the article's talk page) to try and flesh out such stuff before anyone considers a re-nomination here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:19, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 29 March 2019 [2].

South Park: The Fractured but Whole edit

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

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

Support from theJoebro64 edit

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

Comment from Zwerg Nase edit

Just one small thing I noticed: In "Critical response", there is a direct quote and the quotation marks are not right. "the truest, best adaptation" of South Park ever made". Where does the quote end? Zwerg Nase (talk) 18:48, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good eye, fixed that. Thanks. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:37, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Aoba47 edit

  • Make sure that the image have ALT text.
  • For this sentence (The Fractured but Whole retains the turn-based combat of the previous game in the series, South Park: The Stick of Truth.), I would add the year that the previous game was released.
  • For this part (Gender choices include male, female, and trigender.), I would a link to the trigender article be helpful?
  • For this part (find Yaoi art depicting intimate moments between the characters), I do not believe “yaoi” needs to be capitalized as it is not a proper noun.
  • For this sentence (Giant Bomb, GamesRadar+, and Shacknews said it was an improvement in nearly every way over The Stick of Truth, being deeper, longer, more surprising, and polished than its predecessor.), the citations need to numeric order. I have noticed a few instances of this in “Critical response” subsection, so I would advise looking through the whole article to make sure they are all in numeric order.

Overall, wondering work on the article. Once my comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this. If you have the time, I would greatly appreciate any comments on my current FAC. Either way, have a wonderful rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 18:59, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done Aoba47, thanks for your feedback, I didn't even realise trigender was a thing. I will be happy to take a look at your FA if I get time, I can't promise I will as I keep doing that to users and run out of time. But I will promise to try. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:55, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support the nomination. You have done a great job with the article. I honestly did not know trigender was a real thing until I googled it while doing this review lol. I completely understand. I always feel a little bad about asking for a review in return as I do not want to come across as selfish or rude. I enjoyed reading the article, and I hope you have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk)

Coord note edit

Not the level of commentary I would've hoped for by this stage (I'm sure DWB feels likewise!) so I'm listing at FAC urgents but if nothing much changes in the next week I'd expect to archive it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:28, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Support from Lee Vilenski edit

is "New Kid" in the lead needed? I understand the plot needs to have some use in the lede, but could the article not use player character, or say "a new kid", rather than the character's name as "New Kid"? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:57, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand? The player character is referred to as The New Kid or the less lead-friendly "douchebag". I find it easier to refer to them as New Kid as it remains consistent that way throughout the article. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:21, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think I misunderstood. This seems fine. I'll potentially support if I can't find more in the article worth mentioning. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:20, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A few things: Images could do with ALT text. The captions on both seem a little wrong. The first one has a lot of text; is this fully neccasary? The second - does the hand puppet need a name in the caption? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:26, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The images all have Alt text, it just doesn't seem to show except on the infobox image. I don't know if you are on Chrome but I am and it doesn't work for me, but I've checked Wikipedia:Alternative text for images and I'm doing it correctly. I cut a little bit from the first image, it's explanatory but probably too explanatory. The name of the hand puppet is there to explain who he is in relation to the plot. It sounds stupid if you haven't played it, but the hand puppet is a central character. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:42, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it is very odd. Alt text won't appear, it's generally for when images fail to load. I'm happy with the prose in this, so I'll support. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:44, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

Got your Bat-Signal from WT:VG. I've supported on prose above but I'll also take the time to do a source review. From a quick glance everything looks OK, but I'll do a deeper look tomorrow. JOEBRO64 21:48, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, here's what stood out to me:

  • Be consistent about which parameter you use to list the work. It doesn't make sense to have Time and IGN in the publisher parameter when USgamer and EGM are in the website one. Publications like these should be in the website parameter and stuff like PlayStation Store and Metacritic should be in the publisher one.
  • References #22, 23: Link to Eurogamer
  • Reference #36, 95, 97: Metro is an unreliable source.
  • Reference #69: Are there any non-primary sources to replace the Nintendo ref? I feel coverage from a secondary one would be both better and pretty easy to find.
  • Reference #85: Add accessdate, link to Metacritic, and archive

That's all that stood out to me. IMO the only significant issue is the Metro sources, which can probably be replaced. JOEBRO64 19:46, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Darkwarriorblake: (hope I'm not bothering you) I just wanted to double-check if you saw this? JOEBRO64 00:34, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I did but forgot to action it, thanks for reminding me Joe.Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:01, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I think I got them all. I couldn't find replacements for the chart-related Metro sources so I had to delete them. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:19, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. Support on sources. JOEBRO64 21:48, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Laser brain edit

I'm concerned that this has come along this far without evidently a serious look at the use of sources in the article. The Reception section suffers from the "quotefarm" endemic that's so common in media articles (This source said this. This source called it this. Etc.) In the first full para of the Critical response section, I see direct copies of wording used in the cited articles without even proper quotation, which is plagiarism and a copyvio. I'm afraid I must firmly oppose until, at the very least, the Reception section is rewritten and the entire article audited for other plagiarism. --Laser brain (talk) 13:39, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note edit

This review is pushing two months long and it is a concern to see issues such as Laser brain raises at this stage. I'm therefore going to archive and ask that we pls audit and reword per his recommendations and then come back for another try after the usual two weeks. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:31, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 26 March 2019 [3].

1927 Chicago mayoral election edit

Nominator(s): John M Wolfson (talk) 23:50, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the last time a Republican candidate won a Chicago mayoral election. William Hale "Big Bill" Thompson, who had previously served from 1915 to 1923 and had kept himself in the spotlight since then, took advantage of incumbent William Emmett Dever's unpopular enforcement of Prohibition. He lodged a campaign against him full of demagoguery, going on such tangents as the United Kingdom. He eventually won the election, much to Chicago's humiliation on the national level. This is my first FAC, and I have User:Coemgenus as a mentor. I also believe this nomination is of interest to User:SecretName101 (EDIT: who was a significant contributor to the page's contents). I look forward to hearing from and responding to your feedback! -John M Wolfson (talk) 23:50, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely would appear to be amongst the best-researched and assembled articles for a municipal election. Would be hard pressed to find a more prime example of one, particularly for any municipal election that happened nearly as long ago as this one. SecretName101 (talk) 21:25, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There appears to be a fundamental misunderstanding about the requirements for verifiability in this article. Books are cited, but no page numbers given. For example, Melvin and Holli's 333-page The Mayors: The Chicago Political Tradition is cited 23 times without once providing a page number. Per WP:PAGENUM, cites to lengthy sources must specify page(s) or page ranges where we can find support in the source for the statement(s) being made in the article. Factotem (talk) 08:39, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I only added two of the books cited, but I looked through them and added the page numbers. I'm also going through and reformatting the dates to make them all consistently American style. -John M Wolfson (talk) 10:30, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's a start, but there are still some serious issues even after adding a page number; you've added p. 199 to the Teaford source, but checking through the cites to that page, there are a couple of statements in the article not supported by the source. Teaford nowhere states on that page that Thompson was "colorful, charismatic" or that he was called Big Bill "for his towering height and large girth" and makes no mention of Thompson's "promise of lax enforcement of Prohibition". Also, the publication year for Teaford's book is missing. Factotem (talk) 12:07, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The "colorful" was not intended to be included within the citation, and I have removed it. I would argue the "charismatic" part comes from "Thompson's ... message thrilled thousands of Chicagoans," although that might be OR, and the Prohibition part comes from "Chicagoans opted for booze and balderdash," ditto, although there's another citation for Thompson's anti-Prohibition stance if it's insufficient. John M Wolfson (talk) 12:35, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would also recommend adding a bibliography sorted alpabetically by author as a separate section and using short citations inline in the main body of the article; it's a better way of organising the sources and how they are used, though I don't believe this is mandatory. Today's featured article uses this style; the bibliography is presented in the References section with each source presented using cite book and cite journal as appropriate (there's also a cite news template for news articles – see Wikipedia:Citing sources for more info). The Notes section is (much like your article's References section) an automatically generated list of inline citations that have been placed in the article, though in the TFA example they are in short form format. In that example, the article uses the sfn and sfnm templates, but it's perfectly valid to use the same <ref>...</ref> style used in this article (so, for example, you would cite the first sentence in your second paragraph as <ref>Teaford 1993 p. 199</ref>). Another thing worth pointing out is that, although ISBN numbers are not mandatory, you'll likely attract negative comments if they are not provided for the books. Hope this helps, but sorry to say I don't think this article is ready for FAC. Factotem (talk) 12:07, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the suggestion, and your comments in general. I'd like for this review to keep going, but if consensus is for withdrawal then I'll see what I can do with a peer review. -John M Wolfson (talk) 12:35, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Given recent turn of events, I believe that a peer review would be better for now, and as such would like to withdraw this nomination for now. I can't wait to hear your feedback the next time I nominate this! (I am aware of the waiting period.) -John M Wolfson (talk) 15:17, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 16 March 2019 [4].

61 Cygni edit

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

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

Comments by Graeme Bartlett edit

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

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

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

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

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

  • "SIMBAD Query Result: V* V1803 Cyg -- Variable of BY Dra type" -- first use of publisher's or authors names should be linked so we should link SIMBAD.
  • "The Internet Stellar Database" -- the date is 4-April-2001 and is the author Roger M W? (get some idea as to whether this is good and reliable as there is no Wikipedia article on it)
    • Date should be 4-April-2001 not 2011.
  • "Photoelectric observations of stars with variable H and K emission components. III" -- publish date is May 1979
  • "High precision effective temperatures for 181 F-K dwarfs from line-depth" -- Gorlova, N. I. is listed twice
  • " RECONS Mission Statement" seems to have nothing to say about 61 Cygni in its page or archive, so either something changed and a deeper archive is needed or we need another reference. Anyway the title does not sound promising for the vital stats of the stars.
    • Now the link goes to something that works, but the title of that appears to be " The One Hundred Nearest Star Systems brought to you by RECONS (Research Consortium On Nearby Stars) "
  • "The radii of the nearby K5V and K7V stars 61 Cygni A & B. CHARA/FLUOR interferometry and CESAM2k modeling" the author list should be provided not with "et al"
  • "Stars within 15 Parsecs: Abundances for a Northern Sample" published February 2005
  • "Directly Determined Linear Radii and Effective Temperatures of Exoplanet Host Stars" published 23 March 2009
  • "Sixth Catalog of Orbits of Visual Binary Stars" - ad.usno.navy.mil uses an invalid security certificate -- perhaps this is a temporary screw up, or perhaps we can find an archive that has copied it. (there is a copy here https://web.archive.org/web/20181122042720/http://ad.usno.navy.mil/wds/orb6.html but it appears that it is not just a web page to see the answer on, but a set of connected pages, so perhaps this reference needs more instructions on how to get the answers.)
    • Now site appears completely dead.

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

Done. Navy website got fixed automatically I think. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 12:00, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have struck off the confirmed fixed things. Still some bits not quite right. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:03, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

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

Comments by Kees08 edit

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

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

Done ...The Herald (Benison) (talk) 12:29, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is stylized two different ways in the same paragraph: 10× magnification
  • Hyphen in well-recorded? The first well recorded observation
  • When? William Herschel began systematic observations of 61 Cygni as part of a wider study of binary stars.
  • I prefer words like 'more accurate' instead of better. Peters calculated a better value
  • So between -40 and 980? he calculated it to be 470 ±510 mas
  • Is there another way to phrase this? I work with instrumentation, and I still do not get what the sentence is trying to say. all of these numbers are more accurate than the accuracy of the instrument used.
  • The spacing before and after "±" do not match earlier uses. 369.0±19.1 mas to A and 260.5±18.8 to B, and estimated the center point to be at 313.6±13.6.
  • I think we are to avoid phrasing like 'this is close' and let the reader determine if it is close or notThis is close to the currently accepted value of 287.18 mas (yielding 11.36 light-years).
  • I do not know what proper motion is, it is never explained or linked
  • So, under ideal viewing conditions,
  • This is well within the capability for aperture of typical binoculars
  • That whole paragraph seems like it is written by someone else. Maybe go through it and try to copyedit it some.
  • I am guessing the Sun is normally not included in nearest known star systems? it is the 15th-nearest-known star system to the Earth (not including the Sun).
  • Nine instead of 9 will be about 9 light-years.
  • This sentence has an intuitive break you should useSmaller and dimmer than the Sun, 61 Cygni A has about 70 percent of a solar mass, 72 percent of its diameter and about 8.5 percent of its luminosity and 61 Cygni B has about 63 percent of a solar mass, 67 percent of its diameter, and 3.9 percent of its luminosity.
  • Second one should have a unit right? varying 5.21 V and 6.03,
  • Bit of a hard transition between saying the mass is uncertain and saying the mass of Cygni A is 11% greater than Cygni B. Is the relative mass well-known, and the exact masses not known? 61 Cygni A has about 11% more mass than 61 Cygni B.
  • Punctuation the average distance from the Earth to the Sun. .[55]

That's all for now. Kees08 (Talk) 05:58, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Praemonitus edit

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

  • The red circle on the star chart looks to be well off in declination.
Done
  • SIMBAD gets updated from time to time and isn't really a stable source. The only SIMBAD data the infobox should be referencing inline is the "Other designations". Everything else should be a direct reference.
Done
It's still not centered on the target star. Have a look here. Praemonitus (talk) 20:19, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The current method of placing the circle, a div with CSS positioning, is unreliable in this situation. I currently see the circle as offset to larger right ascension, but quite close in declination. Correcting it on one machine will not guarantee that it is correct on another, or that it will be correct in the future. Use {{Location mark}} or similar templates. See 6 Cassiopeiae for an example, although perhaps not the prettiest formatting. Lithopsian (talk) 20:47, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gaia DR2 data should be used where applicable, per the preference at SIMBAD.
Updated
Where? The first reference is completely unsuitable. See: {{cite DR2}}. Praemonitus (talk)
  • The "space velocity of about 100 km/s" sentence is WP:OR. It needs a proper reference, both for the velocity and the claimed heading. Also, are these heliocentric velocities or peculiar motion?
Removed OR
  • "...both components have strong linear trends in the radial velocity measurements, with no detectable curvature, presumably due to each other's orbital motion": Huh? They're in orbit but there's no curved motion? This sentence makes no sense.
The original text refers to a different system. Not Cygni. Fixed it.
  • "The system has a net space velocity of 108 km/s[43] relative to the Sun, which results in the high proper motion across the sky": no it doesn't. There are high velocity stars that have negligible proper motion.
I think you got confused between proper motion and Axial precession. The statement is true and verified and astronomers can indeed perceive the high proper motion values even in 18th century.
Mmm, I don't think so. Proper motion depends on distance and the vector of relative motion; not just the magnitude of the space velocity. Praemonitus (talk) 21:23, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed.
  • "is in fact a": 'in fact' is redundant.
Done.
  • "61 Cygni A's long-term stability": this should be spectral stability, since it is a variable star.
The variable star refers to the brightness of the star system as seen from earth. This long stability refers to the stability of the orbits of the stars in the system and the subsequent planet formation and support stability.
No, it has to do with the stability of the classification, not the ability to form planets. Please re-read the sentence. Praemonitus (talk) 21:28, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Piped.
  • "(An earlier estimate gave a period of 7.3 years.)": what does this add?
Redundant, removed.
  • "this extends out to a distance of only 30 AU": the separation at periapsis is 44 AU, which is less than 2 x 30. Thus the claim that "This is lower than the separation between the two components of 61 Cygni, and so the two most likely do not share a common atmosphere" is somewhat questionable for at least part of their orbit. Do you have a citation for this?
Yes..The Astrophysical Journal as mentioned.
The discussion in the paper is only relevant to the specific time of the study. Praemonitus (talk) 21:32, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's still cited and verified. Do you feel I should remove it otherwise?
  • "solar mass": why not use "Sun's mass" here so that more readers will understand?
Being a very common used term in astronomy and the related topics, it is used. I've piped it to the parent article anyways for more info seeking readers.
  • "It has an activity cycle": What is "it"? This is unclear from the prior paragraph.
Fixed.
  • "The combination of starspot activity combined with rotation and chromospheric activity is characteristic of a BY Draconis variable"; fix multiple redundances please
Done.
  • "distance of only 30 AU": Why "only"? That's a huge distance.
Done.
  • "through the local medium": What medium? The interstellar medium?
Done
  • "On several occasions": I see only two occasions listed. Are there more?
Done
  • The Wulff-Dieter Heintz paragraph makes no sense. The prior announcements were no more than 16 times the mass of Jupiter, whereas the stated lower limit for Heintz (1978) is 60 Jupiter masses. How then are the claims made spurious? This needs to be clarified.
Rewritten
  • "where 1 AU is the average distance from the Earth to the Sun": why doesn't this text appear at the first use of AU?
Done
  • Some citations have full author lists; others use a single author with "et al.". They should be made consistent.
Done
  • Why is "Not to be confused with 16 Cygni..." not included in the Notes section?
Done

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

    • The standard way would be
      Not to be confused with 16 Cygni.
      at the top of the page, and not just after the phonetics section.       Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:40, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Changes were made. Thank you. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:18, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:07, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is Sol Company being used as a reference? I've found that to be inaccurate at times. Praemonitus (talk)

Source review edit

  • Comment: I would use the term "photopollution" rather than "light pollution" as the later is easily confused with "low pollution" but meh.
  • Is FN 1 a self-published source?
Yes. Apparently it is. But it is has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy and is appropriate for the material in question IMO.
This self-published web source is a reflection of primary sources, but may be other out-dated and subject to change. While it could be considered reliable, it should not be used in an FA for the citation of basic factual information. Chase the original (probably peer-reviewed) sources. Similarly, Simbad should not be used as a source for data which is subject to change: it is a portal and simply reflects published information, so it changes over time. Primary sources are usually given by Simbad and so it is easy to include them. Consider VizieR database links where appropriate. Simbad and other "portal", web, or blog type sources can be used for establishing notability or in other cases wgere a secondary or tertiary source is appropriate. All quite picky, but important when an article is being considered for FA. Lithopsian (talk) 20:58, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN 2 is giving me an error about an external link in the publisher.
Maybe because Stellar Database is externally linked. Fixed it now.
  • In FN 4, whiy is SIMBAD linked? You don't link ESA or IAU.
It's per Graeme Bartlett's comment. SIMBAD Query Result: V* V1803 Cyg -- Variable of BY Dra type" -- first use of publisher's or authors names should be linked so we should link SIMBAD
  • FN 15 seems unnecessary now, given the hatnote
Removed
  • FN 23 The link doesn't work for me
Works fine for me. I've added archive from Wayback machine anyways.
  • FN 44 The archival date format differs from the others
The cite has been removed now.
  • Should journal article titles be in title case? Some are (eg FN 63 to 67); some aren't (eg. FN 42. 43, 45, 58).
All fixed. FN 45 and 58 have the same title in the source material as well.
  • Spot checks on FN 5, 26, 36, 45, 51 (nice use of wavelets btw), 67 - all okay
All clear. Thanks for the review. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:39, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:58, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:34, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Lithopsian edit

  • Mixed citation style. The citations are variously in CS1 or CS2 style, some (one?) with the postscript field. A consistent citation style is preferred. As is a consistent location for the definitions, either inline or in the revlist itself. I prefer CS1 and am now a fan of definitions in the reflist for neatness, but either way is acceptable.
  • References in the lead. Although not a hard rule, inline citations in the lead always give me the impression that the lead is not properly summarising the body. When the lead is simply a summary of the body, everything that it states is cited elsewhere and the inline references in the lead can be skipped for better legibility.
  • See also section. Again, not a hard rule, but if something is relevant to this article it should be mentioned in this article to be complete enough for FA status. Then there is no need for a see also section. There are arguably exceptions, but for example if Barnard's Star is in some way important enough that people should go and also read about it, it should be described in the text why.
  • Consistency between the starbox and body. The most obvious example are the apparent magnitudes, variously 5.20, 5.21, 5.2, 6.05, and 6.1. Also consider that both stars are variable and stating a single apparent magnitude as fact could be misleading
  • The distances, or at least the parallaxes, to the two components are now known independently (see Gaia DR2) and should be given. The two stars even have separate Hipparcos parallaxes and quoting a single value as if it applies to both stars is just wrong.
  • "highest proper motion among visible stars" I'm guessing naked-eye stars? Several stars already described as having higher proper motions are certainly not invisible.
  • "by 1917 refined measured parallax differences demonstrated that the separation was significantly less". Less than what?
  • "The space velocities of this group of stars range from 105 to 114 km/s relative to the Sun" A space velocity is a vector. Without a direction it is fairly meaningless, certainly not sufficient to establish a co-moving group.
  • Periapsis and apoapsis. There are specific terms for these in the context of binary stars: periastron and apastron. Probably better to use those terms although they all redirect to the same place at the moment.
  • "short-term flares". Days, weeks, years? I know what short-term means here, but most readers won't.
  • "The system has an activity cycle that is much more pronounced than the solar sunspot cycle". It seems likely that this is only referring to component A, not the system as a whole?
  • ±. The formatting of error ranges can be kept consistent (with the starbox and within the body) by using the {{val}} template, which also keeps units consistent and attached to the value.

Lithopsian (talk) 21:36, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reference for 61 Cyg B spectral type in starbox? It is mentioned elsewhere but jars a little when everything else in the starbox has an inline ref.
  • Starbox component properties. Starbox observe and starbox detail split the components in two sections, whereas starsbox character and starbox astrometry use slashes or manual line breaks to indicate values for each component. A consistent style might be easier to follow.
  • Ref for 61 Cyg B right ascension seems odd. It is different from the declination ref, where they would almost always need to be the same.

Lithopsian (talk) 21:43, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On it. Sorry for the delay. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 12:04, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

From Dweller edit

Well, this is an interesting read and I have no knowledge whatsoever. A couple of questions about the speculation about other planets:

  • "as they were unable to detect any evidence of such motion down to six percent of the Sun's mass—equivalent to about 60 times the mass of Jupiter" the second half of this sentence didn't make sense to me. Motion and mass aren't the same thing.
  • the last sentence of the section seems to be in the wrong place --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 20:06, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "although it has been stated by him that 61 Cygni actually corresponds to what he referred to as 85 Cygni in the 1712 edition" - "it has been stated" implies he's modern. Odd use of wording. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 20:36, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note edit

This has been open a month and has attracted a good deal of commentary but little outright support for promotion. If this is to get over the line then comments need to be actioned promptly and reviewers need to be satisfied with those actions. With that in mind can I ask Graeme and Praemonitus how things look to them now, and Kees if he has more to add. If nothing much changes in the coming week then I think we'll need to archive and have another try some time later. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:48, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have checked my comments and marked off the addressed items. I was planning to go through all the references to check the citation info. Then actually check the content of the reference to see if the facts are supported. But I only got up to ref 13. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:06, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping; continuing my review now. Kees08 (Talk) 07:37, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Tks Graeme and Kees. Unfortunately I don't think we've progressed overall, especially as we haven't heard from the nominator in a couple of weeks, so I'm going to archive this now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:26, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 14 March 2019 [5].

Bishop John Carroll (statue) edit

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

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

Image review

  • In general don't use fixed px size
  • As the US does not have freedom of panorama for sculpture, all photos of the statue should include an explicit copyright tag for the original work
  • File:John_Carroll_statue_unveiling.png: when/where was this first published? Same with File:John_Carroll_statue_unveiling_side_view.jpg
    • The source seems to suggest that its publication was soon after its taking. Ergo Sum 05:08, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Any further details on that? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:09, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • I can't seem to find the photos elsewhere on the internet. The book source references the Georgetown University Archives as their original source. Ergo Sum 15:35, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • You might try contacting the archives directly. It's not uncommon for archival images to be unpublished - if the 2003 book were the first confirmed publication for this set that would present a problem with regards to copyright status, as the current tagging requires publication (not just creation) before 1924. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:00, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'll try that. Ergo Sum 01:49, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
              • @Nikkimaria: I followed your advice. It turns out that nothing is known about when the images were first published, just the date they were taken. Do you know how this bears on copyright status? Ergo Sum 19:58, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest swapping out one of the photos of the statue for an image of either the subject or sculptor. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:42, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Nikkimaria: Also, I've added some new photos. Could you please do an image review for them too? Ergo Sum 06:45, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:John_Carroll_Gilbert_Stuart.jpg needs a US PD tag

Coord note edit

This has been open a month with only comments on the images so I'm going to archive it, but am happy to waive the usual two-week wait if you want to renominate in short order -- perhaps it's just got kinda lost in the middle of the list here... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:16, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 9 March 2019 [6].

Michael Collins (astronaut) edit

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

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

Comments from Harry edit

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

  • How relevant are all the titbits about Group 3? Comparisons of age and experience to previous groups are well worth including, but it's hard to see what bearing things like birthplace and elder siblings have on their profession.
    Hawkeye, I know you had thoughts on this in another review, so leaving for you. Kees08 (Talk) 21:47, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Whole books have been written on the supposed benefits of being the first-born son, and the pilot astronauts of the Apollo era (1959-1975) are held up as an example.[7][8][9] Collins was the only member of the first three groups to have an older brother, which made him a bit special. (I wouldn't know; I'm a first-born.) (At the height of the Apollo program there were 58 active-duty astronauts. Today, with no flights in prospect... there are 38 active duty and 18 more available for recall if NASA can ever locate another spacecraft. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:12, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • group were assigned specializations, with Collins receiving the ", with" construction is frowned upon in professional-standard writing
    Is there a name for that? Rephrased it let me know if you like the result. Kees08 (Talk)
  • Training for Gemini 10 was interrupted in March when Slayton diverted Young, Collins and Williams to represent their respective services, the US Navy, USAF and US Marine Corps on a panel to select another group of astronauts, along with himself, Shepard, spacecraft designer Max Faget and astronaut training officer Warren J. North. That's a bit of a run-on sentence
    I took out part of it, do you think I should remove the non-astronauts from the sentence? The full list can be in the Gemini 10 article. Kees08 (Talk)
  • During 1968, Collins noticed that his legs were not working as they should, first during handball games, then as he walked down stairs, his knee would almost give way Doesn't read quite right, partly because the commas give the impression that it's a list of three items
    I think I improved the structure. Kees08 (Talk)
  • This happened with the other Apollo missions Do we need the full list in Collins' biography? Maybe just one or two examples would suffice?
    I do not think it needs to be in there, if Hawkeye disagrees we may compromise somehow. Kees08 (Talk)
  • he did not want to fly again if Apollo 11 was successful. Do we know why? And I assume by "fly" you mean go into space, as opposed to flying planes?
    Yes, his book had more specifics. Essentially that the strain of astronaut life was worth it to achieve JFK's goal, but to him personally, the strain was not worth it once the goal had been achieved. Added text like this to the article. Kees08 (Talk) 21:45, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was the sort of challenge that Collins was well-suited for sounds like editorialising
    I assume Collins might have said this in a book or something..and will let Hawkeye address it. Kees08 (Talk)
    No, it's from the source, which compares and contrats his work at the State Department. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:12, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ditto His background as an astronaut and an air force officer made him a good fit
    The point here is that on leaving NASA most astronauts tend to take on jobs for which they are ill-suited. Collins and Aldrin are exceptions. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:12, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Collins lobbied hard for the new museum, and with the help of Goldwater in particular, Congress relented, and on August 10, 1972, approved $13 million and contract authority of $27 million for its construction. Bit of a mouthful; maybe split into two sentences?
    Done Kees08 (Talk)
  • four days ahead of schedule on July 1, 1976 Isn't that three days?
    It is! Kees08 (Talk)
  • Until recently he did not sign his paintings recently compared to what? That doesn't give us any comprison point in his 88 years, especially since the article doesn't say when he started painting. And in 10 more years (if he's still with us) it will be a lot less recent. It either needs a date or some sort of context, or rephrasing "he did not initally sign" or "for a long time did not sign" or similar
    The 2005 edition does not say he signed them, the text was first added in the 2006 version. I assume I cannot be comparing versions like that to guess when he started signing, so I suppose I will go with something like "he did not initially sign". Kees08 (Talk)
  • presently serves as Trustee Emeritus similar problem to above, see MOS:DATED
    From another site: Trustee emeritus is an honorary title conveyed by a governing board upon a former trustee of an institution to recognize exemplary service. Does that make the trustee emeritus title permanent, sort of like an honorary doctorate? Kees08 (Talk) 21:14, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it is a lifetime accolade. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:12, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • inducted into the International Air & Space Hall of Fame in 1971 Why isn't this included with the other halls of fame above?
    Mistake, thanks Kees08 (Talk)
  • In popular culture: maybe try and join some of the "played by"s together to reduce redundancy
    I have no good ideas on how to do this, suggestions..? Kees08 (Talk) 21:22, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the 2018 film First Man, he was portrayed Maybe move this up to join the other screen roles rahter than leaving it at the end of a paragraph about songs?
    Moved, thanks Kees08 (Talk)
  • Just out of curiosity, why is The Man Who Went to the Far Side of the Moon relegated to further reading rather than cited as a reference?
    I am dancing the line between my girlfriend thinking it is cute that I edit Wikipedia and getting banned from buying space related books. Kees08 (Talk) 18:41, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a children's book. One factoid I found in it: the Apollo 11 astronauts wrote sealed farewell letters to their wives and children, to be given to them if they did not return. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:14, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

@HJ Mitchell: I believe we attempted to address all your points above. Kees08 (Talk) 04:24, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@HJ Mitchell: Friendly ping in case you have more comments you would like us to address. Kees08 (Talk) 02:16, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note edit

Not sure why there's been so little interest in this one but one can't ignore the fact that commentary stalled almost a month ago, so I'm going to archive it. Given there's only been one reviewer, I wouldn't object to waiving the usual two-week waiting period -- perhaps getting it to the top of the list will generate renewed interest. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:58, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 9 March 2019 [10].

Marcian edit

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

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

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

Comments by KJP1 edit

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

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

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

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

Image review edit

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

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

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

Support by Gog the Mild edit

Disclosure: I reviewed this article for ACR.

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

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

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

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

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

Jens Lallensack edit

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

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

Comments by Squeamish Ossifrage edit

Addressing mostly sources, source formatting, and reference selection:

  • All ISBNs should ideally be presented as properly hyphenated ISBN-13s. Several of the online ISBN converters will let you produce these.
  • Publication locations. They're optional, but you've opted in, which is fine. And I'm fairly certain you actually have them included for all the book sources. You may wish to set some standard for identifying where these locations are, however, especially when they're not clear. In particular, Abingdon (which I presume is actually Abingdon-on-Thames, UK, but maybe not?) and Union (which... I don't actually know where this one is offhand). There are about eleventy-seven competing standards for which cities need clarification and how precisely to format and abbreviate when doing so. I'm actually uncharacteristically unconcerned about which standard you employ, but you probably need to employ a standard.
    I've chosen to link the first instance of a cities mention. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:26, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bury died in 1927. I presume the 2012 date of the source you're citing is a reprint of an work publisher earlier. But that really needs an origyear here. I'm concerned that this may be true for some of the other sources as well.
  • The Dawes source is a mess. The website you are citing is part of Paul Halsall's Internet Medieval Source Book. In and of itself, I'm not sure that constitutes a reliable source. It's effectively a collection of public domain works, and it's sponsored by Fordham University, but it's pretty much exclusively Halsall's creation. In any case, the specific page you are referring to is reprinted from: Three Byzantine Saints: Contemporary Biographies of St. Daniel the Stylite, St. Theodore of Sykeon and St. John the Almsgiver. Translated by Dawes, Elizabeth. Introductions and notes by Norman H. Baynes. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press. 1996 [1948]. ISBN 978-0-913836-44-6.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: others (link) You have several options on how to format the reference here, but what you've currently got isn't really one of them.
  • The Grant author link is incorrectly targeted. I'm pretty sure you want Michael Grant (classicist), not the young adult fiction author. Also, I could be wrong, but eyeballing it, that looks like a hyphen in the title's date range, which should probably be an endash.
  • Kazhdan 1991 has an archive url but no archive date, which throws a template error. You don't really need to give a doi for a book-format work with an ISBN; note also that the two Kazhdan works are different chapters in the same edited work, but are formatted differently at the moment.
  • The Kostenec source is not presented correctly. The article title you appear to be referencing should be "Chrysotriklinos", and the website is Encyclopedia of the Hellenic World, Constantinople. I'm not certain whether there's a book-form version of this, but the website suggests the name be italicized as if it were, and I have no reason to suggest otherwise.
  • The Nathan source also uses the url in place of the actual website name, which apparently should be De Imperatoribus Romanis: An Online Encyclopedia of Roman Rulers and Their Families. This also has a publication date (24 August 1998; see the bottom of the article).
Let's talk about this source a little more. I'm not trying to argue that this isn't a reliable source. The DIR was produced as a sort of collaborative, peer-reviewed effort with declared editorial practices. It is a reliable source. But this article leans on it very heavily: over 22% of the article's citations are to the single article on Marcian in the DIR. I am not entirely convinced the the source quality is commensurate with the weight given its viewpoints.
  • Is there content in important sources that haven't been addressed here? Nathan lists several sources in his biography that don't appear to have been themselves consulted (Croke, Devos, Holum, Kohlfelder). Do they add anything not already being covered? This book may have some more things to say about his religious policy? Is this paper relevant?

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

Comments by Cas Liber edit

taking a look now. will copyedit as I go. Please revert if I inadvertently change the meaning. comments below....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:23, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marcian...was the Eastern Roman Emperor from 450 to 457. - "the Eastern Roman Emperor" sounds odd, maybe "Emperor of the Eastern Roman Empire"? sounds more natural....
He is described by the ancient historian John Malalas as being tall and having some sort of foot impediment - I would put this at the end of the section. It interrupts the flow where it is.

Coord note edit

Having been open well over a month, and with no activity for a couple of weeks and extant concerns with prose, I think it's time to archive this. I know it passed a MilHist A-Class Review but a copyedit and perhaps a Peer Review after that seems in order. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:53, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Archived_nominations/March_2019&oldid=890119217"