Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/May 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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 27 May 2019 [1].

Siege of Melos edit

Nominator(s): Kurzon (talk) 14:18, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about The Siege of Melos. It has just passed Good Article review. Now I think it's time for FA review. Kurzon (talk) 14:18, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article looks to me to appear substantially the same as it did for its previous Featured Article Review.
I haven't dived deeply into the article yet, but some initial impressions:
  • Some but not all citations to books include page numbers. Note 16 is especially bad, citing three books but giving a page number for only one of them.
  • Still a very high proportion of citations to ancient sources, which was commented on in the previous review.
  • milos.gr is cited, and described in the article as the "official tourism website of Melos": what makes it a reliable source?
  • The structure of the article is a little weird. For example, the section "Restoration by Sparta" is only three sentences long – if there's only 50 words to say about a particular aspect of an article, it probably doesn't merit an entire section.
  • There's also some clunky prose: the section summarizing the Melian Dialogue, for instance, has five paragraphs of the format "The Melians argue that[...]. The Athenians counter that[...]." (Interspersed with one paragraph where the Melians instead "believe" for variety!)
Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 16:41, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, some of the sections are structured in an unconventional way, and its deliberate because I felt in this case it was the best way to teach the lessons I wanted to teach. I don't think an encyclopedia article needs to have beautiful prose as long as it presents information with clarity and accuracy. I'm not writing a novel.
Some of the sources may be ancient, but their authenticity is not in question, and in any case the secondary sources all refer to these same few primary sources. Thucydides is the ONLY historical account we have of the siege.
"Some but not all citations to books include page numbers. Note 16 is especially bad, citing three books but giving a page number for only one of them."
Is that so terrible? One little oddity in a footnote?

Suggest withdrawal. It does not appear that the disqualifying concerns raised in the previous review have yet been addressed. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:02, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment - As it doesn't appear that substantive work has been done to address previously stated concerns with the article, this nomination is premature and will be archived. Kurzon, you may wish to check out Wikipedia:Mentoring for FAC as was suggested by Ian in the previous nomination. --Laser brain (talk) 03:09, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 25 May 2019 [2].

Kulottunga I edit

Nominator(s): Nittawinoda (talk) 17:44, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 11th century Indian monarch of the Chola dynasty. Nittawinoda (talk) 17:44, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Reference formatting needs some significant cleanup - don't mix templated and untemplated citations. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:09, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: I am relatively new here, so can you give an example or make a sample edit? Nittawinoda (talk) 12:01, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Some of your citations use citation templates, like {{cite book}}; others are typed out by hand without using such templates. Which of the two styles do you want to use? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:44, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: I would like to go with the templates using {{cite book}},etc. I have fixed a few, check [3], [4]. Can you confirm if this is correct? I will then fix the rest. Thanks, Nittawinoda (talk) 09:42, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly, some small errors - India should be in |location=, |ref= is not needed if you are using these templates inline. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:34, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: I have fixed the citations. Please continue the review and let me know of any other issues. Thanks, Nittawinoda (talk) 16:18, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like you still have a mix of templated and untemplated citations, which is still resulting in inconsistencies in presentation. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:14, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Can you give an example? Nittawinoda (talk) 17:27, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Kulke History of India. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:26, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment - This has been open for a solid month without any declaration of support for promotion, and doesn't seem to be heading in the right direction at present. Therefore, I will be archiving it shortly and it may be re-nominated after the customary two-week waiting period. In the mean time, please action feedback as appropriate. --Laser brain (talk) 13:46, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source analysis edit

A lot many of the sources fail WP:HISTRS by a few miles or so. I will be leaving a detailed note on the quality of existent sourcing.∯WBGconverse 05:18, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • P. V. Jagadisa Ayyar (1982), South Indian Shrines: Illustrated, Asian Educational Services
    This book was originally written in 1920 (re-discovered and re-printed in 1982). A century ago, South India was rife with nationalistic biases in scholarship. The credentials of the author is unknown and I can't locate any review of the re-print, either. A sub-standard one-paragraph review of the 1920 print is over here.
    Fails HISTRS.
@Winged Blades of Godric: You can preview the book here [5]. You have to search for something there to preview. You can find the basic text version here [6].
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 24 May 2019 [7].

Vale Royal Abbey edit

Nominator(s): ——SerialNumber54129 14:32, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Back once again with the Vale Royal Royal Abbey. To some extent, this is FAC is an exercise in loss. Originally, in its bulk, the work of the one like Faeriesoph, and was of sufficient quality that Vale Royal itself lifted the article for their brochure. Embarrassingly, I didn't run a backwards copyvio search, and summarilly accused Faeriesoph of a wholesale copyvio. Fortunately Nthep was on hand to point out the obvious. I left this on their talk; unfortunately, I was right: they haven't and it isn't.
The article itself has passed an almost-thorough GA review in January, received an actually-thorough copy-edit from Miniapolis in April, and finally survived the gimlet eye of KJP1 in his capacity as Pilemeister-in-chief  :) Many thanks to everyone involved. It would, of course, be a shame to waste that collective expertise, so here we are. Without Faeriesoph.
Good luck everyone—and thanks. ——SerialNumber54129 14:32, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Faeriesoph edit

Yes, I wasn't very pleased to be accused of plagiarising my own work. No harm no foul though! I am about and will be happy to help get Vale Royal through FAC. Mediaeval monasteries are my special field, and I've already got the article on Netley Abbey to FA status Soph (talk) 19:01, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Iridescent edit

I've had my eye on this one since a discussion last month on my talkpage about sourcing images for it. This is the version I'm reviewing; I haven't checked images or sourcing.

Lead edit
  • I'd be inclined to link Cheshire as well as the towns. Even quite a few Brits would have trouble pointing to Cheshire on a map or answering the most basic questions about it; to Americans and Aussies it's nearly as obscure as Uinta County would be to a British audience.
  • This article used "Prince Edward", but its sister article Darnhall Abbey uses "Lord Edward"; you should probably standardise on one.
  • The comma usage in The building, when work began again in the late-14th century was considerably smaller than originally planned, and the project also encountered other problems is kind of goofy; I haven't fixed them myself as I'm not sure which elements you want to emphasise.
  • he conversely accused the King's men of obtaining fraudulently forging his signature is again garbled.

Note: I'm pausing the review here as otherwise it will be a huge laundry list of nitpicks; just reading the lead and the first paragraph of the body there are glaring errors, presumably as a result of integrating your additions into the existing text. This needs a top-to-toe copyedit before we go any further—probably by someone like Eric who won't be afraid to nitpick; I'll revisit it in a few days. ‑ Iridescent 17:44, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Iridescent; I should've known you'd be watching it. And should've asked your opinion, but I've already done that a few times. I've got rid of (I think) the glaring errors—malformed sentences and stray code mostly—and also gone through it more generally; could you opine? (Hopefully your points above were dealt with in the process, but I'll check tomorrow) Thanks for looking in here, in any case. Hopefully, it's salvageable; I thought EC had retired? Coincidentally, he did the GA review on the murdered Abbot Peter of this abbey. Nitpickfest indeed! Cheers, ——SerialNumber54129 20:03, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'll pop in and have another look tomorrow. Eric Corbett is still about, although not very active; as VRA is so close to his main area of interest in south-west Manchester, he might be interested enough to have a look. ‑ Iridescent 21:47, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Per my comment below in Eric's section, I'll hold off a few more days to see which way you want to go with this. While it's bad form for the nominator to canvass participants to a FAC, there's nothing stopping me doing so given that I had no input on the article; @Dudley Miles, Ealdgyth, Drmies, and Johnbod:. ‑ Iridescent 15:32, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Eric Corbett edit

I don't want to put a dampener on proceedings,but I'm afraid this does still need a lot of work IMO. To pick just one example "... the situation was exacerbated by the abbey not receiving monies rightfully due to them. Queen Eleanor had left it a legacy of 350 marks in her will" Is the abbey an "it" or a "them"? I could go on and on, but in summary Iridescent is right about the need for a top-to-toe copyedit. Eric Corbett 22:05, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I really would recommend withdrawing this nomination. Here are a couple more specific points from the lead:

  • "Edward had supposedly taken a vow during a rough sea crossing ..." This vow is a bit mysterious; what did he vow to do? Are we to simply assume that he vowed to build a Cistercian abbey?
  • "When work resumed in the late 14th century, the building was considerably smaller than originally planned, and the project encountered other problems." Why is reducing the scale of the building a problem, as is implied by use of the phrase "other problems"?

Eric Corbett 14:50, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I interpreted the "other problems" as following on from stripped of grants, skilled masons and builders in the previous sentence. Per my previous comment above, I don't feel the issue here is one of bad writing, but one of integrating the work of two people with very different writing styles (Faeriesoph and Serial Number), which has led to a disjointedness. (While I know some people like Casliber strongly disagree with the approach, in my experience the best thing to do when User:Carol wants to build on the work of User:Alice and User:Bob, is for Carol to rewrite a rough draft of the article from scratch in a sandbox completely disregarding the existing article, and only then reintegrate the work of Alice and Bob sentence-by-sentence in the appropriate places.) I wouldn't necessarily expect this be withdrawn—if you go through top-to-tail with fresh eyes most of the quirks could be ironed out in less time than it would take to withdraw this FAC and wait two weeks to renominate it. At the moment my position is "not supporting" rather than "oppose". ‑ Iridescent 15:27, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Iridescent and Eric Corbett: I think I am eating my own words on the issue and have revised my opinion somewhat. I have tried recently to do more reworking of some snake articles, which have a lot of content that has to be reviewed and cleaned up.....and.....yeah...it's....taxing.. On other articles, I do think there are some that cope better with multiple editors than others. I think these historical ones, where there is a more consistent narrative required for the whole article, are possibly the ones that are worst off with multiple authors while some science and medical ones not so vulnerable. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:46, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Cas Liber edit

  • Yeah prose issues - e.g. very first sentence, "Vale Royal Abbey, a medieval abbey and later a country house, is in Whitegate (between Northwich and Winsford) in Cheshire, England." - the verb ("is") needs to be what it is not where it is, so "Vale Royal Abbey was a medieval abbey (located) in Whitegate (between Northwich and Winsford) in Cheshire, England."
  • I think the prose in the lead needs reworking - I had to read a few times to figure out whether the building was still standing, and needs to be clearer. e.g. "it was partly (largely?) demolished after the dissolution of the monasteries, and remaining parts were incorporated into a country house" or something.
  • Aspects of the prose are engaging, but there is material I'd remove to make it clearer.

Overall it could be done at FAC, which would be a heavy slog, or at a Peer Review. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:11, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment - Given the early proliferation of issues found, I think it's best to archive this so it can undergo further prep work outside of FAC. It may be re-nominated after the customary two-week waiting period. --Laser brain (talk) 16:21, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 24 May 2019 [8].

Sakura Wars (video game) edit

Nominator(s): ProtoDrake (talk) 14:34, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Sakura Wars (Sakura Taisen in japan), a video game co-developed by Red Company and Sega for the Sega Saturn console. Originally released in 1996, it was a massive success and launched a media franchise which was recently revived with the game currently titled Project Sakura Wars. No version of the game has been released in English, with the only non-Asian translation being a Russian localization of the PC version. The current article has gone through the GA process, a peer review, an exhaustive copyedit, and several recent edits. Due to its exclusivity to Japan and issues with sources, the reception for the game is somewhat limited. I had submitted it for FAC some time ago, but due to a drop in my quality of work, I removed it. Now I feel more confident and have more support, I think this can successfully pass the candidacy and stand as one of the better game-related FAs out there. ProtoDrake (talk) 14:34, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Co-noming this one. I've helped worked out the sources and fact checking for the article. For the manuals and credits, I've spent quite a few hours manually translating the text. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:18, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Tintor2 I managed to understand the article well. Everything is sourced but it's a shame there is so little reception. Nevertheless, I support and I would advise to doing more trans-title to some references to be consistennt with other sources and pass the source review. However, I would try to rearrange some sentences to be more neutral (for example "forms strong bonds and becomes an effective force both in battle and on stage" makes sense but sounds a kind of drammatic while villain could be turned into "antagonist", "conflicting person" or "opponent"). The plot could introduce Sakura in a better way too. The ending could be further elaborated but I'm not sure since the I don't know the game. Ping me once you reply to me. Good luck with the article.Tintor2 (talk) 22:14, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Tintor2: I did my best with "trans-title" where possible. I also took another look at the synopsis, and using a translated playthrough I found online, I rewrote it. I did my best with character introductions, but it's been difficult due to the game's Japan exclusivity. As to the reception section, there's little to be done here due to repeating sentiments and a lack of coverage, again due to its exclusivity. --ProtoDrake (talk) 09:54, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@ProtoDrake: Good work. I support it. If if you need a source review, I'm pretty sure it might be easy to pass it too so feel free to ask me.Tintor2 (talk) 16:41, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: All of the FURs need significant expansion to warrant the inclusion of these images, and the two gameplay screenshots have dead source links. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:39, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: I've done my best to address the inadequate FURs. --ProtoDrake (talk) 16:35, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment - This has been open for well over a month without much support for promotion or activity in recent weeks. Therefore, I will be archiving it shortly and it may be re-nominated after the customary two-week waiting period. --Laser brain (talk) 12:45, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 22 May 2019 [9].

MAX Red Line edit

Nominator(s): Truflip99 (talk) 05:18, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The MAX Red Line is the second-busiest line in Portland's MAX Light Rail system and the region's only airport rail link. After commencing service nearly twenty years ago just one day before the September 11 attacks, it now carries over 20,000 riders per day between the cities of Beaverton and Portland, and Portland International Airport. Having successfully gone through GA and DYK nominations, as well as numerous read-throughs and copy edits, I feel the time is right to nominate this article for FA. Truflip99 (talk) 05:18, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- three weeks with only an image review, so I'm going to archive this; given the lack of commentary, you can renominate without waiting the usual two weeks if you'd like to. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:33, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 22 May 2019 [10].

Early history of Gowa and Talloq edit

Nominator(s): HaEr48 (talk) and Masjawad99 (talk) 13:09, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the early history of Gowa and Talloq, a pair of kingdoms which later became one of strongest powers in pre-colonial Indonesia. The article was initially written and passed to GA by Karaeng Matoaya, but he hasn't been active since. Recently, Masjawad99 and myself tried to expand and improve the already great article, and hopefully it's ready for the FAC process now. We'll be able to respond to comments during this nomination. HaEr48 (talk) 13:09, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I still have an open nomination for Kediri campaign (1678), but according to WP:FAC guideline: two nominations may be allowed if the editor is a co-nominator on at least one of them and in this case I am co-nominating with Masjawad99. HaEr48 (talk) 13:09, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

image review

  • Should use |upright= rather than fixed px size
  • File:Balla'_Lompoa_Museum.jpg: as Indonesia does not have freedom of panorama, this will need a tag for the original work. Same with File:COLLECTIE_TROPENMUSEUM_Moskee_te_Gowa_op_Celebes._TMnr_60013084.jpg
    • Added original work tag for File:COLLECTIE_TROPENMUSEUM_Moskee_te_Gowa_op_Celebes._TMnr_60013084.jpg, couldn't think of an appropriate one for Balla'_Lompoa_Museum.jpg so I removed it. HaEr48 (talk) 20:06, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Founding_of_Talloq.png: what is the source of the amendments added to the base map? Same with File:Tunipalangga's_conquests.png.
    The 29 April revisions? That was my stupidity, I accidentally replaced them with the Indonesian versions I created for id.wp. They have been reverted to the 2016 versions. Or are you talking about something else?  Masjawad99  (talk) 19:33, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm referring to the various annotations that were added to the base map by the original uploader. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:15, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The original uploader cites Bulbeck (1992) for his Tunipalangga's conquests map; I looked up quickly and found Figure 4-4 with the exact depiction of the map (but plus additional details of conquests from other kings. The OG uploader just filter the ones done by Tunipalangga). For the Founding of Talloq map, the interpretation is likely also based on the same source (Figure 12-7).  Masjawad99  (talk) 22:23, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria (talk) 15:54, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review edit

  • No spotchecks carried out
  • All links to sources are working
  • Formats:
  • Ref 22 requires pp. not p.
  • Done. HaEr48 (talk) 13:12, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 26 requires pp. not p.
  • Done. HaEr48 (talk) 13:12, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 79 requires pp., also hyphen needs replacing with ndash
  • Done. HaEr48 (talk) 13:12, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retrieval dates: I'm not sure of the basis whereby retrieval dates are included for some journal articles. You could probably dispense with these.
  • Done and deleted access date to be consistent. HaEr48 (talk) 13:12, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quality and reliability: The article is very extensively sourced and referenced. The sources appear to be of the appropriate high quality to meet the requirements of the FA criteria. Brianboulton (talk) 12:15, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note edit

Sorry but this nom is taking too long to get into gear with only image and source reviews after three weeks, so I'm going to archive it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:48, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian Rose: Sorry, does it mean the nomination is closed without promition? Shouldn't we give it more time, given that there's no negative feedback about it so far, and the GA review was quite supportive? HaEr48 (talk) 14:47, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 22 May 2019 [11].

2018 World Snooker Championship edit

Nominator(s): Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:12, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article follows last April's world Snooker championship, a fantastic 17 day event held in Sheffield. The article has passed through a GA review, and I believe it has the right stuff for an FA nomination. I look forward to addressing any concerns/questions you might have for the article in question. The event was won by Mark Williams who had considered retiring the year prior, having not qualified. Sadly, this article will contain no images of Williams' post match press conference in the nud. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:12, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment as you know I think the decorative use of flags is inappropriate here. Readers cannot tell just by the graphic which country is meant by each icon. Better off complying with MOS here. Also, I imagine that Williams in the nude, at low resolution, may well qualify for a fair use image, worth investigating. Also have concerns over the accessibility of the final summary table which looks hand-crafted and has no way of screen readers making it usable. Similar comment applies to the other tables in the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:27, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose now that your work has been undone by CitroenLover in direct contravention of MOS. Which is a pity really. Snooker articles are not exempt from MOS I'm afraid. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:19, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why I was mentioned in this page? I noticed that every other article using a flag of some sort was using the flagicon template, with one -- the article mentioned here -- using flag. With the flag template being used, it made the page incredibly messy. Please point to the MOS that says "flag" should be used over "flagicon" and I will revert my edit. --CitroenLover (talk) 20:23, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you read what I wrote, you'd understand why. See MOS:FLAG. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:24, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
First I'm hearing of this policy on flag usage. You should probably get a bot to update every article using the wrong template and delete the other template, but I feel that using the {{Flag}} template makes the page very difficult to read, due to the closeness of the "name" of a flag (like SCO) next to people's names, especially in the draw format template section. I reverted my edit. --CitroenLover (talk) 20:26, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well it's been part of MOS for years. And no, I'm not interested in getting a bot to do anything. This is precisely why the overuse (and abuse) of flag icons should be strongly discouraged. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:28, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I meant "You" in the context of "whoever manages bots", not you specifically. --CitroenLover (talk) 20:28, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever, it's not going to happen that way. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:29, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd like to say it's quite an easy task to change the article from {{flagicon}} to {{flag}}, which I have done. I will take a look at the table for the final - I'm sure I can come up with a version that would be suitable for WP:ACCESS. Is there any other issues you can find with the article that would stop this being a support? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:55, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have played with a new template, and used tooltips to denote the winner, which should help with Access. Let me know if there is anything else that needs addressing The Rambling Man. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:01, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The flags have been changed back, once again, to the non-MOS-compliant version, so the oppose stands I'm afraid. It looks like this is doomed because of the intransigence of those who appear to know better than the MOS. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:24, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, this is going to fail, sadly, because now there is an edit war over it. I tried to help you out Lee but I got reverted too. You'd think people who care about snooker articles would want an FA, but apparently not.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:27, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is getting really childish now. This a clear case of WP:POINT. As I have stated again and again, there is no evidence whatsoever that the use of {{flagicon}} is something that will block articles like these from reaching FA. It's a carefully chosen template which has accessibility features for ALL readers, even blind ones. I have successfully shepherded a number of sports articles through FAC and it was never even raised during their FAC's. It's clearly no coincidence that it's yet again the two of you who have decided on a course and act like you have more authority than other editors. The most respectful thing to do here is if we would limit ourselves to being editors and address the issues that are raised by independent reviewers instead of acting like we are the reviewers ourselves by "opposing" or "supporting" ourselves.Tvx1 13:29, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Quite the opposite, what is childish is the continued objection to the MOS and the edit warring to keep personal preferences in place. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:07, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am quite happy for the article to be reverted to the version with {{flag}}, and see what other think. However, as that is the only comment I have had on the article, it seems like trying to make changes to accomodate this would have been the natural thing to do. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:53, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you meant the version with {{flagicon}}. That's the one that was used in the long-term stable version before this article was nominated as a FAC. And there were no complaints about problems of understanding the icons. That template was actually designed with accessibility in mind and actually caters to all readers (even blind ones). Past experience with successfully guiding sports articles through FA's has shown me that the usage of this template didn't even raises objections during FAC's, let alone block articles from reaching FA status.Tvx1 19:19, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Other stuff exists. It matters not one iota what "long-term stable version" existed, this is in direct contradiction of MOS which means it fails FAC criterion 2. As you have been told on numerous occasions. "No complaints" from a handful of regulars is not how we gauge featured article quality. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:33, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
PS, "Past experience with successfully guiding sports articles through FA's", apparently just the one, 2015 Formula One World Championship, which passed a few years ago with a miraculous support of three. Needless to say, that article contravenes MOS all over the place and should be demoted accordingly, having failed to comply with FA criterion number 2. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:40, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I've posted a request for input at WT:MOSICON. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:47, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • As simultaneously a cue sports regular editor (I co-founded WP:CUE, and almost all my GA work is in that topic), and one of the longest-term and most active MoS regulars, and one of the principal authors of MOS:ICONS in the first place, I'm inclined to agree that flags are permissible here (per MOS:FLAGS), since this is an event at which representative nationality is defined for players; and in the reportage about the event, flags are customarily shown on TV, etc. It's kind of the snooker Olympics. However, I agree with The Rambling Man that at very least the country abbreviation (via {{flag}}) should also be present at least at first occurrence; the same guideline is clear about that, too. The little pictures are generally meaningless in most cases to large numbers of readers. Anyway, I do not think this guideline compliance and clarification subthread should in any way derail the nomination. Just fix it and move forward (fix it as in comply with MOS:FLAGS, since FA criterion no. 2 is "It follows the style guidelines"). PS: Accessibility is not the only concern; so is WP:REUSE and WP:PRINT. To the extent possible, our article text needs to make perfect sense and not lose key information if copy-pasted as plain text; ergo the provision of alt text for the blind by {{flagicon}} is insufficient.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:42, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, I didn't think I'd said they weren't permitted, just the usage several project regulars have fought to maintain against all advice contravenes MOS, despite arguments to the contrary. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:05, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:REUSE is just a "how-to" guide with regards to printing articles. WP:REUSE is a policy which only details the legal obligation when reusing our content. Neither of them state that reused/printed version of our content have to have identical information being conveyed, let alone that that would be a criteria for an article to become a FA. On the point, I don't feel that {{flag}} is an appropriate template. I do not believe that that one was ever created it to be used in combination with competitor names or any a like. In sports articles that template is best used in article where nations compete as teams and thus only the nations names need to be displayed (e.g. 2018 FIFA World Cup). In a case like this, the resultant flag+country name+player name scheme reduces readability immensely and simply overemphasizes the nationalities. I do not believe for a second that using that template would generate a higher quality article.Tvx1 20:49, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You can "believe" what you like. SMcCandlish nailed it (and you've already been told countless times), that currently the article fails to meet MOS requirements, so it fails basic FAC criterion 2, so it's a quick fail, and the longer you (and/or others) try to perpetuate the misuse of flag icons contrary to MOS, the longer it's going to be before the snooker project sees an FA (it currently has precisely ZERO). The Rambling Man (talk) 20:50, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As I have said time and time again. Read the notice on top of MOS. It says to use COMMON SENSE. Also see WP:GUIDELINE, WP:NOTLAW, WP:IAR, WP:PRINCIPLE. MOS is a guideline, not a law. No one can force anyone anywhere to follow it to the letter. Not even in the best quality articles. It's a set of advice on how to best present our contents. The ways detailed in it are only examples on how to deal with these situations. That doesn't mean there aren't any other solutions to achieve the goal of the MOS. The goal here is to ensure that all our readers can find out the meaning of these icons. And {{flagicon}} is an interactive template actually designed to achieved that. Using {{flag}} is not the only alternative we have here either. In fact it's the worst choice since it reduces readability dramatically. There are other choices available though. We could for instance choose to extract the explanation of the flags out of the actual tables by creating some sort of legend or list of the nationalities. To name an example, 2019 PDC World Darts Championship includes a table with the represented nations.Tvx1 12:43, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's just about time we accepted the advice of the MOS, SMcCandlish puts it better than I could. Fix it and move on, all the disruption to the article to make it non-compliant with MOS needs to stop. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:48, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And I feel we do currently implement that advice. We do respect that part of MOS in assuring that all readers can find out the icons' meanings through the use of a template that was carefully thought out to be accessible to everyone. Using {{flag}} is simply the worst possible alternative.Tvx1 11:12, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Tvx1, you keep bandying about shortcuts as if you've fully absorbed the contents of the pages to which they point and WP norms for their interpretation, but you clearly have not. Any guideline and even any policy, aside from legal ones imposed on us by WP:OFFICE actions, can have exceptions (see WP:P&G), when IAR conditions apply – when ignoring a rule is necessary to objectively improve the encyclopedia. Doing unhelpful things with tiny flag icons does not qualify. Otherwise we would and could have no such guideline as MOS:ICONS in the first place. It is not and cannot possibly be sufficient that you just like them and prefer your way of doing them. Your way is not common-sensical, as has already been explained to you in excruciating detail. Some indication (abbreviated or full) of the country name also has to be present, at least at first occurrence, because these tiny pictures are meaningless to many people.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:55, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by nominator

Does anyone have any other outstanding issues with the article, other than the flag discussion above? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:15, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, unless we resolve the accessibility issues, including the flag icon problem, there's not much point in going too much further to be honest. It can't pass with the various MOS failures in place. I'd be delighted to review the article in detail, but only once we've got a commitment to fix the issues and that project members won't simply and disruptively restore it to their preferred version over the guidance from MOS. It's a real shame. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:47, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I had addressed the accessibility issues with the table for the final - which should now pick up on screen readers. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:28, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And many previous FAC's prove your claims to be wrong. I don't know why you are so unwilling to admit that. If you are going to personally block this article from getting FA status than you're the one who'll be disruptive. Such an action would amount to WP:POINT. I agree with Lee that we should move on with the review and focus on matters which are actually serious issues.Tvx1 11:12, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Boring. Compliance with MOS is important and those who continually and disruptively edit to remove compliance with MOS are the problem here. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:20, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. That's actually sanctionable. No one is required to write new material in compliance with guidelines (we don't expect new editors, for example, to have read any of them at all yet), but it's disruptive to undo compliance by other editors, and it's flat-out WP:TE and WP:POINT to do it programmatically with some kind of "my way or the highway" or "style warrior" agenda. See also WP:CONLEVEL and numerous ArbCom decisions: wikiprojects are nothing but pages at which editors with a shared interest gather round to discuss things and (hopefully) do article assessments. They have no authority beyond that of any other random editors, they do not WP:OWN the articles they say their project scope covers, they are not WP:VESTED editors in any topic or at any page, and they cannot make up their own divergent rules against site-wide ones. If someone thinks there's something wrong with MOS:ICONS and its handling of flags in sports topics, the way to change it is to propose a change at WT:MOSICONS, not to try the WP:FAITACCOMPLI and WP:GAMING approach of just defying it at article after article until in hopes of WP:WINNING by wearing out everyone else. I said above that this should just get fixed and shouldn't derail the nomination, but it's clear that someone has dug a foxhole, so I think this probably does nuke the nomination. It's one thing to have a legit IAR reason to diverge from a guideline on rare occasions for real reasons – that other editors buy, not just in your own imagination – but this is just misuse of mainspace as an anti-guideline lobbying tool. This should be re-FAC'd at some point, when Tvx1 has moved on and isn't using it as a prop for activism against P&G material he doesn't like.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:12, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – I feel bad for the nominator since this looks like an interesting article and I can't remember a snooker article ever being nominated in the 11 years I've reviewed articles at FAC. Unfortunately, a situation like this is very discouraging from a reviewer's point of view because until a resolution is found, any efforts we put in are secondary concerns to the flag issue that has sucked up the energy here. I will offer a few quick comments, since I don't want a new nominator like Lee to feel that this has been a waste of time and become discouraged from coming back to FAC in the future.

  • First, I must say that I don't think the flag issue is a hill worth dying on, as far as FAC is concerned. If it were my work, I'd just fix them to be compliant with the MoS and move on, but apparently there's outside resistance to that. Assuming that this won't pass in the end, this is an issue that will need to be hashed out on the article's talk page before a second nomination. If you can show a strong consensus for the flags being the way they are now, you can bring that to a second FAC and at least make a case for them. That isn't the case now, however, and I'd advise that one article being a certain way doesn't automatically make it the right way. Even FAs can have flaws, as perfect articles are few and far between.
  • As for things you can fix now, a cite tag has been added to the last sentence of the section on the final. That will definitely need to be fixed for this article to meet the FA criteria.
  • Reference 19 goes to a YouTube page. Is this an officially licensed YouTube channel? If not, they probably don't have the rights to show the content and we shouldn't be linking it to. If that's the case, you'll need to find another reference for this content.
  • The reference publishers have a weird mix of italicized and non-italicized publishers. I'm seeing inconsistencies in how publishers such as The Independent and BBC Sport are handled. FAC wants citations to be formatted consistency when possible, so I'd suggest maintaining a consistent style for each throughout the list of citations. In addition, I'd italicize The Guardian in ref 54, since that is a print publication and those are typically italicized.
  • In the lead, I see "Crucible Theatre" and "Crucible theatre". Again, this is an inconsistency that should be dealt with. In this case, it looks like "Crucible" is used as shorthand for the arena after the first usage, so the non-capitalized "theatre" could just be removed entirely. Giants2008 (Talk) 15:49, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your comments Giants2008 - I appreciate the productive comments. First, I've gone through the article and changed all first rounds (and first instances of flags to {{flagathlete}}, which should be MOS consistent! Realistically this has already gone through tonnes of talk pages, but it seems as though it's still an issue. However, I don't see how this current version could be considered worse than any other version in terms of aesthetics.
  • I have cited the statement in the final. I believe there used to be a citation there, but was removed.
  • ref removed - was already cited anyway
  • I'll go through the full list tomorrow and make sure it's consistent.
  • I have changed this to the correct formatting. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:51, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note edit

I think Giants puts it very well in his initial comments above; one sympathises with any nominator trying to do the right thing and being pulled in different directions by supposed supporters. Unfortunately it's taken over three weeks for this review to begin to move past the MOS issue, and that doesn't fill me with confidence that consensus to promote is going to occur any time soon. I'd like to archive this and see how things go over the next fortnight or so outside the spotlight of the FAC process, after which I hope the style arguments will be well and truly put to bed and the article can get a clean start here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:26, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 22 May 2019 [12].

Style (Taylor Swift song) edit

Nominator(s): HĐ (talk) 01:43, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the song that made me genuinely fall in love with Taylor Swift's works. Sure, she only writes about boys and her obsession with the perfect Prince Charming, but this song showcases her maturity as an artist, both musically (I love the instrumental so bad) and lyrically (she has realised love is not a dream); plus the sensual video.

While Swift is reticent to share the song's development and inspiration, I have tried my best to include interpretations of the song to shed light on what it is exactly about. It has undergone a Copy-Edit and passed GAN, and I believe it is now comprehensive and well-written to pass FAC. Looking forward to comments, HĐ (talk) 01:43, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources Review edit

  • Spotchecks: I have carried out a sample of spotchecks, which has thrown up a couple of issues:
  • Ref 1: ARTICLE: "Inspired by pop music of the 1980s and its experimentation with synthesizers, drum pads, and overlapped vocals, for her fifth studio album, 1989, American singer-songwriter Taylor Swift decided to move away from the signature country styles of her earlier releases". SOURCE: I'm not sure that the source supports this summary of Swift's views. For example I can't see any mention of "Inspired by pop music of the 1980s and its experimentation with synthesizers, drum pads, and overlapped vocals, for her fifth studio album, 1989, American singer-songwriter Taylor Swift decided to move away from the signature country styles of her earlier releases".
  • The source indicates that: "Maybe the biggest influence that 1989 had on 1989 was what Swift, who was born that year, describes as a feeling of freedom. 'It was a very experimental time in pop music,' she says. 'People realized songs didn’t have to be this standard drums-guitar-bass-whatever. We can make a song with synths and a drum pad. We can do group vocals the entire song. We can do so many different things." This is where I interpreted as "inspired by music of the 1980s and its experimentation..." For the "moving away from country music" bit, I added sources to strengthen the claim
  • Ref 35: ARTICLE: " The Independent's Andy Gill was unimpressed with "Style" calling out its "desperately inclusive electropop grooves and corporate rebel clichés". SOURCE: I'm not sure the assertion "Andy Gill was unimpressed with 'Style'" is a fair reflection of the source, which is as complimentary as much as it is critical. The source article is headlined "Taylor Swift, 1989 - album review: Pop star shows 'promising signs of maturity' ".
  • Changed
  • Links: all links are working properly, per the external links checker tool
  • Quality and reliability: Ref 28: "PluggedIn" is published by Focus on the Family, a conservative religious website which, according to our article on it, "is active in promoting socially conservative views on public policy". As such, its lack of objectivity means that it fails to meet Wikipedia's required standards of quality and reliability.
  • Removed
  • Format issues:
  • You need to be consistent in showing retrieval dates for archived links. Generally you don't do this, but occasionally you do. There are arguments that all such links also require access dates – I personally wouldn't insist on this, but it is necessary to be consistent, i.e. all or none.
  • Added retrieval dates for all sources
  • Ref 84: give language as Polish
  • Ref 98: give language as German
  • The sources are automatically generated by {{Single chart}}, so I don't think it's a major problem — HĐ (talk) 00:55, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise sources are comprehensive and well presented. Brianboulton (talk) 19:15, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Brianboulton: Thank you so much for the detailed source review, I owe you lots! I have addressed your concerns as above, HĐ (talk) 00:55, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Aoba47 edit

  • I am uncertain about the structure for the first sentence in the “Production and release” section. It leads with a rather long dependent clause before getting to the primary subject. Maybe simplify it to something like (For her fifth studio album,1989, Taylor Swift moved away from the signature country styles of her earlier releases after being inspired by pop music of the 1980s and its experimentation with synthesizers, drum pads, and overlapped vocals.).
  • Changed the the current sentence
  • I do not believe you need the “American singer-songwriter” descriptive phrase in the body of the article.
  • Removed
  • Make sure to wikilink “Blank Space” the first time you use it in the body of the article.
  • Done
  • I am uncertain about this part (The lyrics are ambiguous). Are the lyrics really “ambiguous”? It seems like a pretty straight forward love song to me. Which sources support this claim?
  • "Ambiguous" in this case means "open to more than one interpretation", I believe; I don't think it needs a backing source since the interpretations in the article already indicate that the lyrics have double meaning or some deeper layers
  • What source is used to support that this is a funk song? I do not think that referring to a song as “funk-pop” is the same as calling it “funk”. I could be overthinking it though.
  • Funk-pop redirects to funk, so I believe "funk-pop" is how a mainstream pop songs incorporate funk, akin to the music of Daft Punk
  • I am uncertain about this part (in the words of Consequence of Sound's Sasha Geffen, commend conventional beauty standards of young white people). Geffen clearly means for her connection between the song’s lyrics and white beauty as a criticism. This makes it read much more opinion-based to me and more suitable for the “Critical reception” section where this information is already covered. I am not sure if this part really fits in the current section. It just seems weird to me, but again I could be overthinking it.
  • As it's an interpretation I opt to keep it in the section; I also added another interpretation to strengthen the claim
  • Is a wikilink for “white people” really necessary? The same goes for “sex” in “as an allusion to having sex". I think the average reader would understand these terms.
  • Agreed. Removed
  • Is there a structure to the “Critical reception” section? Right now, it seems rather random. For instance, you jump from two rather mixed to negative reviews (i.e. Geffen and Volpe) directly into a positive review (i.e. Guerra). I would try to give more a structure or a cohesive narrative to this section. A resource like this one could be useful to understand what I mean.
  • The first paragraph focuses on reviews that lauded the music, while the second highlights reviewers who complimented the lyrics. I don't think it's that random, but I'll try to reorganize the section
  • I am uncertain about the Geffen sentence in the section. Reading the part by itself, it seems that Geffen has a more mixed review for the song, but after reading the review myself, she seems to primarily dislike it. For instance, this part of the review (triumph is an easy place to get to when you’re young, hot, and loaded in the country’s sparkliest city. Here, Swift’s girl-next-door likability slips, making it harder to forget that “Style” literally debuted as an advertisement.) and (Swift’s heartsick anthems are as sympathetic here as they were on Red. It’s when she starts chasing down the gleam of the Big Apple that I start to lose her). I am wondering if there is a way to better reflect this in the prose. For instance, if you compare Geffen with Volpe, Geffen is much more negative about the song. Let me know if that makes sense. Also, you misspell “Geffen” as “Greffen” here.
  • Whoops, my bad. I rewrote the whole part for Geffen's remarks and also reorganized the section.
  • For this part (Contemporary music critics received "Style" with generally positive reviews.), I do not believe “contemporary” is necessary. It is clear from the references when the reviews were written and you are not bringing up a different group of critics (such as retrospective reviews) so the qualifier is unnecessary here.
  • Removed "contemporary"
  • For this part (Contemporary publications noted), I am not sure “contemporary” is need as again you are not referring to any other types of reviewers so a qualifier is not needed.
  • Changed to "Media publications"
  • Do you think that the Ryan Adams cover should be mentioned in the lead? I am not certain either way.
  • I think not because he covered the whole album, not only the song (correct me if I'm wrong)

I hope these comments help. I am a terrible reviewer so apologies in advance. Aoba47 (talk) 02:45, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments are very much appreciated. I'll try to address them all by this weekend :) HĐ (talk) 04:31, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoba47: Whew, I believe I have addressed all of your concerns before weekend lol. I'm happy that you have some very constructive input! Thanks so much, HĐ (talk) 05:00, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for addressing everything. I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 15:56, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Lirim.Z edit

  • Support Great article.—Lirim | Talk 21:32, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Media review edit

That's all from me. Kees08 (Talk) 05:29, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All done except for the quality of the music sample; the file info reads "Ogg Vorbis sound file, length 23 s, 63 kbps", so I don't know where did you get the 189 kbps figure, which is quite puzzling. HĐ (talk) 05:54, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that's just my incompetence showing. I was looking at something further down the page for some reason. All good to go on media. Kees08 (Talk) 04:11, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note edit

This has been open a month with only one detailed content review; I've added it to the FAC urgents list but if we don't see some more commentary soon I'll have little choice but to archive. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:48, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Ian. Thanks for notifying this. As the article is rather well-written (it definitely needs a few more detailed reviews though), and has no problem with sources and media, would you mind giving some input regarding the prose? It's a rather short article, and I don't want it to go to waste. HĐ (talk) 20:40, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Normally I'd say yes but I'll have to check if I'm able to recuse as coord at this time -- Andy, if you're back on deck, then one of us could review and the other stay with coord duties, let me know... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:55, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose: Sure, I can review in the coming few days. --Laser brain (talk) 13:23, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose: Sorry, I've just moved and they haven't hooked up my internet yet. I've been slow to get back up and running. --Laser brain (talk) 19:20, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah this is nobody's fault but obviously no-one else has been able to get to this either and we can't keep open indefinitely. I'll archive this and perhaps Andy or others can look when they have a chance, away from the pressure of the FAC process, and it can afterwards be re-nominated here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:40, 22 May 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) 18 May 2019 [13].

Mukilteo, Washington edit

Nominator(s): SounderBruce 03:04, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mukilteo (pronounced Muck-uhl-tee-OH) was once a little town on the shore of Puget Sound, but has since grown into one of the more affluent suburbs of the Seattle region, thanks to its proximity to the Boeing airplane factory. I believe this article to be as good as my previous city FA, Arlington, and improved on the formula I've been using in my pursuit of a good topic for the cities of Snohomish County, Washington. I hope to be back soon with another city FAC. SounderBruce 03:04, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Your city hall image has two captions, which results in only one being displayed
    • The second one was supposed to be an alt.
  • File:Snohomish_County_Washington_Incorporated_and_Unincorporated_areas_Mukilteo_Highlighted.svg: is a more specific data source available? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:28, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm not sure of the purpose of the 2000 census section when you already have the exact same wording and more recent data for the 2010 census. Why not just keep the most recent census data? Also there is a paragraph about a 10th place ranking from a money themed magazine, but I checked the recent list and the city is not mentioned [14]. I think this paragraph should be removed as the measures for "quality of life" were not clearly determined in a scientific way, and magazine promotions are not exactly reliable sources of unbiased opinions on demographic matters. Mattximus (talk) 19:46, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mattximus: Sorry for the late reply! The 2000 census data has traditionally been kept on city articles as a point of comparison; I expect it to be removed after the 2020 census facts are published, at which point 2010 will be retained for that comparison. The "Best Places" ranking from Money Magazine (a subsidiary of Time Magazine) are fairly reputable nationally and change annually based on their criteria, which is a mix of opinion and data like housing prices/financing, school test results, and commute times. I believe it warrants inclusion, as these rankings are related to the city's perception as an affluent suburb. SounderBruce 05:51, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  • The lead should be a summation of the entire article, but at the moment seems unbalanced - it is heavily focused on the location's history
  • The infobox and categories give an establishment date of 1858; however, this is not clearly supported by the article text, which states that a settlement was established two years after an 1855 treaty, which would be 1857. Conversely the HistoryLink source seems to suggest 1860. Also the name of the settlement's cofounder is misspelled - most sources seem to support "Fowler"
  • Looking elsewhere in the infobox: I see the 6.26 in the given source, but not either of the two other area numbers; these numbers also contradict what's in the article text. I also don't see a source for that elevation anywhere
  • The infobox gives a population density of 3,431.20/sq mi. How is that number being calculated?
  • "causing $500,000 in damage" - need to specify that this is 1930 dollars
  • "including passenger service provided by Alaska Airlines" - source supports an "overhaul and repairing service" here at this time, but doesn't explicitly mention passenger service until much later
  • What is a fourth-class city?
  • The narrative around annexations seems somewhat confused. In one paragraph it is claimed that the annexation of Harbor Pointe "doubled the city's size to 6.25 square miles". However, the following paragraph states that the size grew to 6.6 square miles. In addition to resolving the overlap, this paragraph sorely needs copyediting for clarity and flow. Also a map of the various annexations/neighborhoods would be quite helpful.
  • "which is planned to cost $167 million and open in 2020" - the second source provided for this claim seems to indicate that this date will be pushed back, and the cost is at this point unclear (unless there is a subsequent source?)
  • Given variance in definitions for the term "mass shooting", I'd suggest not using it here - most definitions would exclude a case of 3 deaths
  • Don't think the 2017 airplane crash is significant enough to warrant a paragraph
  • The article text gives a 2017 population estimate of 21,240; the adjacent table and the infobox both give 21,469
  • "Hispanic or Latino of any race were 4.4% of the population" - as a non-American I was somewhat confused by this; probably worth adding a footnote explaining its significance
  • "8.9% had a female householder with no husband present" - I'm assuming this means single women? Probably worth clarifying. Also, did the 2000 census really show no single men, or was that stat omitted for some reason?
  • What is "post-census redistricting"? In general I'm finding that the article assumes a lot of local or territorial knowledge on the part of the reader. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:33, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will withdraw this nomination, since it seems to be getting little traction, and I have received useful feedback on what I would need to improve in the meantime. @FAC coordinators: I have other projects that need to use up this FAC slot, so I'll return with this one at another time. SounderBruce 19:29, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just to be clear (and apologies if you're well aware), according to FAC instructions if this nom is archived then there is a two-week waiting period before you can nominate any other article. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:04, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware, and will be taking the proposed FAC (1999 FIFA Women's World Cup) to Peer review in the meantime. Really hoping that it can be promoted in time for its 20th anniversary this July. SounderBruce 02:13, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 17 May 2019 [15].

Bernard Hinault edit

Nominator(s): Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:02, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Bernard Hinault, five-time winner of the Tour de France and one of the most prolific athletes in the history of his discipline. The article passed GA last month. Since then, I have added alt texts to the images, but not a whole lot more, since I feel it is very close to FA quality. I am very much looking forward to your comments! Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:02, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review edit

  • No spotchecks carried out
  • Links:
  • The main link in ref 116 is returning a 404 error message, although the archive link goes to the source
@Brianboulton: For me, both links are working, maybe the site was down?
  • Ref 141: is the link going to the right page? I can't recognise the title in the source
@Brianboulton: You can see the title of the page in grey above the image.
  • Otherwise, all links to sources are working properly
  • Formats:
  • Ref 62: "Eurosport" is the publisher and should not be italicized
Fixed.
  • Ref 99 shows "roadcyclinguk.com", whereas ref 119 shows "Roadcycling UK". Choose one format.
Fixed.
  • Quality and reliability: sources appear to meet the FA criteria for quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 19:48, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Brianboulton: Thank you! Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:31, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – Read through the first half or so of the article and only have a couple of relatively minor comments below. It's been an enjoyable read so far, and I'll try to look at the rest over the weekend.

  • 1978: Grand Tour breakthrough: Minor prose point, but the first "him" in "and offered him to carry him to the finish" doesn't look like it belongs there.
Fixed.
  • The last paragraph of this subsection is a shade stubby at one sentence. Perhaps it could be merged into the previous, larger paragraph? Giants2008 (Talk) 21:35, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Giants2008: Done. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:46, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Riding style and legacy: I'd remove the commas that appear before and after "which excluded riders outside the time limit on each stage", unless a word was excluded from "the rule" beforehand.
  • "Hinault was capable of suffering through the training camp and return to winning form within a month." Feels like "return" should be "returning" here. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:32, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Giants2008: Both done. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:01, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – All of my comments have been resolved and I'm confident that the article meets FA standards. The writing and sourcing both look to be FA-worthy, and the coverage appears comprehensive for the subject. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:09, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment - This has been open for well over a month without attracting much attention, unfortunately. Therefore, I will be archiving it shortly and it may be re-nominated after the customary two-week waiting period. --Laser brain (talk) 16:06, 17 May 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) 17 May 2019 [16].

Pizzagate conspiracy theory edit

Nominator(s): Money emoji

A strange, morbidly fascinating conspiracy theory involving democrats, Alex Jones, a secret society, social media trends, a restaurant, and of course, pizza. The bizzarenes of this conspiracy always fascinated me, and the fact that an article born out of chaotic conspiracy theories actually became rather stable overtime, leaves me to believe that it deserves to be a featured article- pending review, of course. 💵Money💵emoji💵💸 19:22, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This is a good subject for an FA, but the prose needs a thorough overhaul to be ready for FAC. A few of the things picked up on a relatively light reading include the following:

Lead
  • "Pizzagate is a debunked[2][3][4]". Now, refs are supposed to cover all the information that goes before. Here we have three citations supporting four words without it even saying it is a conspiracy theory. I'm not a fan of refs in leads, but I suspect you've added them here to nail the point home because people will challenge it, but I'd move these to the end of the first sentence.
    moved.
  • "discredited and debunked" telling us it's been debunked in two successive sentences isn't great.
    removed debunked.
  • "In the fall of 2016": See MOS:SEASON
    Changed to "In march 2016" since thats when the emails were initially hacked, and then added that they were leaked in November of 2016.
  • "In addition," This just looks like an add-on of something previously forgotten.
    Changed sentence structure so the "in addition" makes sense.💵Money💵emoji💵💸 15:32, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Genesis
  • "@DavidGoldbergNY" quote. No need for the direct link to the source at the end of the quote: that is what the source does well enough
    Removed.
  • "This conspiracy theory emerged": Given the second sentence starts with a date when it started, this sentence is superfluous
    removed sentence, agree that it was unnecessary.
  • "a white supremacist Twitter account" is there such a thing as this, or is it a Twitter account registered to a WS, or a Twitter account that publishes WS material?
    It was a fake troll account that pubished the expected racist propoganda, so I think the third choice if the best one.
  • "lawyer in New York included": comma after New York
    comma'd.
  • "included a display of a claim that" or just "included a claim that"
    Shortened down just to "claimed" since the image itself wasn't all that essential (He essentially just said an abridged version of what was included in the image)
  • "On October 30, 2016, a white supremacist Twitter account that presented itself as belonging to a Jewish lawyer in New York included a display of a claim that the New York City Police Department, which was searching emails found on Anthony Weiner's laptop as part of an investigation into his sexting scandals, had discovered the existence of a pedophilia ring linked to members of the Democratic Party." This is way too long and contains just too much information. It needs to be broken down into at least two sentences and rephrased for clarity
    Trimmed down to: "On October 30, 2016, a Twitter account that posted white supremacist material that presented itself as belonging to a lawyer based in New York, claimed that the New York City Police Department discovered a pedophilia ring linked to members of the Democratic Party while searching through Anthony Weiner's emails." Tell me if you think I could change it more.💵Money💵emoji💵💸 16:14, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Internet users reading John Podesta's emails released by WikiLeaks in early November 2016". Put this in chronological order and rephrase ("It was released onto the WikiLeaks website in early November 2016. Some users speculated…")
    Rephrased.
  • "Internet users" and "Proponents": you need to give some indication as to who these groups are ("Internet users" covers such a large proportion of the world nowadays that it needs to be defined down to a manageable number)
    Good point. I think "proponents of the theory makes more sense in context, so I changed it.
  • Overlinking of "New York Police Department" and inconsistent naming format. Name fully at the first time as "New York City Police Department (NYPD)" and use the abbreviation thereafter.
    done.
  • The second paragraph is clunky and unwieldy and needs re-writing.
    Rephrased.💵Money💵emoji💵💸 16:51, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This needs a good going over before coming back again, and I see it hasn't gone through a peer review first. I think I'd recommend withdrawing this nom, proofing it, getting it copy edited, proofing it again and the, just as you're about to take it to PR, proof it again. I think you are a first-timer at FAC (forgive me if I'm wrong), but if you are, I'll bring your attention to the part of the FAC instructions: "Editors considering their first nomination, and any subsequent nomination before their first FA promotion, are strongly advised to seek the involvement of a mentor". Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 15:09, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild edit

If this is being withdrawn, then can I recommend putting it through the GOCE Requests service to tidy up some phraseology and make it MOS compliant. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:46, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note edit

There having been no further commentary since the concerns raised by Schro and Gog, I'm going to archive this nom and echo their advice re. copyediting, PR and mentoring. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:08, 17 May 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) 15 May 2019 [17].

Macklemore edit

Nominator(s): Telex80 (talk) 06:17, 15 May 2019 (UTC)Telex80[reply]

That Article is having no Mistakes about his carrer but it is well known for initiative known Rapper for having no red links but no insufficient lack of no reference.

Telex80 (talk) 06:17, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. The prose is poor and there are large swathes are ureferenced; at least on ‘citation needed’ tag in there too. - SchroCat (talk) 06:36, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose To much un- / undersourced material, and the nominator has made no gingivitis to the article so far [18]. ——SerialNumber54129 08:10, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- SN got in with my observation first; a premature and an out-of-process nom. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:14, 15 May 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 May 2019 [19].

Concerti grossi, Op. 6 (Handel) edit

Nominator(s): Laganrat

This article is about... One of English (German born) Baroque composer George Frideric Handel's greatest works. The article is excellent, providing background, explaining the details of each concerto, it's influenced and how it was influenced, etc. I think it is a good candidate for featured article status.

  • Oppose sorry: it's got massive chunks unsourced, loads of MOS issues, particularly with images, a mix of referencing styles, all which is notwithstanding that the nominator, with only 164 edits, should gain more experience about the featured article process before nominating again. They have also never edited the article either. Sorry chap! It was a bloody nice idea though! ——SerialNumber54129 17:44, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as above. Well below FA standard. If you like the piece and want to see it as the best work we have, start by slowly building it up to GA level, learning how to source, reference and wikify your prose as you do so. - SchroCat (talk) 20:11, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- all good advice above; also consider the FAC mentoring scheme after making improvements and getting through GAN. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:54, 14 May 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) 13 May 2019 [20].

Open event at the 42nd Chess Olympiad edit

Nominator(s): Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:04, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the open event at the 42nd Chess Olympiad. Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:04, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments edit

Not a complete review yet. I see that access dates are missing from online references – this applies essentially to every reference in the list. The link to "official website" in ref 5 appears to be dead, and the link in ref 61 returns a 404 error message. There are likely to be other issues, but these problems should be dealt with first. Brianboulton (talk) 19:26, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I have fixed those two links and checked that all other properly link to the cited texts before adding access dates as of today.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:51, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Could you please be more specific on the text you suggest to be added?--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:53, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jens Lallensack edit

I think this is promising, but still has some way to go. The "Rounds" section is very good and well-balanced as far as I can see; there are still a number of prose errors though (see below for examples). The main issue is imho that the article is not as comprehensive as it could be.

  • The venue, and even the city in which it took place, are not mentioned in the text anywhere. I would mention country and city at the end of the first sentence already.
  • The organizer is not even mentioned? Was it FIDE?
  • Anything about price money? The Hamilton Russell Cup is only mentioned in a figure caption.
  • All in all, the article appears to lack a lot of background. I could think about a number of other things that I would have added, e.g. where spectators allowed? How were the games transmitted? Media coverage? etc. etc.
  • The second sentence of the lead mentions "Physically Disabled Chess Association (IPCA)" and others, but these are not repeated in the main text (the lead should only be the summary).
  • include Baadur Jobava of Georgia on board one, Vladimir Kramnik of Russia – why not state the board number for Kramnik as well?
  • Besides this, I found the following prose issues (correct me if I'm wrong, I'm not a native speaker):
  • The time control for every single game was 90 minutes per 40 moves, with an addition of 30 seconds per move and 30 minutes after the 40th move. – I think this is confusing. I would mention the increment in a separate sentence.
  • was allowed once again – here, I think you need to offer background information to explain the "once again".
  • The defending champions China were the third team with highest average rating and the only team besides Russia whose all players have rating higher than 2700. – Could you check for grammar here?
  • where 18-year old Jan-Krzysztof Dudawho who defeated Lázaro Bruzón to – the "who" is too much
  • The winless day for the strong player I think it needs to be "players"
  • put himself in an inferior position with a pawn down that was able to hold – "he" is missing
  • that left him without the huge advantage in an inferior position – remove "without the huge advantage"? Otherwise I don't understand it.
  • get an opening advantage in a game with solid – "a solid"
  • into a win against Ian Nepomniachtchi who won all seven games – "had won"?
  • missed a decisive tactic on move 26 that allow Jones to win the – "allowed"
  • played a novelty on move 16, that allowed him – remove comma
  • but the Greek tam struck back – "team"?
  • Azerbaijan and France scored 3-1 victories Turkmenistan and the Czech Republic – "against" missing
  • United States – not "the United States" (with article)?
  • No need to link countries multiple times. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 01:35, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I have carefully dealt with every line you wrote and improved the article by adding two new sections on prizes, and media and spectators; expanding and re-arranging the one on participants; modifying the introduction to fully reflect the article's body; and correcting the mistakes that were found. I made a thorough search for the money prizes but could not find anything.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:49, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, much better.

  • You mention the "playing hall", but which hall was this? Does it have a name? Might be worth to briefly introduce the hall with some background if suitable (but not necessary imo).
  • There are grammar errors in the new section (e.g., "that consisted of working stations equipped and information area equipped")
  • FIDE should also be introduced in the main text as well. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 01:08, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I have added information about the venue but do not find it necessary to introduce FIDE since its parent article already contains general information about organisational details.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:56, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note edit

This has been open five weeks without attracting any support for promotion so I'm going to archive it. From the comments above it looks like this could benefit from GOCE assistance. After that you might consider the FAC mentoring scheme. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:53, 13 May 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) 13 May 2019 [21].

Bishop John Carroll (statue) edit

Nominator(s): Ergo Sum 00:57, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a prominent statue at Georgetown University of John Carroll, the first Catholic bishop in the United States and the founder of the university. The bronze statue was created in 1912. This is the second FA nomination for this article, and Ian Rose has offered to waive the two-week waiting period. In my estimation, the article seems to be in good shape. Ergo Sum 00:57, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I enjoyed this article, which is short but concise, and I will likely support, knowing the earlier nom was archived due to lack of reviews. As usual with Ergo's nominations, the writing is very good. My main quibble, and we have discussed this before, is the usage of links to google books, I especially don't like the "via Google Books" qualifier. Those links are unstable, and access varies between territories. Ceoil (talk) 20:47, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ceoil: Thanks, I like to think it's brief but does the job. Can you remind me of your stance on Google Book links? I include them as convenience links. Ergo Sum 13:03, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Ergo, see my last sentence above. Anyway, per Nikki below, by any means not a reason to oppose. Will give a final look tonight. Ceoil (talk) 10:21, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the language is a bit dated, which I hope is not an influence from older sources. Have fixed bits, eg "some believe" is now "A popular belief", but others remain, eg "attire", "sprawls", "Beneath his chair is", "celebratory pomp". Ceoil (talk) 23:41, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That appears to be none other than the consequence of my own writing style; admittedly it is a bit more formal than much of the writing found on Wikipedia, I don't know if I would go so far as to call it dated. Ergo Sum 05:18, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would certainly call it dated. Ceoil (talk) 05:21, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps "pomp" sounds a tad grandiose, but I fail to see what at all is dated about the words "attire," "sprawl," or "beneath." They're used in common parlance. Ergo Sum 05:23, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would certainly call it dated, and would urge you to drastically rephrase each of these at the very least; unless my intent is not clear, I am worrying about close paraphrasing to aged sources. Dunno, instead of "attire", say "dress", etc. Ceoil (talk) 05:21, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I opened my comments here saying I was probably going to support, and have always admired Ergo's very tight and sparse phrasing; from the three FAC articles of theirs I have read, there is no padding what-so-ever from this person (even on request), which to me indicates integrity to the sources. My suggestions above are suggestions only, have made trivial copyedits, am a Support either way. Ceoil (talk) 10:04, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, Ceoil, your comments are always appreciated. Ergo Sum 15:20, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review edit

  • Verification: A sample of spotchecks reveals no issues relating to verification or close paraphrasing
  • External links: Links to sources are all checked and working
  • Quality and reliability: In my view the sources meet the appropriate standards of quality and reliability.

On the question of google book links I share Ceoil's scepticism about their usefulness, but I don't object to them when they are included

Image review

  • Per the discussion at the previous FAC, unless earlier publication can be found or some other reason for copyright expiration identified, those unveiling images should not be considered PD. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:45, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Nikkimaria: Just to be clear, are you saying that these two images, if their PD status cannot be determined, must be deleted (both from the article and the Commons)? Ergo Sum 17:37, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unless there is a rationale for fair use, yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:02, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've contacted to owner to see if they would be willing to release the images through the OTRS system. Ergo Sum 05:19, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: No, I haven't gotten any response. I'll go ahead and nominate the images for deletion from the Commons. Ergo Sum 00:06, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley edit

  • I think the history section (apart from the second short paragraph, which could be deleted or merged into the student traditions section) should go before the description. I would also expand it. An article about a statue of Carroll as founder should have something about him and the foundation, particularly when it was founded. The comments on the speeches in the dedication section assume some knowledge of the background.
  • Is it known what the statue was based on? His face in the statue does not seem to me much like the portrait, which was presumably made from life.
  • "Bro. James Harrington". Is this short for Brother meaning that he was a monk? I would expand, particularly as dictionaries show Bro as slang for a male friend.
  • Conway is referred to in one place as Rev. and another as Fr. You should be consistent.
  • I would personally cut the number of people named as present and speaking at the unveiling. Anyone who is interested in details like that can go to the source.
  • I would specify that The Hoya is the university's student newspaper. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:57, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Dudley Miles: Thanks for your comments. Good point re: a word on Carroll himself. I'll also try to rework the language to fill in the reader. 2) I've never seen anything saying that the statue's facial features were modeled off of anything in particular. 3) Bro. is the standard abbreviation for Brother as a title, but I can expand it. 4) I would politely disagree; checking the source is always an option for readers, but defeats the purpose of Wikipedia. 5) I'll make it consistent. 6) Same as no. 4. 7) Good call. Ergo Sum 20:11, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The revisions look OK, apart from the ones to the history section. You have added a few words on Carroll, but not taken account of my other suggestions or explained your reasons for rejecting them. I think that the main text should start with a background section briefly covering the foundation of the institution and a sentence or two more on why Carroll was considered worthy of a statue. Comments such as "Rev. Terence J. Shealy made a speech about Carroll's influence on the Constitution's prohibition of religious tests for public office under Article VI." show that it was not only for his formal roles as bishop and founder. Also the sentence about the films is out of place between the early history and dedication. It should go in a popular culture section with the students. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:50, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I intend to address those remaining concerns. I've been very busy lately, and will be for some time, but I hope to get to this soon. Ergo Sum 22:05, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Dudley Miles: I've done some substantial reorganization of the article. I think I've addressed all your concerns except for the one about a lengthier description of John Carroll. I'm not sure exactly what you're suggesting. Currently, the History section opens with a description of Carroll as the founder of the university, as the archbishop of Baltimore, and as the first Catholic bishop in the United States. These were the three attributes that prompted the building of a statue. What else do you think should be said that wouldn't be best said in the John Carroll article itself? Ergo Sum 18:31, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note edit

Despite being on the urgents list, this is still struggling for commentary after almost six weeks. I can leave it a bit longer to see what Dudley thinks now, and perhaps you could use that time to scare up another review or too... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:39, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, will see what I can do. Ergo Sum 16:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but things don't really seem to have progressed in almost ten days. The nom has been open seven weeks without gaining consensus to promote so I'm going to archive it; you can re-nominate after the usual two weeks. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:08, 13 May 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) 4 May 2019 [22].

Hi-5 (Australian band) edit

Nominator(s): SatDis (talk) 04:06, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the Australian children's musical group Hi-5. The page reached Good Article status in 2016, and has since failed one Featured Article review. I have been working on improvements over the past three years.

With the review, I am willing to put in any amount of work to make the promotion possible. I will answer any questions and am happy to make the adjustments that you see fit. I am looking for constructive criticism so that the article can improve. I have kick started the process by fixing all of the dead links on the page. Please alert me if any more links fail to work.

Thank you for taking the time to check out this review. SatDis (talk) 04:06, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In its prime, the group was one of the most popular musical acts in Australia, with several top 10 albums and a series of ARIA Awards. The group is celebrating its 20th anniversary this year, and would be the perfect time to jump on board for this review. Thanks in advance. SatDis (talk) 05:33, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Shaidar cuebiyar: I know you reviewed the page when it became a Good Article in 2016; if you are interested in helping out with the Feature Article review, it would be greatly appreciated! All good if not. Thanks. SatDis (talk) 09:26, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Casliber: @Dweller: Thank you both for looking at this article's previous Feature Article review in 2017; if there is any chance you'd like to take another look at the article now, I would be very thankful. No problems if you aren't interested. Thanks. SatDis (talk) 06:21, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Aircorn: Thanks for promoting the "sister article" of this, Hi-5 (Australian TV series) back in 2017. If you did have any spare time, it would be greatly appreciated if you could take a look at this article on the band as a whole. I would be thankful for any support! Regards. SatDis (talk) 12:46, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Aoba47 edit

Resolved comments
  • I would revise this sentence (Hi-5 are an Australian children's musical group formed in 1998, who are associated with the children's television series of the same name.) to (Hi-5 are an Australian children's musical group formed in 1998 in association with the children's television series of the same name.) because I think the current placement of the "who..." phrase is a little awkward.
  • I would revise this part (The group is aimed at preschoolers, composed of five performers who entertain), as it literally reads that "preschoolers" are the ones that are "composed of five performers who entertain".
  • I would revise this sentence (Hi-5 was created by Helena Harris and Posie Graeme-Evans, initially a television series for the Nine Network, which premiered in 1999.) to avoid passive voice. Maybe something like (Helena Harris and Posie Graeme-Evans created Hi-5 as a Nine Network television series, which premiered in 1999.).
  • I am not entirely sure what this sentence (The cast of the show became a recognised musical group for children.) means. Could you explain it? It would seem rather obvious that any actors/performers on a children's show would be marketed toward children. Also, who is doing the recognizing here?
  • I would revise this part (following de Leon Jones, who left on maternity leave in 2006.) to (when de Leon Jones went on maternity leave in 2006) to make it a little more concise and to avoid the repetition of "left" and "leave".
  • For this part (The television series features puppet characters Chatterbox and Jup Jup, who are popular associates of the group and are included in the live stage shows), I am not sure if "are popular associates of the group and" is needed as it is already made clear in the beginning of the sentence that the puppets are associated with the group through the show. Maybe cut it down to "who are included in the group's live stage shows" instead.
  • For this sentence (The members of Hi-5 are employees of the brand and do not hold equity), would it be helpful to include a wikilink for "equity" to the equity (finance) article.
  • For this part (after the brand was sold by the Nine Network in 2012.), I would clarify who the brand was sold to if it is known.
  • I have three comments for this sentence (In 2002, it was revealed that Crawford and Foley were in a personal relationship.). I would clarify in the prose how this was "revealed". I would also avoid using the word "revealed" as I have been told that it is too editorial/sensational. You could simply say that they said they were in this. I would also change "personal relationship" to "romantic relationship" as the current wording seems a little vague.
  • Make sure to wikilink pop music on its first use in the article (i.e. , incorporating educational trends with a pop music appeal, using music and movement to capture the attention of children).
  • I would simplify this part (Group members expressed just how demanding their role in the group had been) to (Groups members said their work was demanding) or something similar.
  • For this part (In October 2015 Robinson stated she had tried to leave the group "after eight years" but was convinced by producers to stay.), there should be a comma after "2015". I see a few instances of this in the article so I would advise you to check through everything. Here are some more examples. ("In July 2006 de Leon Jones stated that she was intent on returning to Hi-5," and " In October 2015 Robinson stated she had tried to leave the group "after eight years" but was convinced by producers to stay").
  • This part (The pair departed in January 2013.) needs a citation.

Great work with the article. I have only provided comments for the beginning portions, and I will complete the review later in the week if that is okay. I just wanted to put these comments up as a start and a placeholder for my future review. Apologies for the large amount of comments. Do not be discouraged, as the article looks in really good shape from what I am reading so far. Aoba47 (talk) 00:59, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi @Aoba47:, I'd like to thank you for taking on the review! Your feedback has been very helpful and I agree with all of the comments you've made. I'm not at all discouraged and looking forward to continuing the clean-up.
  • I have managed to address all of your concerns.
  • I am just looking for a citation for "The pair departed in January 2013" which there may not be any sources for. If there is no available source, I may just remove this line.
  • Thank you for clarifying this. Aoba47 (talk) 04:01, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In response to "The cast of the show became a recognised musical group for children", this was just a sentence to show that the group's popularity transcended the TV show. They were recognised by charting albums and awards, rather than it just being a standalone TV show. Is there a better way to phrase this?
  • I understand what you mean, but I did not get that from the current sentence. In the current sentence, I thought it mean that the cast was recognized as a musical group for children because of the show. I would try something like (The cast become popular for their work outside the show) or (The cast received recognition for their work outside the show). I also do not believe it is necessary to describe them as a musical group for children again, as I believe that point was already made clear in the previous parts of the lead. I could be wrong though so it is up to you. If you would like to keep the current wording, then we can see what other editors think. Aoba47 (talk) 04:01, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for addressing everything. I will complete the review by the end of the week. Aoba47 (talk) 04:01, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part (The original Hi-5 line-up were together for eight series of the TV show.), say “television show” rather than “TV show”. I would make sure this is done throughout the article.
  • For this part (In December News.com.au's Confidential reporter), there should be a comma after “December”.
  • I would revise this sentence (Later in December, Park also announced she would be leaving the group, expressing she expected to only be a temporary replacement. ) to (Later in December, Park also announced she would be leaving the group since she had expected only to be a temporary replacement.). Something about “expressing” seems a little awkward to me.
  • I am confused by this part (and in 2011 recognised the group's rich musical history by reintroducing classic songs to a new generation of fans). Who is doing the recognizing here?
  • For this part (In June 2012 the Nine Network announced that), add a comma after “2012”.
  • For this part (primarily based on Howard Gardner's Theory of multiple intelligences.), “theory” does not need to be capitalized.
  • ARIA Albums Chart is linked twice in the body of the article. Aoba47 (talk) 17:42, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • For Reference 97, “special announcement” should not be in all caps.
  • For the Logie Awards table, I do not see why (Tied) is in italics. Also, do you think it would be appropriate to add a end-note/footnote on how Hi-5 tied with for this award? Aoba47 (talk) 20:38, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nicholson's image caption should not have a period as it is not a full sentence.
  • For this part (Hi-5 has a distinguishable pop music sound,), I do not believe "distinguishable" is necessary as it verges on some POV issues in my opinion.
  • For this part (however he said that the respective groups have different "styles of music".), there should be a comma after "however".
  • I believe it should be "Southeast Asia" rather than "South East Asia". I have never seen the "South" and "east" separated in this way before. Aoba47 (talk) 21:30, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Once the above comments are addressed, I will support the nomination. Aoba47 (talk) 21:31, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks @Aoba47: all of the comments have been addressed.
  • Have changed "and in 2011 recognised the group's rich musical history by reintroducing classic songs to a new generation of fans" to "and in 2011 reintroduced a number of their classic songs to a new generation of fans."
  • Thanks for bringing to light the correct phrasing of Southeast Asia - this hadn't been brought to my attention before. SatDis (talk) 03:13, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many thanks for supporting the nomination. Are there any other suitable editors that you might be able to alert to the review? Thanks again. SatDis (talk) 03:13, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for addressing everything. I support this for promotion. You could try pinging the reviewers from the first FAC, but I am not sure. This FAC is still relatively new-ish, so hopefully, this will attract more attention in the future. Aoba47 (talk) 05:06, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Tentative support from Cas Liber edit

Resolved comments

Thanks for pinging. Will take a look soon (and jot queries below):

Overall looks better than previously, but is still sprinkled with some vague positive statements that hint of advertising. These need to be removed or rephrased. There are also alot of quotations that should be rewritten if possible.

  • The cast received recognition for their work outside of the show. - umm...means what?
  • Harris stated that her inspiration for Hi-5 came partly from living in England, where she realised that children are the same around the world, and expected the show would appeal universally, with accessible themes such as family and animals - this is verbose and could be radically trimmed, to something like, "Harris stated that her inspiration for Hi-5 came partly from living in England, where she realised she could develop a show with universal appeal, with accessible themes such as family and animals"
  • narrowing down "about 300" people to only five - just say "around 300" and remove the quotation marks.
  • Harris described the first time the group sang together as "goosebump stuff, even though they had never met". - err, which means what exactly?
  • Harris stated that the energy of the group was fast-paced, replicating the style of a music video, which children seem to enjoy - "energy" is a puffy word with little meaning, I'd remove it.
  • Greene stated "we’re really excited to be working with Nine to develop a reinvigorated Hi-5 show". - this sentence sounds puffy and adds nothing. I'd remove it.
  • In October 2015, Robinson stated she had tried to leave the group "after eight years" but was convinced by producers to stay. - don't need quote marks here
  • One of the unique features of the group is that the members are presented as older siblings to the children, educating the audience in a fun and entertaining way, through "play based learning", rather than appearing as adults who are teaching them - the source does not described it as a "unique feature" (which it isn't anyway). I'd chop that and leave "The members are presented as older siblings to the children, educating the audience through "play based learning", rather than appearing as adults who are teaching them"
  • The educational aspects of the group's content are disguised with music and entertainment, with the multiple layers of the show catering to a wide range of ages in the audience, while being primarily aimed at those aged 2–8 - they are not disguised..otherwsie kids wouldn't learn. I'd say "blended" or "incorporated"

I'll read more later. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:34, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for taking a look. I'm happy to remove/rephrase as much as needed.
  • For, The cast received recognition for their work outside of the show., I changed "work" to "music". Is there a better way for this sentence to show that their success transcended the TV show?
  • Have changed "energy" line to "Harris modelled the group on the fast-paced nature of contemporary music videos, which children seem to enjoy." - not sure if this is better.
  • Have removed "goose bump stuff" - language too casual.
  • All other concerns addressed. SatDis (talk) 14:16, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, nature is better than energy. More later. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:38, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking for anything recent, this adds little but emphasises there are no actual members of the band right now, which I think needs to be mentioned in the lead.
* Yep, I have referenced this in the article. In the lead, I've got "the group currently employs a roster of temporary performers for touring purposes" - no permanent members at the moment but there are still occassional performances. SatDis (talk) 09:58, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I feel better now with the prose, though I am worried that others might find enough examples to complain about. Consider this a cautious support pending consensus (I find my eyes miss issues after a few reads). Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:17, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. If you do find anything else feel free to let me know. SatDis (talk) 12:12, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dweller edit

Resolved comments
  • " The cast received recognition for their music outside of the show." what does that mean? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:29, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have had a few comments about this one. It was meant to explain how their popularity and music transcended the TV show. But I have just removed the line to avoid confusion. SatDis (talk) 14:52, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review edit

Resolved comments

At this stage the review is only partial. I have not yet taken an overview of the quality and reliability of the sources, nor have I carried out any verification spotchecks. I need to scan the reflist further for possible formatting issues. Here are a few points that have come to my attention thus far:

  • The "Notes" are lacking any citations
  • Fixed.
  • Ref 2: You have wikilinked The Daily Telegraph to the London paper, whereas the source is the Sydney paper.
  • Fixed.
  • The publisher of the Telegraph, given as News Limited, is now known as News Corp Australia (wikilinked in ref 34). This affects a number of references. You have it right in ref 101.
  • Fixed.
  • There needs to be consistency in adding publisher to the Telegraph references. The detail is missing in refs 54, 59, 81, 88, 89, 91
  • Fixed.
  • Retrieval dates missing from refs 21, 22, 23
  • Fixed.
  • Ref. 113: What makes Nick Jr. Parents a high-quality reliable source?
  • It is mainly a blog style site used as the source of an interview. Those quotes can easily be removed if the site is not deemed appropriate.

I intend to complete the review shortly. Brianboulton (talk) 20:44, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing...

  • Verification: A sample of spotchecks for verification etc revealed one instance of close paraphrasing in Ref 32:
  • Article: "By the end of 2005, Hi-5 had performed to a total audience of over one and a half million people around the world".
  • Source: "By the end of the year, Hi- 5 will have performed to an audience of over one and a half million people around the world."
  • Fixed, paraphrased.
  • Quality and reliability: In general the sources seem to be at an appropriate level of quality and reliability. However, there are a few more sources that I'm not too sure about. Can you say how they qualify as high-quality reliable sources?
  • Refs 18, 26, 82, 151: girl.co.au
  • The website is a news site, as for ref 18, it's an important milestone in the group's history and the article reports it accurately, with no other sources available. The other refs are used for interview quotes, and to provide sources for important dates otherwise not available.
  • Ref 29: Throng.co.nz.
  • Reliable TV news site - information in ref otherwise not available. The source references the Sydney Confidential newspaper.
  • Ref 76: Bugg Toys and Licensing.
  • No other source with the important dates or quotes. There are not many available references for this children's group so it's sometimes a case of using everything that can be found.
  • Ref 142: Mamamia.com
  • This is an independent blog for the reception section - quotes from reviewers are needed for this section.
  • Other points
  • Ref 27 needs a page number as it is lacking a link
  • Unfortunately there is no page number available.
  • Ditto ref 108
  • There is a link for this source.
  • Ref 78: Link not working for me
  • Fixed.
  • Ref 83: Clarify that this is a press release
  • Fixed.
  • Ref 95: Missing publisher details
  • Fixed.

Brianboulton (talk) 22:54, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support edit

Resolved comments

Hi, thanks for your input in Lorde FAC. I'd like to return the favor, and I'm really bad at giving reviews. Right now I have no major concern over the prose, but I need more time to read through the article several times, and may give my support then. Best of luck, HĐ (talk) 02:43, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No worries at all; it was challenging to find comments for the Lorde FAC as well. Thank you for visiting the page, any support at all is very much appreciated! SatDis (talk) 04:01, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support I have re-read the article several times and feel that the prose is of FA quality. The article is very informative and meticulously sourced. — HĐ (talk) 02:05, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks @HĐ:, all the best for your article. SatDis (talk) 12:37, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by Nick-D edit

Ongoing comments

This is an interesting article, but I have some serious concerns about sourcing and neutrality as well as significant concerns about the precision of the article's wording. I've read up to the Second generation" section and dipped into several other sections, but the sourcing problems are such I'm not going to continue: there are multiple cases of where sources clearly do not support the text. I don't mean for the following comments to come across as hostile (I'm a frequent FA nominator, so have a lot of skin in the game in keeping this forum positive), but rather to explain why I think that this article currently doesn't meet the FA criteria, including in comparison to recent FAs related to pop music.

  • " This line-up had been completely phased out by the end of 2008, following de Leon Jones, who went on maternity leave in 2006" - this doesn't read well. I'd suggest referring to the lineup as "the original line-up", "phased out" is a bit odd, and the last bit seems bolted on.
  • Changed.
  • "and the group currently employs a roster of temporary performers " - the next para says that "the brand" is actually the employer, which is also confusing given that brands are concepts - I suspect that a company is the actual employer.
  • "The brand has produced numerous television series" - is "the brand" a different thing from "the group"? This para is focused on "the group".
  • Have tried to reword to address the two above points.
  • "Hi-5 were one of Australia's highest paid entertainment entities" - not sure about the past tense without any qualifiers here.
  • Could you clarify qualifier? Past tense is because they are no longer this successful; the sentence goes on to explain an earning amount/time period.
  • "Foley stated that Hi-5 set a benchmark for a new style of non-traditional children's entertainment. " - this comment by one of the band's members doesn't seem suitable for anywhere in the article, and especially not the lead. It's obviously not an independent assessment of an act which has attracted mixed reviews.
  • Removed line.
  • "Hi-5 broke into the Southeast Asian market after the brand was sold by the Nine Network to Malaysian-based group Asiasons in 2012." - confusing given that the previous para notes international audiences and versions. The corporate structure behind the band could be explained in the lead though, which would help to clarify the issues I note above.
  • Have removed the international audience line to help the para read better. Have reworded to try and clarify corporate structure. However, I could remove the "broke into" and just specify the brand's sale?
  • "She and co-producer Posie Graeme-Evans (The Miraculous Mellops, Mirror, Mirror)" - what are The Miraculous Mellops and Mirror, Mirror? Other children's bands?
  • Television series, but out of context I think, so removed.
  • "incorporating educational trends " - it's not clear what an educational "trend" is in this context.
  • Have reworked this paragraph
  • The "background" section goes beyond background, and would benefit from a different title ("Formation" or similar perhaps?)
  • Changed.
  • The last para of the background section seems to partially duplicate the first two paras, and placing this after the discussion of the band's early activities in the third para is a bit confusing
  • Have merged with the first paragraph.
  • "Harris explained that Hi-5 " - explained to who isn't clear. This might work better as something like "Harris has stated that Hi-5..."
  • Fixed.
  • "She expected that the series would initially become formatted into international versions," - not sure about this wording (especially "formatted", which is usually something you do to a hard drive or memory card)
  • I don't feel like this adds anything to the text, so deleted.
  • "Hi-5 had initial success throughout the early years" - but the previous section says that their first album only reached 33 on the charts and the group spent their first year touring Sydney? What happened to push them to fame in 2000?
  • True, removed and just stated the facts.
  • "with the award-winning Hi-5 Alive show" - are these the awards noted in the previous para? If so, "award-winning" doesn't seem necessary here
  • Yes, it is mentioned in the previous para. If one award does not qualify it, I will remove "award-winning".
  • "New Zealand and Singapore were also frequent touring destinations" - the source (which is a press release about a tour to NZ, not a high quality source) doesn't mention Singapore at all.
  • " a global audience exceeding one million people worldwide" - the source (which also looks to be a press release) puts the figure at "over one and a half million". Not sure this is a good source though.
  • Removed both of the above; I know there are no better source.
  • "Group members said their work was demanding..." - the source seems to be an interview with only a single member of the group, so may not support this statement.
  • "Members also saw importance of portraying a positive image of themselves to the public in their personal lives, being "always on"" - passive voice, and as a result fairly wordy. It is also from an interview with a single person, so I question whether it's the view of "members".
  • "However, the cast insisted that the stressful work was justified by seeing a smile on a child's face, and described the bond between the members as like family" - the sources quote one member as saying the job was justied by seeing children smile and another saying that the members were close, not "the cast" saying this. "insisted" is a bit odd - who was doubting this? More broadly, this is PR language - surely the band members did it because the pay was worthwhile and/or they enjoyed the work and/or thought it would be good for their careers.
  • I agree with you on the three above points. I think for the validity of the article that it can all be removed. Merged paragraphs.
  • What makes "Bugg Toys and Licensing" part of the "press"? The article looks to be a press release, with no author being credited.
  • Replaced.
  • "By 2015, Hi-5's ongoing success led to the group being described as an "institution"" - by whom? The source looks to be a single radio show as part of an interview with band members. I'd expect to see a strong source to express such a view.
  • Removed.
  • The "Reception" section's coverage of critics' views of the bands is rather brief, and not of the standard of other FAs on musical acts - rather than discussing the act's critical reception by theme (for instance, views of their songs, views of their live shows, etc), it jumps around.
  • Have tried to organise (Positives / Awards / Tour Reviews / Negative comments). Unfortunately, these are the very minimal amount of sources that are available and it is unlikely to find anything more.
  • "Hi-5, and the related television series, were designed by educational experts to appeal to contemporary, "media-literate" children by relating to their world" - none of this is supported by the source.
  • Removed.
  • "The brand dropped from a net worth of A$18million in 2009 to A$9.7million in 2010" - why this occured isn't explained (the article presents a very positive account of the act's history, when this suggests something went badly wrong)
  • I have presented the facts of this net worth drop. In reality, the second line-up were not as successful as the first. But this is just speculation, and original research, so readers will have to infer.
  • The article has way too many instances of members of this act and its management praising themselves or making empty statements, and these often appear where an independent assessment should be available. As a few examples:
    • "Harris stated that by 2007, "Hi-5 [was] still evolving and maintaining its relevance and freshness"" - Harris is often quoted as a commentator on the band. Given that she was a producer/founder, she's obviously not a good source for statements like this. What do critics think?
    • "Burgess said, "It's a new generation for a new generation. To be honest, it doesn't really matter who's up there in pigtails singing and dancing, kids just love Hi-5." - ditto. Were the new performers actually as popular?
  • Removed. No, they were not.
    • " Of his time with the group, he said, "I've had an incredible journey with Hi-5, one I will always cherish"" - PR stuff
    • ""Of the film, Nicholson said, "I'm proud of how diligent we were about finding wholesome new talent, people with a great energy and who are genuinely lovely people" - what's the value of this? If a film was released, surely it attracted professional reviewers, etc.
    • "Foley has praised the group's musical style on several occasions" - given that he was one of the musicians, this hardly seems surprising. Nick-D (talk) 11:01, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed these statements. Unfortunately children's media does not get enough attention. I would love to use more reliable sources, but there just isn't anything out there. Even for the film, the most professional reviews are parent blogs.

Note - Thank you for the review @Nick-D:, it is appreciated. I will take your comments onboard and send a reply ASAP. SatDis (talk) 13:15, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Nick-D:. I have adressed all of your comments (replied above), and I value the feedback. I would love to keep working with you to improve this article, if you are willing to. Thanks.SatDis (talk) 09:54, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • While it's good that my comments have been addressed, I remain very concerned about the referencing problems. Given that multiple spot checks were clearly failed, I'm afraid that I do not have confidence that this article meets the FA criteria at present. I note that your edits did not go beyond the specific scope of my comments, despite some of them (especially the over-use of quotes from people associated with the act) still frequently occurring. As some random extra comments:
    • "Harris observed that most children had a favourite cast member, believing that they generally "respond more favourably to the presenter who models the learning style they prefer"" - the source does not include this text at all, and the relevant pages do not include any quotes from Harris, and instead paraphrase her views.
    • "Hi-5 also has a large teenage and adult following, with the pop appeal of the music being one of the reasons leading to a group of dedicated older fans" - this surprising claim is from an unattributed and fairly spammy news story, with the claim being made by one of the band members. Much stronger sourcing seems necessary to support this claim.
    • The "Educational theory" section presents a very positive view of the show's educational values, but seems to be based only on the self-assessment of people involved. What do educational experts think? The article references a PhD which appeared to look into this topic, for instance.
    • "Hi-5 have enjoyed success throughout their history with international tours, charting music albums and awards. " - but the article seems to describe the act peaking during the 2000s, and now being worth less than their peak. The "Awards and nominations" section shows that it hasn't released an album in about 5 years and has won few awards in the last decade. It still seems to be a successful act, but this text suggests non-stop success. Nick-D (talk) 09:07, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Nick-D:. If I were to open a peer review, would you be willing to make some occasional comments? I will not be offended if you decline. As the sole editor, it is difficult to move the article foreward without a second opinion, and I have appreciated your input. I will continue to take your comments on board. SatDis (talk) 11:49, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I'd be happy to comment there. Please ping me when this is up and running. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 11:55, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator notes edit

Support for promotion is quite weak right now and there has been little progress here in the last few weeks despite being on the Urgents list. It will have to be archived shortly unless there is significant movement. --Laser brain (talk) 13:22, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just noting that there has been further support for the article since commenting and currently undergoing another editor's review. SatDis (talk) 13:16, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This nom has been open well over two months now and given there are still issues I'm going to archive it so improvements can take place outside the FAC process. The nominator has done the right thing twice putting the article up for PR but both times, disappointingly, getting no feedback. I don't know if Nick has time to work with you preparing it for another attempt here but if not you could seek the involvement of another mentor. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:25, 4 May 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/May_2019&oldid=898977077"