Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/October 2023

< 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 FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 29 October 2023 [1].

Jupiter

edit
Nominator(s): Serendipodous 17:25, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the largest planet in the Solar System. It was previously an FA, but got delisted. Serendipodous 17:25, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild

edit

Oh, nice! Good for you. I nearly got sucked into doing some work on this a couple of years ago, but managed to duck it. I am glad now that I did, as you seem to have done a sterling job. I shall try to review, but cannot promise to.

GWL

edit

Serendipodous, reading the article I don't feel as though this is the kinda article I'd call FA, so I'm going to oppose this. However, seeing the miserably silent PR that lead to this FAC, I'll give some comments nonetheless. Keep in mind they're not exhaustive. GeraldWL 09:53, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Pro tip: since peer reviews are not going to inherently get any reviews, the cheat here is to review GANs, FACs, FLCs, or even others' PRs, then ask for a review in exchange. They're not mandated to review, so for me I just kinda go everywhere.
  • There is one citation needed tag. With this in mind--and I don't know if you've done this yet-- it's probably best to re-check all sources to make sure they're all sourced and authentic to the source. You may ask other people to assist if it's too much. On the other hand, watch out for potential cite overkill, like "and Galileo spacecraft.[220 221 222 223]"
  • The writing too is kind of all over the place-- this is my main reason to opposing. There are some sections where I wonder, "Isn't there more to this than it is saying here?" I'll not act like I know everything, but I'd take an example from the "In culture" part. You put a hatnote linking to Jupiter in fiction, which talks about Jup as depicted in fictional literature; I expect that topic to be briefly concerned here too.
  • Gallery sections aren't something you see in a conventional FAC, because any important images would be put in the body. If they can't be, not everything has to be here: readers may go to Commons if they wish to see more images.
  • All images need to have alt texts; keep in mind that despite the captions' very descriptive nature, some of them need more than just "see caption".
  • The infobox has a lot of references. In general, it's best to copy these info in the body as well, to reduce the need for infobox refs.
  • The history section should probably come after the formation since they're related.
  • Make sure all those that need italics or some kind of markup have it. For example, "of the Voyager 1 probe in 1979."-- italicize VOyager 1.
  • Make sure all tables comply MOS:DTT accessibility guidelines.
  • The external links might be too much. The first link, for instance, offers nothing but brief info with an image; if there's any of it that can be put in the article, that's the better route. The Flickr link in particular is dead.
  • The lead must cover the bottom line of almost everything. In particular, I find it odd that the history of humans and Jupiter only cover one short paragraph, alongside a small fragment in para 3.

Jens

edit

Will take me some time to get through, but here a start:

  • As a consequence, the planet must have formed before the solar nebula was fully dispersed – I do not understand why this means that Jupiter was necessarily the first planet; doesn't this apply to other planets too? Maybe it needs to be clearer.
  • According to the "grand tack hypothesis", Jupiter began to form at a distance of roughly 3.5 AU (520 million km; 330 million mi) from the Sun. – As non-expert reader, I did not know how many AU Jupiter is from the sun today, so it was difficult to make sense of this sentence. Maybe mention that the 3.5 AU are closer to the sun than its current location?
  • The resulting formation timescales of terrestrial planets appear to be inconsistent with the measured elemental composition. It is likely that Jupiter would have settled into an orbit much closer to the Sun if it had migrated through the solar nebula. – I feel there are some connection words missing between those sentences that would be helpful to follow the argument.
  • location. during an epoch approximately 2–3 million years after the planet began to form – there is a dot too much?
  • hydrogen – I assume this refers to H2, not to H?
  • Jupiter's helium abundance is about 80% that of the Sun due to precipitation of these elements – Which elements? You only mentioned one element (helium). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:14, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UC

edit

A few points: I read only very quickly over the technical sections, so mostly focused on the historical and cultural material. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:50, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • In Latin, Iovis is the genitive case of Iuppiter, i.e. Jupiter: this is true, but slightly beside the point. Iovis is simply the Old Latin name for the god: Iuppiter is a compound from (I think) Iovis pater ("Father Iovis"), which replaces the nominative form only of Iovis in Classical.
  • Jovian is the adjectival form of Jupiter: italicise both per MOS:WORDSASWORDS.
  • By mass, Jupiter's atmosphere is approximately 76% hydrogen and 24% helium, though, because helium atoms are more massive than hydrogen molecules, Jupiter's upper atmosphere is about 90% hydrogen and 10% helium by volume.: why have we gone from talking about its atmosphere to specifically its upper atmosphere here?
  • which is about a tenth as abundant as in the Sun. Jupiter's helium abundance is about 80% that: consider about 10% for consistency.
  • Theoretical models indicate that if Jupiter had over 40% more mass, the interior would be so compressed that its volume would decrease despite the increasing amount of matter: I believe the MoS is very discouraging about italics or similar to be emphatic in article text.
  • Can we expand the one-sentence introductory paragraph to Atmosphere at all? There's a lot of what might seem like good material in the opening paragraph of the dedicated article.
  • the Chinese language still uses its name (simplified as 歲) : how is that pronounced?
  • We should give a rough date for Gan De, as his date becomes important in relation to Galileo's.
  • On which: Galileo is introduced on second mention, and with a false title (better as the Italian polymath...)
  • Continuing the theme: why does Galileo get a nationality and a profession, but most (though not all) other characters in this section get neither?

SilverTiger12

edit

Saving a place for later. --Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 13:54, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit

Files reviewed. Cambalachero (talk) 13:50, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the lack of response

edit

Thanks guys. The lack of Peer review misled me into thinking everything was fine and that the FA would be easy. Clearly that is not the case. I am currently occupied on another (un-Wikipedia-related) matter, but will return to this once that is done. Serendipodous 20:21, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Real life can be inconvenient like that; it's fine. Ping me when you are back though, please. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 15:52, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note

edit
  • Having been open for a while now, with an oppose and a lack of support, it's not looking very good. Unless there's a significant shift towards a consensus favoring promotion within the next few days, there's a risk that the nomination may be archived. FrB.TG (talk) 21:24, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment. Given the nominator's inactivity due to personal life matter, the unresolved oppose from more than two weeks ago and many outstanding comments, I'm going to archive this. I suggest that the nominator, once fully back, work with the reviewers, possibly through a formal/informal peer review and then hopefully bring it back. The usual two-week wait before making another nomination will apply. FrB.TG (talk) 07:20, 29 October 2023 (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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 28 October 2023 [2].

Albert Luthuli

edit
Nominator(s): Iamawesomeautomatic (talk) 02:26, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Let's imagine my last FA nomination didn't happen. This article is about Albert Luthuli, a South African anti-apartheid activist and former President of the African National Congress. He led the ANC during a challenging period when the South African government had banned the organization. Additionally, the ANC's newly established paramilitary wing, uMkhonto we Sizwe, had initiated their sabotage operations, a move he personally opposed. I spent the last three years expanding this article and have enjoyed everything I learned. I got it to a GA a couple months ago but refrained from a FA nomination. Fast forward to today and I thought I should stop procrastinating and just nominate it. Iamawesomeautomatic (talk) 02:26, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note

edit

Hi Iamawesomeautomatic, and welcome back to FAC. Just noting that as you have not yet had a nomination promoted at FAC, this article will need to pass a source to text integrity spot check and a review for over-close paraphrasing to be considered for promotion. Good luck with the nomination. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:02, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Groutville_Church.jpg: where was this first published? Ditto File:LuthuliCropped.png, File:Z.K._Matthews_Cropped.png, File:Martin_Luther_King,_Jr..jpg
Martin_Luther_King,_Jr.jpg - Norway most likely, because it's his Nobel Peace Prize portrait which was awarded in Oslo. As for the other three photos it is not specified, but it's probably South Africa. Iamawesomeautomatic (talk) 21:30, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Images hosted on Commons need tagging for country of origin as well as the US. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:07, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I changed the MLK photo too. Iamawesomeautomatic (talk) 04:16, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which of the South African rationales is believed to apply to File:LuthuliCropped.png and File:Z.K._Matthews_Cropped.png?
Could you explain which rationales I can use? I'm new to this. Iamawesomeautomatic (talk) 01:54, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The tag you're currently using for South African status outlines multiple possible situations in which the tag can be applied: "It is an anonymous work or pseudonymous work and 50 years have passed since the date of its publication; It is a broadcast or sound recording and 50 years have passed since the year the programme was published; It is a cinematographic or photographic work and 50 years have passed since the date of its creation; It is an artistic, literary or musical work created under the direction of the state or an international organization and 50 years have passed since the year the work was published; It is another kind of work, and 50 years have passed since the year of death of the author (or last-surviving author).". My question is: which one of those are you asserting to be the case? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:16, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"*File:JohnDube1891.png: when and where was this first published, and who created it?

The book the photo came from was published in 1891 in Rochester, NY. There's no indication who created the photo. Iamawesomeautomatic (talk) 21:30, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How do we know the author died over 70 years ago? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:07, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I guess we don't know, but I thought any work before 1928 was public domain? Iamawesomeautomatic (talk) 04:16, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Typically a pre-1928 will be public domain in the US, but as above to be hosted on Commons it also needs to be free in country of origin. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:56, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I decided to remove the photo. Iamawesomeautomatic (talk) 23:53, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Mahatma-Gandhi,_studio,_1931.jpg is missing the research description required by the UK tag, and the US tag indicates it is non-free
Should I remove the photo if it's not public domain in the US? Iamawesomeautomatic (talk) 21:30, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, unless you think a fair-use claim could be made. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:07, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Added a new photo. Iamawesomeautomatic (talk) 23:53, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Palace_of_Justice_(S_Wierda)_1902_Church_Square_Pretoria_061.jpg is mistagged
In what way is it mistagged and how can I correct it? Iamawesomeautomatic (talk) 21:30, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Under US law reproduction of a 2D work does not garner a new copyright - this needs tagging reflecting the status of the pictured work instead. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:07, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the pictured work, it's unknown what year it was created. Am I not able to use it? Iamawesomeautomatic (talk) 04:16, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a range, or we have no idea? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:56, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We have no idea. I added a new photo that I think is more clear. Iamawesomeautomatic (talk) 23:53, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:1933_Nobel_Peace_Prize_awarded_to_Norman_Angell.png: what is the author's date of death?
1943. Iamawesomeautomatic (talk) 21:30, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure how to do this. Iamawesomeautomatic (talk) 21:30, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When was the pass book published? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:07, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1984. Iamawesomeautomatic (talk) 04:16, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Would it fall under PD-South-Africa-exempt? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:52, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think so, because it's a legal document. Iamawesomeautomatic (talk) 01:54, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, suggest clarifying that. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:16, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

edit

I was the GA reviewer for this. I've copyedited as I read through the article; please revert anything you disagree with.

  • "He returned to his family's ancestral home of Groutville in 1908": suggest "In 1908 he moved to Groutville, where his parents and grandparents had lived, to attend school under the care of his uncle". I don't think "ancestral" is the right word -- it implies a multi-generational association, but here there are only two generations. And "returned" isn't right, since unless I'm misreading the body of the article, Luthuli had never lived in Groutville before 1908.
    Done. Iamawesomeautomatic (talk) 21:30, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like you didn't do this, but since you're OK with it I went ahead and made the edit myself. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:43, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Luthuli's teaching was recognised by the government, and he was offered a bursary to study for the Higher Teacher's Diploma at Adams College." Does the first half of this say anything that we don't get from the second half? If the intended meaning is that the bursaries were only offered to those who were evaluated and found to be good teachers, I would say that in the body. Either way I don't think we need it in the lead. I would also suggest making it "accepted" rather than "was offered".
    Understood, but are you asking me to remove this section from the lead entirely? Iamawesomeautomatic (talk) 21:30, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I just meant to cut the first half -- again I've done this; let me know if that looks OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:43, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "against a punishment which made boys carry large stones long distances, which damaged their uniforms that many couldn't afford". I think this needs rephrasing -- I think what's intended is that many boys could not afford to mend or replace uniforms. As written the sentence says that the boy's who could not afford uniforms (and therefore were not wearing uniforms) damaged their uniforms. Or is "could not afford" being used here in the sense of "stretched their budget"?
    Done. I clarified it. Iamawesomeautomatic (talk) 21:30, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "By 1951, Luthuli continued to support the interests of black cane growers, and was the only black representative on the central board until 1953.". What's the relevance of the comment about 1951? He stayed on the board till at least 1953, and there's no reason to suppose he ceased to support black cane growers' interests at any point, is there?
    Fixed. Iamawesomeautomatic (talk) 21:30, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The NRC reconvened but again adjourned indefinitely. Its members refused to co-operate with the government, which caused it to become ineffective. The NRC never met after that point ": what year is this? If this refers to the year it was reconvened then I'd make it something like "The NRC reconvened later in 1946 but ...".
    Done. I made the year more clear. Iamawesomeautomatic (talk) 21:30, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr, the latter of whom claimed to be a follower and admirer of Luthuli": why "claimed to be" rather than "was"? Is the source ambiguous in some way?
    No I just didn't know how to re-word it. Done. Iamawesomeautomatic (talk) 21:30, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are the Hertzog Bills worth a redlink, either as a single article or individual articles for each one?
    No. Iamawesomeautomatic (talk) 21:30, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • We say violence flared towards the end of the Defiance Campaign, but then later say "absence of violence" and "lack of violence"; shouldn't these be qualified to be less definite? We say "Despite the extent of the protest and the frustration felt by the protestors, the lack of violence throughout the demonstration was a notable accomplishment": What's the connection between the two halves of this sentence? I think the intention is something like "Even though there were thousands of protesters and some incidents of violence occurred, the low level of violence overall was a notable accomplishment".
    Done. Iamawesomeautomatic (talk) 21:30, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Due to Luthuli's role in the Defiance Campaign": does this refer to anything more than his chairmanship of the Natal ANC?
    No. Should I remove it? Iamawesomeautomatic (talk) 21:30, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe make it "Luthuli's role in the Defiance Campaign as president of the Natal ANC ..."? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:21, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Iamawesomeautomatic (talk) 23:53, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Defiance Campaign" subsection barely mentions Luthuli. I think a reader of this article has to understand what the campaign was, and some of the effects -- hardening of the government's attitude, increased ANC membership, cooperation among non-whites -- but do we need all of the four paragraphs here?
    Which part would you like removed? I actually think the second, third, and fourth paragraphs are important. Maybe the first can be shortened and combined with another paragraph? Iamawesomeautomatic (talk) 21:30, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Reading through again I see why you want to keep it, but I agree the first paragraph could be shortened quite a bit. I'd also cut the mention of the Congress Alliance -- that's covered later on and there's no need to give a preview here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:21, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Iamawesomeautomatic (talk) 23:53, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The ANCYL had previously removed": I think this needs rephrasing. It's written as if the ANCYL had complete control over the ANC presidency; no doubt they were an influential bloc, but this should presumably say something like "The ANCYL had previously instigated the removal of" or "succeeded in removing".
    Done. Iamawesomeautomatic (talk) 21:30, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Proposed by Z. K. Matthews in 1953, The Congress of the People was envisioned as a large democratic convention where all South Africans would be invited to create a Freedom Charter. Despite complaints within the ANC by Africanists who believed the ANC should not work with other races, Luthuli contributed to the creation of the Congress Alliance." A couple of things here. First, do we need to know that Z. K. Matthews proposed the Congress of the People? Second, we don't say that the Congress of the People was a meeting/convention -- we say it was envisioned as convention, not that it actually happened. Then the next sentence doesn't refer to the Congree of the People at all, but I'm guessing that the Congress Alliance was actually created at the meeting -- if so we should say so. Reading on I'm not sure that's right, but without understanding the relationship between the CotP and the CA I'm not sure what the fix is.
    Yeah, I'm having trouble fixing this section, although I did remove the part about ZK Matthews. The Congress Alliance was made for the Congress of the People, but it wasn't created during the actual meeting. So it goes: 1953 - CotP proposed, 1953 or 1954 - Congress Alliance formed, 1955 - CotP takes place.
    I don't have access to the sources, so I can't be sure this is correct, but how about "In 1953, Z. K. Matthews proposed a large democratic convention, to be known as the Congress of the People, where all South Africans would be invited to create a Freedom Charter. Despite complaints within the ANC from Africanists who believed the ANC should not work with other races, a multiracial organization, the Congress Alliance, was created [as part of the preparation for the Congress of the People?]. The alliance was led by the ANC and included the South African Indian Congress, Coloured Peoples Conference, Federation of South African Women, Congress of Trade Unions, and the Congress of Democrats. Luthuli viewed the multiracial organisation as a way to bring freedom to South Africa. After convening a secret meeting due to Luthuli's ban, the Congress of the People took place in Kliptown, Johannesburg, in June 1955." This omits "Luthuli contributed to the creation of the Congress Alliance", which is a bit vague; can we put it back with more definite information? E.g. was he one of the organizers, or a main organizer, or was he consulted by the organizers? I've also put in brackets a bit that I'm still vague on that perhaps you can clarify from the sources -- as far as I can tell the CotP is a meeting of the CA, and the reason why the CA was formed, but the text currently doesn't come out and say that. And it's not clear in the last sentence if the "secret meeting" is the same as the Kliptown meeting, or if a secret meeting was arranged to include Luthuli, and was then followed by the main, non-secret meeting. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:34, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I added your recommendation. The source doesn't expand on Luthuli's role in forming the Congress Alliance. All it mentions was that he was the President of the ANC during the alliance's formation. You're also correct on the relationship between the Congress Alliance and the CotP. It was created in preparation of the event. The secret meeting took place in December 1954, a couple of months before the Congress of the People. Iamawesomeautomatic (talk) 23:53, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "While Luthuli was still under a banning order, the ANC, led by Luthuli, announced an anti-pass campaign beginning at the end of March": The last date mentioned is May 1959 as the start of a five year ban, so it's not clear what year this refers to.
    Added the year. Iamawesomeautomatic (talk) 21:30, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He received a fine of 100 pounds and a sentence of six months in jail, which was suspended for three years under the condition that he was not found guilty of a similar offense during that time. Following his return from prison to Groutville ..." If the sentence was suspended, why was he in prison?
    He was found guilty of burning his passbook in August and then in September they lowered his sentence and gave him a suspended sentence. I updated the article for clarification. Iamawesomeautomatic (talk) 21:30, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "waiting for Leninist conditions to arise": needs to either be explained, or changed to avoid the term Leninist conditions, which most readers won't understand.
    Changed from Leninist to "revolutionary." Iamawesomeautomatic (talk) 21:30, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Struck; I linked the phrase to revolutionary situation. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:21, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • You introduce MK twice as an abbreviation for uMkhonto we Sizwe but as far as I can see you never use the abbreviation in the article.
    Removed abbreviation. Iamawesomeautomatic (talk) 21:30, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "According to the New York Times, his nomination was put forward by Andrew Vance McCracken": is there some doubt about this? If not I don't think we need to mention the source in the article; the citation is sufficient.
    Done. Iamawesomeautomatic (talk) 21:30, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are eight sentences about his Lord Rector appointment by Glasgow University, which seems more than is needed for such a minor part of his resume. I think "After receiving a phone call from a student representative shortly after his election, Luthuli did not carry out any duties as rector" could be cut, and probably the next sentence too -- they don't add anything to what's been said earlier in the paragraph.
    Done.Iamawesomeautomatic (talk) 21:30, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "These notes suggest that the last six months of his life were insular and focused primarily on religious matters": I don't think "insular" is the right word here; it means isolated with connotations of a lack of understanding of the wider world. I think it would be better to be explicit -- perhaps "had little contact with others during the last six months of his life", if the sources will support that.
    Done. Iamawesomeautomatic (talk) 21:30, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The scraps of paper written by Luthuli before his death would confirm this." What does this mean?
    Removed. Iamawesomeautomatic (talk) 21:30, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is Luthuli's field (and the field workers) mentioned in the account of his death? It appears to be irrelevant.
    Removed. Iamawesomeautomatic (talk) 21:30, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:04, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: I've made some edits based on your comments, but there are a few I'd like clarification on. Iamawesomeautomatic (talk) 21:30, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All struck or replied to above.

Support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:17, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Some of the details in the infobox don't appear to be sourced anywhere
  • The article relies heavily on book sources - could you explain your approach to ensuring that this is a "thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature", per WP:WIAFA?
    Books are mainly used because they are the only sources where you can find a truly comprehensive biography about Luthuli.Iamawesomeautomatic (talk) 01:56, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment

edit

Three weeks in and just the single general support. Unless this nomination makes significant further progress towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:15, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

With no further input I am regretfully timing this out. The usual two-week hiatus will apply. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:26, 28 October 2023 (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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 22 October 2023 [3].

Nonmetal

edit
Nominator(s): Sandbh (talk) 12:30, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While the idea of what a "metal" is has been around since BCE times it was not until over two millenia later that the term "nonmetal" appeared. It was an unfortunate term since explaining what something is not, is difficult.

The structure of the main body of the article has only six sections: Definition—Properties—Types—Prevalence—Uses—History.

There is a table at the end comparing the properties of metals and the different types of nonmetals.

The gist of the nonmetal article should be able to be got by reading only the topic sentence of each paragraph. The technical subject matter means there is some jargon, which I've attempted to minimise.

Since the article was last at FAC, in May-June 2023, it’s been further copy edited, checked for compliance with MOS, the title simplified, the scope honed, and the lede table streamlined. Sandbh (talk) 12:30, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Graham Beards

edit

Sorry but I think many of the later additions are not improvements. The prose suffers badly from padding, redundancy, editorializing, and verbosity. Here are examples:

  • Within the realm of elemental composition,
  • underscoring their pivotal role in the composition of the planet.
  • Vital to the composition of living organisms are the nonmetals hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, and nitrogen, which constitute a significant portion of their structural makeup.
  • More broadly speaking,
  • A degree of ambiguity surrounds
  • Further contributing to the evolving landscape of elemental classification
  • Approximately half of nonmetallic elements exist in gaseous states, (= are gases)
  • with the majority of the remainder being lustrous solids (= most are)
  • bromine stands as the singular nonmetal that manifests as a liquid (= the only)
  • invariably manifest as solids (= are usually a solid)
  • Noteworthy
  • Notable
  • It is noteworthy
  • As to their chemical behavior
  • Physically, the unclassified nonmetals appear to lack rhyme or reason.
  • In the context of the periodic table
  • are recognized as (= are)
  • An impressive facet
  • A few noteworthy examples
  • The majority of (= most)
  • Curiously (really?)
  • The showcase moment
  • "Sodium and potassium, in contrast, exhibited a remarkable behavior—they floated on water." !! Aluminium foil, gold foil, iron ships etc float on water.
Yes, for over two millenia, metals were distinguished from other substances by the fact that (in bulk) they were heavier than water. When Davy, in 1807, isolated sodium and potassium their low densities challenged the conventional wisdom that metals were ponderous substances. Many chemists did not regard them as proper metals. In 1808, Erman and Simon suggested using the term metalloid to refer to the newly discovered elements sodium and potassium. Their suggestion was ignored by the chemical community. The two new elements were eventually admitted into the metal club on the basis of their chemical properties. On the other hand, Davy's discovery "annihilated" the line of demarcation between metals and nonmetals—Hare RA & Bache F 1836, Compendium of the Course of Chemical Instruction in the Medical Department of the University of Pennsylvania, p. 310.
Aluminium was not discovered until 1824, quite a few years later.
I will add have added a footnote about this. Sandbh (talk) 06:09, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ref Wiberg 2001, pp. 257–258, 261–262 is a red linked

Fixed. Sandbh (talk) 06:09, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I still think the "Some cross-type properties" is way too noisy.

After so many FACS, we shouldn't be seeing these issues. Graham Beards (talk) 13:49, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Graham Beards.
Re prose, FAC #6 was an austere version without (as you put it) "padding, redundancy, editorializing, and verbosity". I'm happy to revert to the more austere version of prose.
I am sorry that you find the "Some cross-type properties" table at the end of the article to be "way too noisy". It has only five physical properties and five chemistry-based properties. What is it that you find to be way too noisy?
I am sorry that you feel that after so many FACs, we shouldn't be seeing those issues. Before FAC #7 the article had been to peer-review twice and was copy-edited by an editor from the Guild of Copy Editors. Sandbh (talk) 04:47, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Since then there have been numerous changes. For example:
  • "About half of nonmetallic elements are gases; most of the rest are shiny solids." (April 30)
  • "Approximately half of nonmetallic elements exist in gaseous states, with the majority of the remainder being lustrous solids." (Current)

Which is not an improvement in my view. Graham Beards (talk) 05:47, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and will change this to back to the April 30 version. Sandbh (talk) 23:10, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Graham Beards: I copyedited the whole of the article, offline, to address the prose issues you raised including the examples (which were helpful, thank you). I've posted the revised article. Sandbh (talk) 13:37, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's infinitely better and I am close to supporting. There was one fused participle, but I couldn't think of a better wording. How attached are you to the table "Some cross-type properties". I don't think it is needed and it is difficult to understand. Graham Beards (talk) 15:43, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Graham. I will take a closer look at the table, see what can be done about it, and report back here. Sandbh (talk) 00:26, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Graham Beards: That table was not my best work. I have divided the table into two smaller tables and undertook some decluttering and tidying. The introduction to the tables has been rewritten to provide a better explanation and rationale. I feel that this subsection now brings things together in a pleasing way, given its location at the end of the article. Sandbh (talk) 05:52, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Turnbull

edit

At present the lead includes the statement In contrast, metals are good conductors and most can easily be flattened into sheets and drawn into wires because of the free movement of their electrons. The part "because of the free movement of their electrons" seems unnecessary, because while it may explain the conductivity I don't think it explains the malleability and ductility and is in any case not needed in the lead of an article about nonmetals. The article ductility is the target for all the terms "flattened into sheets", "drawn into wires" and (in the first main section) "malleability" and "ductility", which suggests that fewer links are needed or some of the text could be removed. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:51, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Mike. I agree the text about free or unfree electrons doesn't need to be included in the lede, and have trimmed it. Per your suggestion I've replaced malleable and ductile with "pliable". Sandbh (talk) 05:13, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mirokado

edit
  • §Definition and applicable elements:
    • "they lack most or all the properties..." While "they lack all the properties..." would be correct grammar, here we need "they lack most or all of the properties..." since "most" requires "of".
      I tweaked, see this Google ngram. -- Mirokado (talk) 19:37, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I like the little tables giving quick and prominent access to the articles for each element: I think we should include the wl for Oxygen in the table for a good user interface even though it happens to appear a bit earlier in the section too.
    • "Of the 118 known chemical elements": "chemical" is redundant here, particularly since we have already (correctly) linked to chemical element and then referred to just "elements".
  • §Citations: please trigger a run of citation bot. This will probably pick up lots of changes to the citations (adding access icons for example) which would be very fiddly to fix by hand.

More later. -- Mirokado (talk) 19:22, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Mirokado.
The first three items have been done. I was expecially impressed by the astuteness of the first one. Sandbh (talk) 05:07, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Re citation bot check: The citation bot returned the following:
">Remedial work to prepare citations
>Consult APIs to expand templates
>Expand individual templates by API calls
>Remedial work to clean up templates
>No changes required.
# # #
Done with page."
I've nevertheless manually rechecked the first 100 cites, and hope to do the rest relatively soon. Sandbh (talk) 06:28, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for checking. When I asked for this, I was thinking about this check of TRAPPIST-1, which resulted in lots of changes even after the article had been promoted. (I have removed some blank lines in the list syntax above, hope that is OK.) -- Mirokado (talk) 19:37, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mirokado: I've completed the manual check of all the cites. Sandbh (talk) 00:27, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • §Allotropes: "Iodine among the halogen nonmetals, as well as the other unclassified nonmetals, and metalloids also have allotropic variations." The comma placement here is problematic and just moving a comma does not work very well either. I suggest rephrasing thus: "Iodine among the halogen nonmetals, as well as the metalloids and other unclassified nonmetals, also have allotropic variations."
  • §Secondary periodicity: "groups 16 to 17" would be better written "groups 16 and 17".
  • §Types: "Carbon, ... show some metallic character, as does hydrogen." Can we add parentheses or a note to clarify when hydrogen exhibits metallic behaviour ("at high pressure and temperature" for example)?
  • §Noble gases: "As a further example, ..." I think this is intended to mean "To add more detail, ...", but since it is the first actual example of a compound in the section, "For example, ..." would be better.
  • §Halogen nonmetals: here and elsewhere we are referring consistently to "halogen nonmetals". I have never encountered this nomenclature and think that "halogens" is the common term and cannot be confused with anything else. This contrasts with "alkali metals", since "alkali" on its own has other meanings and common usage.

More later. -- Mirokado (talk) 20:49, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Mirokado.
  • §Allotropes: The allotropes sentence is quite tricky. Taking your cue I've reworded it as follows:
"Allotropes also occur for the other unclassified nonmetals, the metalloids, and iodine among the halogen nonmetals."
I hope that works for you.
  • §2ndary periodicity: Has been done.
  • §Types: The metallic properties of H are elaborated later on in the Unclassified nonmetals section, paragraph 4. I have added an intra-wiki link to "as does hydrogen" if that will do.
  • §Noble gases: I have changed, "As a further example" to "As a further analogy".
  • §Halogen nonmetals: While F, Cl, Br, I and At are halogens, the first four are nonmetals whereas At is expected to be a metal. Ts, which is the heavier congener of At is also expected to be a metal. So I've referred to F, Cl, Br and I as the halogen nonmetals, as per the cited examples. --- Sandbh (talk) 11:10, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I may say more about hydrogen when I look at §Unclassified nonmetals in detail. My familiarity with "halogens" predates serious consideration of At and Ts. Looking again, the usage here seems OK and is reasonably clear from the first image and §Definition and applicable elements. -- Mirokado (talk) 15:38, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • §Halogen nonmetals: wl first occurrence of semiconductor
  • §Metalloids: since the block quote is not itself enclosed in double quotes, we can use double quotes for the quoted quotation marks which are now top-level.
  • §Unclassified nonmetals: "It accomplishes this by forming a covalent or ionic bonds": Another tricky phrase, we need "forming a covalent or ionic bond" for good grammar and consistency with the univalent nature of the bonding.

More later. -- Mirokado (talk) 15:38, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Mirokado. Those three have been done. Sandbh (talk) 00:27, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • §Unclassified nonmetals:
    I don't think the three examples of hydrogen behaving like a metal are very convincing. Being metallic is a bulk property deriving mainly from delocalised electrons and no band gap:
    Losing an electron to form compounds is something that metals do too, it doesn't really make hydrogen metallic
    Substituting for a alkali metal atom is a bit more convincing: how does that differ from the "forming a hydride" point?
    Some at least of the hydrides are much more like solutions in that the hydrogen can be readily extracted again (not for example possible with a gold ring ruined by mercury).
    In any case, hydrogen has no ability to exhibit bulk metallic properties on its own under normal conditions.
    Where hydrogen itself is thought to exhibit metallic properties is deep inside gas giants like Jupiter. That is what I was expecting when I first saw the mention of hydrogen as a metal. A suitable reference for this may be the following from Jupiter (DOI link):
    {{cite journal |last=Smoluchowski |first=R. |year=1971 |title=Metallic interiors and magnetic fields of Jupiter and Saturn |journal=The Astrophysical Journal |volume=166 |page=435 |doi=10.1086/150971  |bibcode=1971ApJ...166..435S |doi-access=free}}
    • It is quite proper to retain the current content despite the above when it is supported by reliable sources, but adding the mention of the high-pressure metallic phase would balance and clarify the paragraph. -- Mirokado (talk) 21:21, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Mirokado: Every element is expected to metallise if you put it under high enough pressure (and low enough temperature). Hydrogen is only special insofar that it requires a particularly high pressure for that: chlorine and xenon metallise at lower pressure than hydrogen. So really, that seems to me to be not very impressive.
      • I'm with you on the idea that metallicity should really be about not having a band gap in bulk, but unfortunately, many authors use it for other aspects of chemistry, such as readily losing electrons. As was already pointed out by R. Thomas Myers (1979), there is no other consistent way to define a metal than looking at high electrical conductivity in all three dimensions; but I suppose if one insists on looking at chemical properties for this, then H+ (aq) and the amphoteric oxide H2O is really what's impressive, as is the ability of H to displace metals from their salts. (Though it raises uncomfortable questions about some of the early 4d and 5d metals.) Double sharp (talk) 04:32, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • §Extraction: I suggest, add the molecular origin of sulphur from natural gas for consistency with other mentions. I presume hydrogen sulphide?
  • §Uses:
    • what is the "endemicity" of a use? Do you mean something like "Widespread uses of nonmetals include:"?
    • one of the most widespread and obvious uses was (and maybe still is) neon in neon lights: does that deserve a mention? I realise it is not possible to mention everything!
  • §Discovery:
    • Well done for not wanting to repeat "discovered", but perhaps we can improve "uncovered": how about "Radon is the most recently described nonmetal"?
    • "The noble gases, renowned for their low reactivity, were first identified through unusual and mundane methods." Hmm. What sort of method is neither unusual nor mundane? I see that normal chemistry was not productive, but we really need to rephrase the sentence to say that, or whatever is meant. Even "through both unusual and mundane" does not exclude normal chemistry.
    • "some chemists tragically lost their lives in their pursuit of isolating fluorine." Arrr. I think we can lose "tragically" here  it is a bit like the description of the sinking of the Titanic as "very unfortunate" which I recently reverted.
    • "Antimony, in an unusual twist, was found..." Sorry to be picky, but this is also unencyclopedic: please just say "Antimony was found...". -- Mirokado (talk) 22:11, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mirokado, I much appreciate your careful scrutiny.

  • §Unclassified nonmetals: Mirokado, concerning the metal-like properties of hydrogen I've adjusted the article text in an attempt to make this clearer. Please see my longer response to your specific concerns on the talk page for this nomination. --- Sandbh (talk) 06:18, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • §Extraction: Yes, that's done and I’ve clarified that the listed methods are "mainly or exclusively".
  • §Uses:
  • In retrospect, "endemicity" doesn't add anything to the sentence so I've trimmed it.
  • Neon: Its use in neon lights is subsumed under "Lighting".
  • §Discovery:
  • Radon: Changed "uncovered" to "identified".
  • Noble gases: That sentence now reads, "The noble gases, renowned for their low reactivity, were first identified via spectroscopy, air fractionation, and radioactive decay studies."
  • Fluorine: I’ve added a citation for the use of the word "tragically" to refer to the deaths of those folks involved in the pursuit of fluorine.
  • Antimony: Thanks, that part now says, "Antimony was obtained primarily through the heating of its sulfidrode, stibnite; it was later discovered in native form.[210]"

--- Sandbh (talk) 06:11, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks to you and user:Double sharp for the detailed discussion about hydrogen. The article text is now much clearer and I take the point about the scope being "in normal conditions". All the above now stricken. I'm away for a few days, so I will continue the review when I get back. -- Mirokado (talk) 21:55, 09 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • §Origin and use of the term. "In 1875, Kemshead observed..." Who was Kemshead? (Does not seem to have an article). We need something as already done for de L'Aunay: "the French physician Loys de L'Aunay discussed..." Later I see quite a few other unexplained names: generally it is good to indicate in the content why we are highlighting a particular person's contribution, but I see that it may be unwieldy in this case. Please consider and respond.
  • §Suggested distinguishing criteria:
    • "The table provided here outlines 22 such properties, listed by type and the year of their mention." I suggest "sorted" rather than "listed" since the table does not include the actual years (I am not suggesting that it should).
    • It is confusing to state the typical case as "metals exhibit an increase... as temperature decreases" but then to discuss the behaviour of exceptions when they are heated. It would be clearer to relate everything to behaviour when something is heated, since temperature is the variable which can be controlled.
    • "when heated within a specific temperature range of −175 to +125 °C." The numbers are already specific: saying "specific" here is redundant. Something like "when heated within the temperature range of −175 to +125 °C." or (shorter) "when heated between −175 and +125 °C."
    • "Nonmetallic elements are predominantly located in the top left quadrant of this table": The nonmetals are in the top right quadrant.
  • §Physical: "Form and heft" in the table: heft is not a very familiar word, can we be clearer here? Do we mean "density"?
  • §Notes:
    • Note 4: Is "volatizes" really a word? I am familiar with "sublimes" for a solid to gas transition as here, and "evaporates" for liquid to gas.
    • Note 5: I would write "both metals".
    • Note 9: "arsenic, and iodine;" since they end the first list.
    • Note 12: "The single dagger nonmetals N, S and iodine are somewhat hobbled as "strong" nonmetals." I'm not sure what this is saying.
    • Note 37: Please say "Metalloids" rather than "They" here, so the note makes sense on its own (as in other notes). Similarly for notes 39 and 41: strongly what?
    • Also please provide brief context for the lists in notes 42 and 43.

I found some time... I have now read through the whole article so this is "probably" the end of my review. -- Mirokado (talk) 00:07, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Mirokado.
  • §Origin and use of the term: Re Kemshead; Kneen and colleagues; Emsley; Jones; Johnson; Hein and Arena; and Oderberg I've now repositioned the citations so that they appear next to the name of the author, rather than later on. It's then possible to straightway check the applicable source. Of these authors, only Emsley has a Wikipdeia article to which I've now added a link.
    • "The table provided here outlines 22 such properties, listed by type and the year: Changed "listed" to "sorted".
    • "...metals exhibit an increase... as temperature decreases": I see what you mean and have copyedited the paragraph so that it now consistently refers to the effect of heating on conductivity.
  • "Nonmetallic elements...top left quadrant": Fixed, thanks.
  • §Physical: "Form and heft": Changed "heft" to "density".
  • §Notes:
    • Note 4: Is "volatizes" really a word(?): Changed to "sublimes".
    • Note 5: I would write "both metals": Done.
    • Note 9: "arsenic, and iodine;" since they end the first list: Done.
    • Note 12: "The single dagger nonmetals N, S and iodine are somewhat hobbled as "strong" nonmetals." I'm not sure what this is saying: I've changed this to say, "The single dagger nonmetals N, S and iodine are somewhat hobbled as to the strength of their nonmetallic character:" This is then followed by three bullet points, one for each of N, S and I, discussing their shortcomings.
    • Note 37: Please say "Metalloids" rather than "They" here, so the note makes sense on its own (as in other notes). Similarly for notes 39 and 41: strongly what(?): Done.
    • Also please provide brief context for the lists in notes 42 and 43: Done.
--- Sandbh (talk) 06:02, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mirokado: I believe I've now addressed your final comments. Sandbh (talk) 07:24, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Sandbh for the prompt responses. The article is greatly improved from the previous version I reviewed. There are good explanations for the reasons for the differences being described.
Support. -- Mirokado (talk) 20:14, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Mirokado for your careful assessment and many good suggestions. --- Sandbh (talk) 05:45, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mirokado: Thank you. I've relocated those URLs. --- Sandbh (talk) 23:30, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. While checking that, I noticed:

  • §Bibliography
    • The book example in the leading comment defining citation style lacks the specified italics for the book name.
    • "Books are in title face italics." While you are changing here, please say "Book names are in title face italics.": clearer and losing the extra space.
    • There are citations missing either quotes or italics for the name (title): for example Angelo and Bache1832.
    • It would be better html style to enclose the whole of each citation in the <span id=..>..</span> container. That would be an easy global exchange (which I would be happy to do if you ask) so please don't make that change for each citation manually.
    • Even further down the rabbit hole, some citation ids such as Bache1832 include the date even when there is only one citation with that first author, others do not.
      • Particularly since you specify a detailed citation style in the leading comment, the ids should follow a consistent schema. The example in the comment does not currently include a date, the comment should say how to handle clashes. Currently, different authors with the same last name are distinguished by adding the initials to the ID (e.g. Cox), different citations by the same author by adding the date. This is fine and sensible.
      • In the case of Edwards, there are three citations with different dates, but one of the ids does not contain the date. Please fix this and any similar case whatever you decide to do (or not) in general. -- Mirokado (talk) 14:53, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mirokado: OK. I believe those items are all done now. Sandbh (talk) 05:48, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Once those issues were corrected, it was easy to check the placement of quotes in linked citation titles, I fixed a few inconsistencies.
This series of comments constituted a citation consistency check, for which the result is Pass. ---- Mirokado (talk) 19:14, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JJE

edit

There are a few paragraphs lacking citations at the end. I also don't see how a section on nonmetal prices can stay stable and up-to-date enough to satisfy the stability requirements. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:07, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The inclusion of prices contravenes our policy. See WP:NOTPRICE. Graham Beards (talk) 08:39, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Jo-Jo Eumerus and Graham Beards.

1. Paragraphs without citations at the end
Jo-Jo Eumerus: I've added citations to most of these paragraphs. The following don't have citations as they are either lede style, summary or explanatory paragraphs:
--- Sandbh (talk) 01:33, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
2. Nonmetal prices
I intend to update these once a year.
In the article, after subsections on Abundance and Extraction, and in light of the many uses of nonmetals, it seemed natural to give an idea of their costs in comparision to silver and gold.
With one exception, the prices were obtained from reliable sources, the premier example of which is the annual United States Geological Survey. The other sources are from the academic literature (×13), Boise State University (×2); and the National Institute of Standards and Technology. Three examples from the academic literature are: mention of the cost of H from a renewable energy perspective; the cost of N mentioned in an economic analysis of synthetic fuel production; and the cost of xenon as an anesthesia alternative.
The one exception is in a footnote at the end of this passage:
"Day to day costs will vary depending on purity, quantity[n21]...
Footnote 21 says:
"For example, as at April 2023, the commercial price of silicon was $4 per pound or $0.0088 per gram.[192] On the other hand, the price quoted for a 335 gram sample of silicon for hobbyists and science enthusiasts was about $57, or 0.170 per gram, or about 20 times the commercial price.[193]"
  • Reference 192 is U.S. Geological Survey 2023, p. 153.
  • Reference 193 was Billing Metals & Manufacturing, Silicon, Large Collectors sample. Element 14., accessed May 2, 2023.
The link for R193 is (now) to an Internet Archive snapshot of the web page showing a price of $AU85.
Re WP:NOTPRICE this says in part:
"An article should not include product pricing or availability information (which can vary widely with time and location) unless there is an independent source and encyclopedic significance for the mention, which may be indicated by mainstream media sources or books (not just product reviews) providing commentary on these details instead of just passing mention."
In the context of my explanation I feel there is no contravention of this policy. --- Sandbh (talk) 04:43, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And where is the commentary here: "Germanium and xenon cost about $1.30 and $7.60 per gram."? This looks like a "passing mention" to me. I think you need to take the numbers out. Although not one of the FA criteria, FAs are expected to be maintained and saying "I intend to update these once a year" is not a valid argument for any of the current content. I am also concerned about the article's stability. Although edits are expected during a FAC in the light of comments from reviewers, there have been scores of edits since this nomination, which reviewers, well at least me, feel obliged to check for FA compliance. This is not what is expected here. Graham Beards (talk) 06:46, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Graham Beards.
The commentary for Ge is set out in USGS Mineral Commodity Summaries 2023, which notes that, among other things, Ge is on the U.S. Critical Minerals List.
The commentary for Xe is set out in doi:10.1016/j.bja.2017.10.017. The article includes a mini-economic analysis of the price of Xe, as an anaesthesia alternative, compared to Ar.
Neither of these independent sources appear to constitute passing mentions.
On the nonmetal pricing numbers I have only listed the costs for the five nonmetallic that are more expensive than silver, for contrast and comparison purposes, and to flag their possible economic significance (Rn now excepted). In this context I have refurbished the Uses section so that there is more of a focus on these higher cost nonmetals.
Since the USGS Mineral Commodity Summaries are published once a year, and most of the costs come from that source, this is what informs the proposed yearly update of the costs.
Jo-Jo Eumerus, lead editor for the recently promoted FA article TRAPPIST-1 similarly flagged a yearly update for that article. I mention this as I reviewed the article for promotion suitability.
On the stability of the nonmetal article I am sorry that you feel the number of edits (~173) since the article was nominated were not expected. TRAPPIST-1 underwent 163 corrections between nomination and promotion, and has attracted a further 16 edits since then.
Looking at side-by-side versions of the nonmetal article as at 22 Sep, when I posted the off-line copy-edited version in response to your valuable feedback, and the version as I wrote most of this response (3 Oct), the overall structure of the article did not appear to have changed. What has changed (including as informed by your further feedback) are matters of presentation and detail which I suppose would not be unexpected during an FAC review.
I have appreciated your interest in this nomination given your more thought-provoking comments have resulted in improvements to the article. --- Sandbh (talk) 06:19, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
With regard to "providing commentary on these details instead of just passing mention", the commentary is not summarised in the article. All we have is a passing mention. It is unwise to single out other FACS to support your comments. I have been active here for around 15 years and I could find countless examples of FACs to back up mine. This pricing issue is a deal breaker for me, so I Oppose promotion until we find a solution. Sorry. Graham Beards (talk) 06:44, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Graham Beards.
I haven't been active at WP:FAC for as long as you.
Until I just now re-looked closely at the Costs subsection I had not appreciated that commentary about nonmetal pricing is at its start, middle and end:
"Day to day costs will vary depending on purity, quantity,[n 22] market conditions, and supplier surcharges.[195]" [start]
"Based on the available literature as of April 2023...[196] [middle]
"Additional factors associated with the higher costs of some nonmetals include relative scarcity (Ge, Xe)[204] and costly production techniques (B, P, Ge).[205][200][204]" [end]
Sorry for not mentioning that to you in my earlier response.
As required, I could attempt to add some further background about the scarcity and orneriness of the five higher-priced elements. Sandbh (talk) 07:49, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would delete the whole section. Graham Beards (talk) 08:18, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Graham Beards: I have done so. The content is now in its own article, Costs of nonmetals which I can work on in slower time. I have added a link to "Costs of nonmetals" in the See also section of the nonmetal article. --- Sandbh (talk) 03:49, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that's not a solution in my view. You have created a sub-article, the content of which is non-compliant with WP policies. Graham Beards (talk) 06:53, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Graham Beards: Thank you. Costs of nonmetals has been deleted. The link to Cost of nonmetals in the Nonmetal article has been removed. There is now no cost content in the Nonmetal article. Sandbh (talk) 02:55, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note

edit

A wall of comments, but with no declarations of support or opposition it feels more like a PR than a FAC. There still seems a way to go to achieve any consensus to promote, or even signs of movement towards it. This has been open for three weeks now, and unless there is significant movement towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days, the nomination is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:31, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild: Noting all concerns raised by the FAC commentators seem to have been addressed I suggest at least waiting for Mirokado to complete their assessment. On 9 Oct Mirokado advised that, "I'm away for a few days, so I will continue the review when I get back." When their review has been completed I intend to ask the FAC commentators, along the lines of your set of words, if they feel in a position to either support or oppose the nomination noting that obviously neither is obligatory. --- Sandbh (talk) 00:46, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds reasonable. I certainly have no desire to close a nomination prematurely. So let us wait a week and see what they say. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:50, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Eight days on and I see no sign of this moving any closer to a consensus to promote. I am again inclined to archive unless you could provoke some such movement in the next 48 hours. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:09, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Gog the Mild. It's Friday mid-morning my time, as I write this. I propose to let you know what the situation is on Monday mid-morning my time. I hope to have a sufficient indication from the reviewers by then as to what the consensus situation does or does not look like. I'll ask you to either keep open or archive the nomination at that time. Thank you for your patience. --- Sandbh (talk) 00:07, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My 48 hours is now nearly 72 and Graham Beards has recommended archiving. I agree. I am archiving this. I suggest that this gets further work off-FAC, possibly with input from the reviewers here, and bring back a final, definitive version. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:16, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Polite comments. @Gog the Mild: With respect, once again a nomination of mine has been closed by you before I've had the opportunity to respond to closing comments. I advised you of my intention to let you know what the situation is on Monday mid-morning my time. You thanked me for that advice. It is now that time and I find that the nomination has already been archived. Considerable signs of movement towards consensus to promote has occurred. There is a support from Mirokado; Michael D. Turnbull is inclined to support. YBG was inclined to support. Double sharp was neutral but was inclined to support subject to a few adjustments. Graham Beards was close to supporting. I can't control if reviewers choose to do a line-by-line review as I did with TRAPPIST-1. Please consider reopening the nomination in order to let me complete the last few change requests. Alternatively I'll be back in two weeks. No hard feelings. Thank you for reading. --- Sandbh (talk) 22:48, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Graham Beards, Michael D. Turnbull, Jo-Jo Eumerus, Double sharp, and YBG: In light of GtM's comments above could you provide an indication of whether you would be inclined to support or oppose the nomination, subject to me addressing any outstanding comments? There is no obligation, of course. Aside from Mirokado's support, I'm attempting to gauge whether the climate of consenus is postive, mixed, silent or negative. If there are sufficient inclinations then I hope the nomination can continue to stay active; otherwise I'll ask GtM to archive it. Thank you, --- Sandbh (talk) 00:07, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Graham Beards, Michael D. Turnbull, Jo-Jo Eumerus, Double sharp, and YBG: Now that Mirokado has completed their assessment, and I believe that all items of concern have been addressed, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. --- Sandbh (talk) 23:52, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Gonna need some input from editors who have an understanding on the "how is the term 'nonmetal' used in chemistry" question. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:47, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on the author in question and what the author thinks are metallic properties. Generally, elements that seem to fail most of the metallic properties being considered by the author are called nonmetals. Some authors add a "metalloid" category where things seem to be roughly in balance. On the other hand, many of the properties that have been offered by sources seem to contradict actual practice. For example, just listing things from the "Suggested distinguishing criteria" section: "Physical state" leads to questions about Hg (plus the fact that many elements often called nonmetals are solid), "Packing efficiency" suggests that the noble gases are excellent metals, "Cation formation" (if it's for aqueous solution) suggests that a bunch of transition metals (including tungsten) are not really metals (and if it doesn't mean in aqueous solution, then it would start including things like iodine), and "Acid-base character of oxides" depends on oxidation state. (No one actually would agree to those conclusions, I think, but they are what you would get by applying those criteria literally.) The most that can be said is that having a metallic or semimetallic band structure tends to be weighted quite highly: this property by itself is a near-guarantee that something will be called a metal rather than a nonmetal/metalloid. Even so, many authors will still demur if enough other metallic properties are failed, as happens for As, Sb, and less often (but still to a significant degree) Po. (If we then go to even rarer rejections, Al, Bi, Be, and Sn have been called metalloids more than 1% of the time.) And orthogonally from all this, you have cases like At and the superheavies where it's impossible to give a final judgement because not enough is known experimentally – though some of these get called metals by universal acclamation (Fr, last few actinides and early 6d elements) because there's really no doubt in people's minds that they would be metals if you could ever test them. Double sharp (talk) 13:01, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Double sharp:So is electronegativity and density a criterium? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:02, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: They are sometimes given as properties that tend to be characteristic of nonmetals, which they are. But they're not a definition that gets everybody: gold has high electronegativity (higher than silicon), lithium has low density (less than water), and neither are ever called nonmetals. Meanwhile nonmetallic germanium is denser than titanium and has about the same electronegativity as polonium, both metals. Double sharp (talk) 11:16, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like the article has a problem then if it stipulates them as criteria. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:26, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Double sharp and Jo-Jo Eumerus: Thank you both. Could you please note that the article starts as follows,

"A nonmetal is a chemical element generally characterized by low density and [emphasis added] high electronegativity ..."

While gold has a high electronegativity it has a high density rather than a low density; while lithium has a low density it also has a low rather than high electronegativity. Neither gold nor lithium meet the criterion. Germanium, on the other hand, has a relatively low density and high EN and meets the criterion. Titanium has a low density and a relatively low electronegativity, it being a metal. Polonium has a relatively high electonegativity but a relatively high density, it too being a metal.
I trust this clears up any confusion? Sandbh (talk) 04:15, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then I'd ask:
  • Is there an RS giving precisely these two criteria as a definition, rather than as two among many tendencies nonmetals have? And if one exists, is doing that as common as the physics idea of what a metal is?
  • What then about Sn, with Pauling electronegativity 1.96 (compare Si 1.90), and density 7.265 g/cm3 (compare Sb 6.697)? Yes I know you cite an author who uses 7 g/cm3 as a threshold, but that is as a threshold for whether or not a metal is heavy, not whether or not a chemically weak candidate should have its metallic credentials questioned. (And why are we citing a 1936 textbook?)
Double sharp (talk) 10:48, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Double sharp. In my reply following, italicization appearing in quotes from the article has been added by me. And I've used ◇...◇ to distinguish section headings in the article.
As a couple of contextual comments, the article notes in several places that variations occur as to precisely which elements are nonmetals, depending on the author or source. Likewise, in FAC #6 Michael D. Turnbull, an organic chemist, opined that "it is inherently difficult to write an article about a topic that is defined by what it is not: not-a-metal, especially when there are clear edge cases."[4]
  • There is no single source that I'm aware of that defines nonmetals precisely in terms of the two criteria. Rather, low density and high EN are two of the many properties mentioned in numerous texts as being characteristic of nonmetals. This is why the lede is worded the way it is namely, "A nonmetal is a chemical element generally characterized by low density and high electronegativity ...". Similarly, the ◇ Definition and applicable elements ◇ section starts, "In general, a nonmetal is a chemical element that can be characterized by low density and high electronegativity."
The qualifiers, "generally", "In general", and "can be" imply that while most nonmetals exhibit these characteristics, there may be exceptions or variations among nonmetallic elements. The remainder of the first paragraph in the lede elaborates:
"They range from colorless gases like hydrogen to shiny solids like the graphite form of carbon. Nonmetals are often poor conductors of heat and electricity, and when solid tend to be brittle or crumbly. In contrast, metals are good conductors and most are pliable. While compounds of metals tend to be basic, those of nonmetals tend to be acidic."
This is why the lede includes the following text:
While the term “non-metallic” can be traced back to at least 1566, there is no universally accepted definition of a nonmetal. As some elements have a marked combination of metallic and nonmetallic properties, lists of nonmetals typically vary from 14 to 24 members.
The ◇ Definition and applicable elements ◇ section further caveats that, "There is no precise definition of a nonmetal;[4] any list of such is open to debate and revision.[5]"
Later, in the ◇ Suggested distinguishing criteria ◇ section, there is a comment about the use of single criteria:
Emsley[264] pointed out the complexity of this task, asserting that no single property alone can unequivocally assign elements to either the metal or nonmetal category.
It is why the penultimate paragraph of the ◇ Suggested distinguishing crieria ◇ section is worded as it is:
Hein and Arena[65] observed that nonmetals have, among other properties, low densities and high electronegativity, which is consistent with the data presented in the table. Nonmetallic elements are predominantly located in the top right quadrant of this table, where density is low and electronegativity values are relatively high. In contrast, the other three quadrants are primarily occupied by metals.
The predominately and primarily qualifiers are intended to be consistent with authors varying in their treatment of which elements are metals or nonmetals.
  • Since nonmetals are typically characterized by physical and chemical properties, that tin has a density of 7.265 g/cm3 is, by itself, neither here nor there (so to speak). That it has an EN of 1.96 is, by itself, neither here nor there. When the two are taken together the result is an element with a relatively high density and a relatively high EN, which suggests it is not a nonmetal. About the figure of 7 gm/cc, I recalled that the FA Heavy metals article mentioned a range of density cut offs: "Density criteria range from above 3.5 g/cm3 to above 7 g/cm3.[3]". The age of a source does not necessarily affect its relevance. I was going to say that I could deprecate mention of the 7 gm/cc figure to a footnote, only to find that I had already done so. I've now added a wlnk to the mention of "heavy metals" so as to place the mentioned figure into context.
Summarising, I'm attempting to package a "wobbly" concept and have strived to ensure there is enough leeway in the article to encompass most views set out in the literature. I'm happy to consider any suggestions for further fine-tuning as to the way the article seeks to encompass its scope.
--- Sandbh (talk) 01:12, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So you admit that the cut-off of 7 g/cm3 is about whether or not a metal is heavy, and not whether or not a chemically weak metal candidate should be rejected and considered a nonmetal instead. That means that the way you use it is a WP:SYNTH, isn't it?
And you admit that density and EN are not really accepted as distinguishing criteria, and are merely two of the many properties often accepted as characteristic of nonmetals. So isn't it going beyond what's justified by RS to single them out the way you do?
I'm quite familiar with the situation of writing a WP article about something where there is no universally accepted definition. I did save Planet at FA some time ago, you know. :) But what I did there is to start the lede with only the common denominator everyone would agree with, and then mention that there are differing views. (For this article, this would mean saying that nonmetals are generally things that authors think don't have enough metallic properties, and use 3D electrical conductivity as a baseline, mentioning that there are some exceptions.) And I didn't exclude anything that some authors have considered planets, even if in some cases I find the inclusion incredible (Hygiea springs to mind), although naturally I covered only the most common inclusions in the biggest detail. That is also what you did at Metalloid. Why not just do that, instead of appearing to push a definition, and not wanting to talk about things that some RS doubt even though you think they are clearly metals? I'm personally in Steudel's camp and think that Sb is a metal, but that doesn't mean I'd exclude it from a WP article discussion of metalloids or nonmetals, because some serious RS have a different opinion. Same story with beta-Sn and Po, at least. Double sharp (talk) 01:31, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Double sharp.
Some of your concerns are addressed in my 00:51, 20 October 2023 response to your philosophical concern/s.
The 7 g/cm3 figure wasn’t chosen by me. It so happened that the chart mapping the elements according to their density and EN happened to fall out that way. It was only after I drew the chart that I remembered the 7 figure.
I've changed the footnote to read:

A survey of definitions of the term "heavy metal" reported density criteria ranging from above 3.5 g/cm3 to above 7 g/cm3.[276]

I feel this is a neutral statement.
I’ve shied away from 3D-electrical conductivity for the following reasons:
  • Single properties don't work as per Emsley, and over two centuries of attempts have shown.
  • It requires a caveat in the case of As and Sb.
  • Density has a long association with pre-chemistry and chemistry, at first as a way to distinguish metals from other substances. With the isolation in 1807 and 1808 of Na and K (both being lighter than water, which was an astonishing finding in its day) chemists had to further look to chemical behaviour to conclude that Na and K were indeed metals.
  • Na and K highlighted that while density was an important property often associated with metals (and it still is in terms of the loose concept of heavy metals), it wasn’t the sole determinant of their behavior i.e. there were such things as lightweight metals that still behaved chemically as electropositive metals.
  • Chemistry, rather than physics so much, is the broad focus of the article.
  • Electronegativity as a way to characterise the elements dates back to the days of Berzelius, in the 1810s and 1820s, with his notions of electropositive and electronegative behaviour.
  • Goldwhite & Spielman (1984, p. 130) related density and EN, when they wrote, "lighter elements tend to be more electronegative than heavier ones".
Summarizing, density and electronegativity have had a significant interrelated relationship and still do.
3D electrical conductivity is nevertheless included in the table of 22 suggested single properties for distinguishing metals from nonmetals (1811–2017).
Like Metalloid, and Planet, I've attempted to broadly describe nonmetallic elements. One of the important things is the nature of their physical and chemical properties, hence the mention of density and electronegativity.
Those two properties are just two of the up to fifty or so properties that RS use in attempts to characterise nonmetals.
In light of your concerns I've changed the opening sentence to:

A nonmetal is a chemical element generally characterized by, among other properties, low density and high electronegativity (the ability of an atom in a molecule to attract electrons to itself).

This seems to be (a) accurate, with wriggle room provided by the "generally"; (b) relatively inclusive; (c) balanced; and (d) congruent with the literature.
The article further mentions a plethora of properties, and I've attempted to go to considered and considerable lengths to mention the general and indicative-only nature of those properties, including density and EN.
I’ve expanded the start of the last paragraph in the Suggested distinguishing criteria subsection to read:

Several authors[278] have noted that, in general, and among other properties, nonmetals have low densities and high electronegativity, which is consistent with the data presented in the table.

The article mentions Sb and As being sometimes conceived of as metals:

Since metalloids occupy a transition region or "frontier territory",[122] where metals meet nonmetals, their classification varies among authors. Some consider them distinct from both metals and nonmetals, while others classify them as nonmetals[123] or as a sub-class of nonmetals.[124] There are also authors who categorize certain metalloids as metals, such as arsenic and antimony, due to their similarities to heavy metals.[125][n 17] In this context metalloids are here treated as nonmetals, based on their relatively low densities, high electronegativity, and chemical behavior,[120] and for comparative purposes.[n 18]

--- Sandbh (talk) 11:43, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mike Turnbull and Double sharp may be able to help in this regard. Sandbh (talk) 07:21, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hrmm. I really don't want to leave this one with no conclusion since it's the 7th FAC of this article, but the issue of the definition is a big issue. If different people (hereby defined as "which meet RS and DUE") use different definitions of "nonmetal" we can't cherry-pick one particular definition and put it in the lead. Rather you'd have to enumerate the various definitions, or say "Nonmetal is a grouping of elements. Different sources use different definitions" or somesuch. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:08, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus "Metal/Nonmetal" is one of a number of ways that chemists divide their subject-matter. "Organic/Inorganic" is another and "Element/Compound" a third. With all these broad-brush divisions, there are differing views about the exact boundaries: for example, many would argue that carbon monoxide is inorganic while some would call it organic because they define "organic" as any compound which contains carbon. Likewise, some chemists would categorise S8 as a compound while others would just consider it one of the possible allotropes of sulfur. In the context of the current article, I agree with your last comment: the variation in our reliable sources needs to be reflected in the text. For me, the bottom line is that Wikipedia definitely needs an article called nonmetal and the one that we now have does a good job of explaining the complexities of the situation. Hence (as @Sandbh asked) I'm inclined to support promotion to FA status. My only hesitation is because of my lack of experience of assessment at this level. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:34, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
User:Jo-Jo Eumerus I agree that it is not good to cherry pick definitions. Nevertheless, it is common in WP list articles to define the scope of the list in the lede. Now I know this is not a list, but I think a similar principle should be kept in mind. Which elements are considered in this article? This article takes a broadly inclusive approach, and includes just about any element that any RS calls a nonmetal. I believe the only exception is astatine, and the reason for excluding it is explained in at least two places in the article. Even if At were included, it would add almost nothing to the article: since it is so rare and so radioactive, no one has ever had even a thimbleful of it to be able to experiment on. I’m pretty certain there are no other elements excluded from this article that are called “nonmetals” anywhere except in fringe sources (or astrophysics, as noted in the hatnote). YBG (talk) 02:36, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Occasionally you can see other elements wondered about, though mostly in old sources when polonium was not so well-known, or when it wasn't clear that beta-tin was a semimetal rather than a semiconductor. Occasionally things get included for comparison, like Gary Wulfsberg sometimes does in his textbook for Sn, Pb, Bi, and Po, or Sherwin and Weston who admit that Po is best classed as a metal but put it in their book on nonmetals anyway on the grounds that its chemistry is conveniently discussed with the other chalcogens. (They don't say it outright for Sb and Bi, but since they call both metals, this is probably their reason for including them too: to keep the pnictogens together. As for Sn and Pb, Sherwin and Weston say they "are not typically metallic in the truly chemical sense"; but they include them in a table only for comparison and admit that "a detailed study of these elements is outside the scope of this book". Strangely enough it also does not talk much about Ge.) I feel like this could use simply a brief mention; it's something like people who include Vesta and Pallas as planets. It happens enough to mention that such ideas exist, but not enough to actually put them in the tables. (I suspect, though haven't checked, that authors who would include Po as a metalloid would generally be in the camp that metalloids should really be things that are intermediate between metals and nonmetals, and so they would not usually be outright saying that Po is a nonmetal by such an inclusion, only that it has some marked nonmetallic properties. That much is uncontroversial.)
I largely agree with YBG. The list of nonmetals is actually fairly widely agreed on, with a few issues for intrinsically borderline elements. The actual issue is that nobody really agrees on the criteria being used. And quite often criteria are stated and then ignored, as can be seen from the list at "Suggested distinguishing criteria": if you actually try to follow many of them to the letter, you'll often end up including some elements that nobody actually thinks are nonmetals. (Rhenium is my favourite go-to example, because it essentially fails all four of the chemical criteria offered for being a metal. But no one doubts that it is one!) Based on this, I would say that philosophically, the things that would most incline me towards promotion is:
  • Avoid explicitly singling out one or two criteria in the lede. Instead, say that there's no agreed definition, but that generally the list of elements is agreed on. (I offered some wording below.) Instead, mention a sample of criteria later than the first paragraph, and note the problem that they are not always applied consistently; they are really rather tendencies. (With the possible exception of 3D electrical conductivity, because that is the physicist's definition of what a metal is, though it should be made clear that chemists will not always agree with it, noting As.)
  • As for metalloids, I would much prefer it if it was stated that they're included in order to be comprehensive, rather than making a statement in Wiki-voice at the beginning about their density and chemistry. Doing that raises questions that are hard to answer without OR, like "how low is low when literally twenty metals are less dense than tellurium [Li, K, Na, Rb, Ca; Mg, Be, Cs, Fr, Sr; Al, Sc, Ba, Y, Ti; Eu, Ra, Ga, V, La], including amphoteric and chemically weak Be and Al, and tellurium at least passed the bar of forming an hydrolysed aqua cation Te(OH)3+ in water". We can always talk about how metalloids differ from metals and the more standard nonmetals later, as tendencies (which circumvents a lot of the problem with using many things as criteria).
  • De-emphasise the pairing of metal and nonmetal classes, for reasons YBG has already talked about.
As of today I'm neutral; changing these things would incline me to support. Double sharp (talk) 03:48, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Double sharp.
1. I believe that not singling out one or two criteria in the lede can be achieved, per your suggested set of words.
2. Metalloids should be doable.
3. I've added a citation mentioning all four pairs.
More to follow.
--- Sandbh (talk) 04:12, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Double sharp: User:YBG boldly implemented #1. Please check the lede accordingly. I believe metalloids are now OK.
--- Sandbh (talk) 04:22, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Double sharp

edit

Well, it is my turn, I guess. :)

Lede

  • I'm not really sure low density and high EN are really the most salient properties. Alkali metals have low density, but chemically speaking they are rather the best metals. Gold has a really high EN for a metal, yet physically it's an excellent metal. It seems better to start with the Myers criterion (3D electrical conductivity), because it mostly gets at what people actually call metals vs nonmetals in practice. Yes, As and Sb are exceptions (well, in one allotrope each anyway) if you think they are nonmetals (and if one wants to call Po a metalloid, it may be added as well), but at least then the very few elements that fail to meet the rough-and-ready definition would be borderline in many ways, instead of being great at one property and bad at the other.
  • KOH is a strong base; should we count it as a metal or a nonmetal compound? If we consider it a metal compound because of the potassium, then the fact that HMnO4 is a strong acid becomes awkward to deal with. Acidic vs basic compounds is rather about oxides specifically. And even then it needs qualification based on the oxidation state (consider acidic CrO, amphoteric Cr2O3, basic CrO3).
  • It's not clear that nonmetals dominate in the crust. Na, Mg, Al, K, Ca, Ti, Mn, Fe are all more abundant in the crust than N. If you talk about the atmosphere, then yes, but this is kind of trivial because "atmosphere" implies "gaseous" and there aren't too many gaseous metal compounds at standard conditions. In the biosphere, P and S would eclipse Si; and in the atmosphere, Ar clearly eclipses Si.
  • Rest seems OK on first reading.

Definition and applicable elements.

  • Same complaint re the first sentence, really. And there are too many exceptions for forming basic oxides to really be a good "metallic" property. It is mostly confined to the active metals (high in the reactivity series), and since nobody thinks that noble/refractory metals like Ta, W, Re, Os, Ir should be excluded from being metals, I question if it is a defining property. I agree the issue is complex and authors have different opinions, which is why I think starting with electrical conductivity would be a better option. At least it gets almost everything people think is a nonmetal.
  • By saying that you're going to treat metalloids as nonmetals, aren't you kind of giving a POV-ish justification? It would be fine with me if you said that some authors think they are on the grounds that "nonmetal" ought to mean "anything that's not a metal", and you want to be as inclusive as possible. But I would imagine that most authors who talk about "metalloids" do not think that they are clearly closer to one side or the other as you state by talking about their "predominantly nonmetallic chemistry". Otherwise they would probably not be using the intermediate category "metalloid" at all. And BTW, doesn't "predominantly nonmetallic chemistry and weak acidity" equally well describe rhenium?
  • The rest (on the ephemera) is fine, we've discussed that already.

General properties, Physical

  • First paragraph is fine. I notice from the note that Mn actually has lower conductivity than As; this overlap seems interesting enough to mention. (It rather supports some points about how it is difficult to draw a clear line.)
  • It would be nice to give some explanation for why the nonmetals vary so much in internal structure and bonding arrangements. I wrote such a thing at Periodic table#Metallicity. I know you have something in the last paragraph, but even once the metals have been taken apart from the nonmetals, there's still a massive variety in the latter. The reader probably wants to know why antimony and neon are so different.
  • In grey As and Sb we do not just have weak metallic interactions between layers, we actually have metallic conductivity in three dimensions. (True, much more anisotropic in As than in Sb.) So really they are not so much examples of physical properties of nonmetals, but rather examples of how elements that are physically metals can end up getting excluded by some authors if they have enough chemical weaknesses. (BTW, by that logic, even Sn (noting the grey allotrope), Bi and Po would be within scope, something like how N, Zn, and Rn are highlighted in one of the tables in metalloid as examples of the net being "cast very widely" at times. See e.g. here for a remark about Sn.)
  • Probably worth mentioning that graphite is only really a good conductor in 2D. Its properties and structure are quite anisotropic.
  • Because carbon has two very well-known allotropes, I think that for clarity you should explicitly say that you are talking about graphite, rather than just using the hatnote at the top.
  • Re the last paragraph, even in metals the electrons are not fully delocalised. Firstly not all metals are close-packed, and secondly not even caesium has a spherical Fermi surface. There is rather a continuum. (Which might help in handling cases like grey As.)

General properties, Allotropes

  • Really this should be discussed before physical properties. Physical properties of an element (really, its simple substance) vary significantly between its allotropes (e.g. diamond vs graphite, white vs red phosphorus). Chemical properties are not limited to the simple substance, though.

More later. Double sharp (talk) 12:24, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Double sharp for your careful reading of the article.
At the outset, I've relocated the hatnote about << the elements in their most stable forms >> to the top of the article, as I suspect this may address some of your concerns.
Lede
  • Nonmetals are usually described in terms of their physical and chemical properties, hence the mention of a physical property (density) and a chemical property (EN). 3D electrical conductivity is mentioned later in the distinguishing criteria section.
  • Earth's crust: I've changed this so that the passage now reads, "Five nonmetallic elements—hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, and silicon—collectively make up most of the Earth's crust, atmosphere, oceans and biosphere."
Definition and applicable elements
  • First sentence: Changed to, "In general, a nonmetal is a chemical element that can be characterized by low density and high electronegativity."
  • Basic oxides: The full passage is, "...and a tendency to produce basic oxides when combined with oxygen.[3] For the first 96 elements, I understand that most of the 73 metals are capable of forming basic oxides.
  • Treating metalloids as nonmetals: I have changed this to read, "... due to their predominantly nonmetallic chemistry and weak acidity,[9] and for comparative purposes:
General properties, Physical
  • First paragraph: Thanks; I'd never noticed that and will add a footnote.
  • Variation in structure and bonding: @Double sharp: As requested I've added a paragraph about this. --- Sandbh (talk) 05:17, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Grey As and Sb etc: I understand that grey Sn (a semimetal), Bi and Po form cations in aqueous solution within the normal range of pH values, whereas this is not so for As and Sb.
  • Graphite: Now reads, "... good electrical and thermal conductivity is seen only in carbon (as graphite, along its planes), arsenic, and antimony.
  • Last para.: the relevant passage now reads: "… the outer electrons are expected to become relatively free to move between atoms ...
General properties, Allotropes
  • I believe this has now been addressed with the relocation of the aforementioned hatnote to the top of the article.

--- Sandbh (talk) 05:36, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity, I'm writing my responses to this below rather than inline. If I don't respond to a point, I'm happy with your response. :) (Though in some cases it seems you may have forgotten to update the article, e.g. there's still no "relatively" in "the outer electrons are expected to become relatively free...".)

  • I understand your intention, but my point is that density and electronegativity don't really manage to clearly give you the set of elements that you're planning on talking about by themselves from the start. As I remarked above, if we consider each criterion separately, we get issues like Li (low density but low EN) and Au (high density but high EN). Furthermore, Ge has higher density than Ti (clearly a metal), and about the same electronegativity as Po (by band structure a metal, even if chemically very weak). Whereas the 3D conductivity criterion pretty much gives you almost exactly the set that people actually talk about, with some exceptions when the chemistry makes the classification a bit more awkward. What I'd rather say is that 3D conductivity generally gets you the set of elements that people consider nonmetals, but that authors differ near the borderline, and that other criteria like density and EN have been brought in.
  • The crust and atmosphere are so different chemically that considering them collectively might confuse the reader, I think. As for the oceans, once you get past the obviously dominating H2O, it's suddenly not clear who's dominating because Na+, Mg2+, K+, and Ca2+ are as ubiquitous as Cl− and SO42−. I think the real key point that needs a better expression is that very many of the really famous, common, and biologically important elements in the first few rows are nonmetals – though I guess here a corrective is needed to point out that some metals rival them (Na, Mg, Al, K, Ca, Ti, Fe), and that a few nonmetals are very rare (Se and especially Te).
  • Re basic oxides, take chromium for example: it's quite reducing in the +2 state, which is the only oxidation state where it forms a basic oxide. To really make it a tendency, I think we would need to show that the basic oxide is the oxide that is most stable, at the very least. By my count, the elements where you get a basic (not amphoteric) oxide in one of the most stable oxidation states are (stopping at 96 like you do): Li, Na, Mg, K, Ca, Mn, Fe, Co, Ni, Cu, Rb, Sr, Y, Ru, Pd, Ag, Cd, Cs, Ba, La, Ce, Pr, Nd, Pm, Sm, Eu, Gd, Tb, Dy, Ho, Er, Tm, Yb, Lu, Pt, Hg, Tl, Fr, Ra, Ac, Th, Pa, U, Np, Pu, Am, Cm. This is 47/96, so just under half; and one could argue that effectively it is a bit lower because for a few elements here there are multiple similarly stable oxidation states and only one gives the basic oxide (Mn, Fe, Ru, Pt, U, Np). Also, it seems to me that the main reason it even gets this high is simply that there are an awful lot of rare earths, and they're all similar to each other; a bunch of well-known metals aren't in this list. (Happy to explain my reasoning for any of the inclusions or exclusions. One could widen the bounds of amphotericity somewhat, but then we'd lose even more elements, e.g. you could make a reasonable argument that I shouldn't have included Cu, Cd, Yb, Lu, or Hg.) The point is that many metals form an amphoteric oxide, either instead of, in preference to, or at least in addition to a basic oxide, and this isn't even behaviour that's confined to metals near the borderline. Noting that amphotericity means showing both basic and acidic properties, it seems to me that this tendency is not so clear.
  • Do most sources agree that metalloids have predominantly nonmetallic chemistry? Does Rochow think that metalloids are nonmetals, or not? (His view would be more significant if he didn't, on the grounds that authors who think metalloids are nonmetals would be more inclined to define "nonmetallic behaviour" in a way that naturally includes them, but authors who think metalloids are a halfway house would be more inclined to be stricter.) And like I said, what about rhenium? It has essentially no cationic chemistry (this article on its Pourbaix diagram cites Cotton & Wilkinson for that statement), and its aqueous chemistry is dominated by oxides and oxoanions. That seems quite like antimony, yet nobody thinks Re is a metalloid. That suggests that the stated reasoning for why metalloids are being considered nonmetals is incomplete.
  • The section is on physical properties. Cation formation is a chemical property. Moreover, it is not even a property that is definitive for being a metal, as evidenced by things like Re; and polonium forms both a simple cation (Po2+) and a simple anion (Po2−) in aqueous solution. I've at least seen some ambivalence about Po as a metal, e.g. A Dictionary of Chemistry says that "the nearest approach to metallic character [in group 16] is the occurrence of 'metallic' allotropes of selenium, tellurium, and polonium" with the scare quotes. Kitaigorodsky says "it is not clear whether polonium is a metal or a nonmetal", that "of the two dramatically different polymorphic modifications of tin only one (β-Sn) can be classified as a metal", and calls B, Si, Ge, Sb, Te, and Po the metalloids.

Double sharp (talk) 12:06, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Double sharp:
Headsplap! I've rechecked the earlier updates and they should now all be there.
  • Density and EN: Per my response to your chat with JJE, above, density and EN (together) work well to give the set of elements within scope of the article. Could you please also refer to the table of Metals and nonmetals sorted by density and electronegativity (EN), in the "Suggested distinguishing section"?
  • Crust and atmosphere: These two are mentioned in summary form in the lede, with the detail set out in the Abundance section of the article. The risk of confusion about differing chemistry should be low. The topic sentence of the paragraph in question conveys the idea that this paragraph is about abundance (not chemistry). The latter has already been summarized in the immediately preceding paragraph of the lede. I’m not clear as to the relevance of Na+, Mg2+, K+, and Ca2+, and Cl− and SO42− since the oceans are ca. 96.5% H2O (and the crust is ca. 74.3% Si and O).
  • Basic oxides: For now, I've changed this from "tendency" to "general capacity". There are no basic nonmetal oxides AFAIK.
  • Metalloids and predominately nonmetallic chemistry: I don’t know if "most" sources say so without reading all relevant sources. I do know that it has been known for over 120 years that metalloids have a predominately nonmetallic chemistry (Newth 1894; Friend 1914). On the talk page for this nomination I've listed about 20 extracts from the literature (including Rochow) referrring to the nonmetallic chemistry of metalloids (1894–2016). Rhenium has too high a density.
  • Cation formation: There is no mention of this in the "Physical properties" subsection. I agree it is not a definitive property. Po has a truly metallic band structure (no semiconducing allotrope/s). It forms the rose-coloured Po2+ cation in solution, displacing hydrogen in the process. The oxide (PoO2), which assumes the fluorite structure more typical of ionic compounds/metallic oxides, is predominately basic in nature. I see no credible basis to count Po as other than a post-transition metal. It could also be expected to show significant nonmetallic character, as is normally the case for metals in, or in the vicinity of, the p-block.
—- Sandbh (talk) 10:44, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • See above re my first point. Is taking out these two criteria in particular then a common thing to call a definition, or do sources typically recognise these as two among many properties?
  • Well, if these ions are not relevant, then it seems to me that all you are saying when you refer to Earth's oceans is that water is H2O. If that is truly all there is to the statement, then it seems less confusing to say that water (which is after all the one chemical formula approximately everybody knows) is the most familiar compound containing only nonmetals. As for the crust, while O and Si dominate, the fact that the next seven most common elements in it are all metals – and only then does H appear (C and N are even further down) – seems to mean the statement needs rewording to avoid giving the reader a wrong impression.
  • No, but amphoterism (which means having both basic and acidic properties) is not unknown among nonmetal oxides. Consider GeO, Sb2O3, I2O. The middle one is even in the most stable oxidation state for that element.
  • Are these 20 extracts representative of the majority view? The fact that metalloids are often included in organometallic chemistry suggests that there may be more nuance to it.
  • PoO2 is amphoteric, it reacts with OH− or NO3− to form polonite.
  • Regarding the last two points: in these sections you are talking about one kind of property. You talk about chemical properties as the reason why metalloids are included: but since these equally well apply to Re, it seems that something needs to be said about density, which the article does not do at that point. (And Sb and Te are not exactly light.) Meanwhile, you indeed only talked about physical properties, to which I commented that by physical properties alone As and Sb were rather examples of physical metals that did not really belong in the discussion the way you had them; they are really examples of physical metals which often get excluded because their chemistry is too unusual for metals. You are the one who countered with cation formation, which is why I responded to that!
  • It seems to me from this discussion that the article is attempting to offer a definition of nonmetal based on multiple criteria: nonmetallic chemistry, density, electronegativity. So my question from the beginning is: is it a common thing in RS to take out exactly these tendencies of nonmetals and make them the criteria? My impression is that it is not. If anything, my impression is that people hardly ever actually give criteria and the term is used loosely, unless the author is using the band-structure criterion that's common for physics. And if a criterion is given, it may well be immediately self-contradicted, like here where nonmetals are defined by having 4–7 electrons in their outermost shell, and then Sn and Pb (which fit that definition) are then inexplicably put in the list of metals. Or Steudel, who uses the electrical conductivity criterion, says that C and As fit this definition, and then goes on to admit that actually, those two have an allotrope that fits it and another allotrope that doesn't. (The situation for Sb is not clearly treated; there is a nonmetallic black allotrope of antimony, but it's less stable than white phosphorus. Maybe this is why he thinks Sb and Bi are "purely metallic" in section 10.1.) Indeed, sometimes (Sherwin and Weston 1966) it's used so loosely that the same element (Sb) is called a metal and a nonmetal on two different pages. In which case the article should rather be talking about common and less common inclusions like Metalloid does, rather than attempting to rationalise a situation that the literature may not even be rationalising. The rationalisations are also used to exclude elements that some RS do call nonmetals, which again is not what FA metalloid does: that one mentions quite a lot of rarer inclusions in passing or even in detail, even when they are quite uncommon like C and Al. So I have concerns about the article's philosophy at this point. Double sharp (talk) 11:09, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Double sharp:
Philosophy:
The intended scope of the article is elements that are always/mostly or sometimes counted as being nonmetallic. Hence the lede image shows the elements that are always/mostly or sometimes recognised as such, with the last category being the elements most commonly recognised as metalloids.
RS:
  • commonly list multiple varying but overlapping properties of nonmetals;
  • differ as to what and how they count elements as being nonmetallic; and
  • (as noted in the article) lack a universally accepted definition of a non-metal.
About two dozen RS have suggested as many different single criteria to delineate between nonmetals, with results that vary at the margins.
Emsley pointed out the complexity of the task, asserting that no single property alone can unequivocally assign elements to either the metal or nonmetal category
So, the article notes that the numbers of elements involved typically ranges from 14 to 24.
Given the scope of the article, the aim was to generally characterize the nonmetallic elements using one physical and one chemical property. It so happened that low density and high electronegativity gave a good general class portrait. I suppose this is not surprising given there are eleven gaseous nonmetallic elements and that nearly all nonmetallic elements are located towards the top right of the periodic table.
Even so, the article makes clear that the family portrait is not frozen in print, with the article’s use of words and expressions such as, "generally", "predominantly located" and "primarily occupied".
In my experience about 50% of textbooks include specific lists of metalloids and of those Al was counted as a metalloid 9.3% of the time. Thus, Al is counted as a metalloid about 5% of the time and as a metal 95% of the time.
If you like, there may be room for an "Outliers" sub-sub-section at the end of the Metalloids section. This could address Po, Al, C, Bi, Be, Sn, Ga and Pb, all of which have been identified as metalloids in at least one source, per the Lists of metalloids article.
That could perhaps address your philosophical concern, without unduly encumbering the article.
--- Sandbh (talk) 00:51, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from YBG

edit

I cannot find the pace where this was discussed here, so I’ll register by disagreement to two recent changes:

  • special:Diff/1180516134 characterized —> that can be characterized— seems unnecessarily wordy
  • special:Diff/1180514553 moved the properties of the most stable forms in ambient conditions unless otherwise mentioned from section hatnote in the appropriate context to the dab hatnote at the top where in my experience only specifically disambiguating info is shown. Unless there is another page that treats the less stable allotropes, or non-standard conditions, the extra phrase does not belong in the dab hatnote at the top.

YBG (talk) 05:25, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you YBG.
  • This change was made in response to Double sharp's criticism (above) about the first sentence of the Definition and applicable elements section.
  • I've relocated the hatnote at the top of the article to the top of the Definition and applicable elements section, and reworded it accordingly.

--- Sandbh (talk) 05:55, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ta YBG (talk) 14:06, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of notes:

  1. Some time back I recall reading the article and thinking it was vaguely implied that the metalloids are main or only reason for NM lists varying. I’m definitely not asking for any change in the article, but I wonder if you could let me know if this is so, and if not, what are the non-metalloids that straddle the fence? Again, this is just personal curiosity and definitely NOT a request to change anything.
  2. Could the lede avoid stating anything about whether properties are characteristic or not? Here’s a possible idea:
    Current
    A nonmetal is a chemical element generally characterized by low density and high electronegativity (the ability of an atom in a molecule to attract electrons to itself). They range from colorless gases like hydrogen to shiny solids like the graphite form of carbon. * * *
    Proposed
    Nonmetals - chemical elements other than metals - generally have low density and high electronegativity (the ability of an atom in a molecule to attract electrons to itself) and range from colorless gases like hydrogen to shiny solids like the graphite form of carbon. * * *

Just a thought, not fully formed. Definitely needs input from other reviewers. YBG (talk) 14:01, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks YBG. You may read have a passage in the lede that says, "As some elements have a marked combination of metallic and nonmetallic properties, lists of nonmetals typically vary from 14 to 24 members."
I've changed the lede to say:

A nonmetal is a chemical element generally characterized by, among other properties, low density and high electronegativity (the ability of an atom in a molecule to attract electrons to itself).

I feel there should be no surprise here given 11 nonmetallic elements are gases, and that nearly all nonmetallic elements are found towards the top right of the PT, where EN values peak.
There has to be some way of capturing the scope of the article and this seems to be (a) accurate, with wriggle room provided by the "generally"; (b) relatively inclusive; (c) balanced; (d) concise; and (e) congruent with the location of nonmetals in the PT.
--- Sandbh (talk) 03:41, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overall evaluation
edit

First of all, two caveats: I am coming to this party late, and recognize that consequently owe an apology and should have no expectation that my concerns receive the same attention as those who engaged earlier. And second, I have been reviewing it without specificity referring to the criteria; just my general familiarity with WP policies, with the subject matter, and with what makes an article readable.

I am generally pleased with the state of this article. Occasionally there is some clumsy wordiness caused by the need for precision and a worthy desire to avoid making generalizations that are false for one or two of this harlequin collection.

I have one major concern and a number of suggestions. I would have had many more suggestions, but where I could see a simple path forward and I thought the likelihood of disagreement slight, I simply edited the article.

I am leaning toward recommending promotion. What will push me over the top is:

  1. A resolution of my major concern, either by the article being changed or by one or two reviewers giving good reasons why this should not be a concern.
  2. An acceptance of the topic sentence by most or all reviewers. I’ve offered a suggestion below which I think might be an improvement and might alleviate any remaining concerns.
  3. A resolution of my remaining suggestions, either by the idea being implemented or by the nominative giving a reason why it should not be.

YBG (talk) 06:22, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Biggest concern
edit

My biggest concern is related to the pairing of nonmetal classes with a “complementing” set of metals.

  • The pairing of nonmetal classes and metal classes is a beautiful and symmetric, but I suspect it is a bit fringe to be so prominently displayed in this article. There are RS listed in the pictures that presumably show that a given author compared a specific nonmetal category with a specific metal category. But the sources are different for each one.
Let me draw a comparison. In Classical Planet § Alchemy we see a list of planets and corresponding metals. The entire set of pairings is well attested in RS.
But what if I only found one RS that compared the Sun to gold, a different RS that compared the moon to silver, and a third that compared Mercury to mercury, and a fourth that compared Venus to copper, a fifth, Mars to iron, a sixth, Jupiter to tin, and a sixth, Saturn to lead? In this case, I believe it would be violate WP:SYNTH to prominently display the whole set of pairings as though it were some sort of organizing principal.

The pairings of nonmetal categories with metal categories appears to be this same sort of synthesis, and so I say, no matter how beautiful and symmetrical this is, it does not belong in a WP article. I would be very interested to know what other reviewers think of this concern. YBG (talk) 06:22, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Graham Beards, Michael D. Turnbull, Jo-Jo Eumerus, Double sharp, and Sandbh: Please consider commenting on this. I will consider this concern resolved if either (1) the nominator removes the info about complementary sets of metals, or (2) no other reviewer voices a concern about this, or (3) one other reviewer gives what they (not me) consider is a good reason that this is not a concern. YBG (talk) 13:37, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your concern. Not only is each comparison cited to a different source, but the last one (unclassified to transition) is straightforwardly SYNTH (see ref. 158; neither source quoted actually spells out the connexion). Double sharp (talk) 14:11, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus, Double sharp, and YBG: I've added a citation that mentions the four complementary sets. --- Sandbh (talk) 03:55, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT says
A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. Verifiable and sourced statements should be treated with appropriate weight. (emphasis added)
Citing your own article suggests that someone as well read as you could find no other RS that organizes things this way, which seems to prove my point: this is a novel idea not yet ready for WP. I suggest that it is best to leave it out for now. In a few years, if this organizing scheme is as useful as it is beautiful, other authors will pick it up and it can be included with no objection. YBG (talk) 04:28, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you YBG.
There is nothing "novel" in this.
The background to the complementing sets is that the pairing of metals and nonmetals, and alkali metals and halogens, forms a foundational technique in chemistry education:
... we focus mainly on the gross structure – the metals are here, the non-metals are there, and so on. Once they have grasped this, you can start to show that there's some order to it. We talk about the Group 1 alkali metals and start to see that they're all similar in some way. Then at the other extreme there are the ...halogens. The idea that the table shows us how to group similar elements starts to come together in this way.
Niki Kaiser (2019)
Notre Dame High School, Norwich, UK
There is a long history in the literature of complementing sets, for example:

What, in general, is the difference between active metals, less active metals, less active non-metals, active non-metals, and inert gases…?

--- Friedenberg EZ 1946, A Technique for Developing Courses in Physical Science Adapted to the Needs of Students at the Junior College Level, University of Chicago, Chicago, p. 230
For more recent references there are:

Describe how groups of elements can be classified including highly reactive metals, less reactive metals, highly reactive nonmetals, less reactive nonmetals, and some almost completely nonreactive gases.

--- Padilla MJ, Cyr M & Miaoulis I 2005, Science explorer (Indiana Grade 6), teachers's edition, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, p. 27

Those [elements] classified as metallic range from the highly reactive sodium and barium to the noble metals, such as gold and platinum. The nonmetals…encompass the…the aggressive, highly-oxidizing fluorine and the unreactive gases such as helium.

--- Weller et al. 2018, Inorganic Chemistry, 7th ed., Oxford University Press, Oxford, preface
A similar pattern occurs along the periods:

Across each period is a more or less steady transition from an active metal through less active metals and weakly active non- metals to highly active nonmetals and finally to an inert gas.

--- Beiser A 1968, Perspectives of modern physics, McGraw-Hill, New York
The pairing of the noble metals and gases is mentioned in no less a reputable source then Wiberg.
The pairing of the post-transition metals and the metalloids occurs even in a popular science book by Adrian Dingle (2017) who has written extensively on PT matters:

[With] no-doubt metals on the far left of the table, and no-doubt non-metals on the far right ... the gap between the two extremes is bridged first by the poor [post-transition] metals, and then by the metalloids—which, perhaps by the same token, might collectively be renamed the "poor non-metals".

That just leaves the transition metals and the unclassified nonmetals, both of which are bridging in nature, as observed by Atkins, and Welcher.
I won't fuss about this; if need be it'll be easy enough to revert the complementing sets.
That said, could you please consider the following:
  • The long history of the idea of parallels among the elements between e.g. active metals, less active metals, less active nonmetals and active nonmetals.
  • The cited article was published in a reliable, peer reviewed journal.
  • It's been cited seven times by other authors.
  • Each complementing set has been cited in other reliable sources.
  • An encyclopedia, as I understand the nature of WP, collects and presents what is understood to be factual information, as is the case here.
--- Sandbh (talk) 13:08, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
New idea for 1st sentence
edit

I think the issues with the first sentence could be resolved by getting away from trying to define nonmetal and instead concentrating on description. Here is an idea:

The nonmetals are a set of chemical elements that are not metals; between 14 and 24 are included depending on the definition being used.

YBG (talk) 06:22, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Graham Beards, Michael D. Turnbull, Jo-Jo Eumerus, Double sharp, and Sandbh: Please consider commenting on this. I will consider this suggestion resolved if either (1) my suggestion or something similar is implemented, or (2) no other reviewer voices a desire for this change, or (3) one other reviewer gives what they (not me) consider is a good reason that this change not be implemented. YBG (talk) 13:40, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That seems good for me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:57, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree in principle, except that I'm not sure that all authors are even using definitions. To me, the word "definition" implies that (1) you are giving a set of criteria instead of baldly listing without explanation what elements you're going to include, and that (2) you then actually take that criterion seriously and include only elements that fit it. This, in my experience, doesn't always happen. (Above I gave examples. Even Steudel does not exactly succeed in (2), because of the allotropy problem.) I think it would be better to say something like A nonmetal is a chemical element that mostly lacks metallic properties. There is no universally agreed definition of the term, both because different authors prioritise different properties, and because some elements naturally fall at the borderlines. There is a general consensus on seventeen elements as nonmetals, though some authors may include more or less. The borderline elements are often called metalloids; some authors consider them a subclass of nonmetals, thus increasing the number of nonmetals further. Feel free to improve the wording, but I think this gets at the point.
(The seventeen are the "universal" 14, plus C, P, Se, which are only minority inclusions into the metalloids. They are the ones highlighted in the lede graphic, minus rare and unstable At.) Double sharp (talk) 14:24, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@YBG, Jo-Jo Eumerus, and Double sharp: Firstly, any concerns about the 1st sentence could easily be resolved by using either YBG's suggestion or that of Double sharp (plus the rest of the proposed sentences).
There are some other considerations however:
  1. The proposed 1st sentence describes by "negation" rather than by affirmation.
  2. Affirmative descriptions provide better clarity.
  3. The sources are about 50:50 between defining nonmetals as (i) elements either not having the properties of a metal or (ii) in terms of more specific properties.
  4. A description by affirmation would seem to be preferred.
I *quite* like Double sharp's set of words.
--- Sandbh (talk) 00:23, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, affirmative descriptions are better when there is an agreement between sources on them. But is there? Different sources are simply using different criteria. (And sometimes not actually following them.) At least I'd imagine that sources would agree that nonmetals are not metals. It is kind of already in the name. Planet offers a precedent: the first sentence says stuff everyone would agree with, and later in the lede it talks about different criteria people have used. (Compare, after all, the situation with how people treat clearing the neighbourhood and deuterium burning for planets. I do understand that planets are harder to define, because there's essentially no limit to how many we could discover and exoplanets have a way of upending our prior assumptions, whereas for elements it's another story because we're not going to be able to physically investigate bulk astatine soon, much less the superheavies. Still, the idea is similar, in that different people are prioritising different criteria.) Double sharp (talk) 02:22, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Double sharp: I suspect there is agreement between the sources in the sense that they all draw on (prioritise?) a few or several properties from the same big set of all properties associated with nonmetals. There are of course differences in just which few or several properties each author chooses. Does the question then become which few properties can do a reasonable job of more or less encompassing the big set? --- Sandbh (talk) 04:05, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sandbh: I don't think we should be the ones making that decision. I think we should rather give the list, which is mostly agreed on (modulo what exactly people make of metalloids), and then mention tendencies that people have used as criteria. Double sharp (talk) 04:07, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Double sharp: OK; if you feel there's a need for more tendency-speak in the article, that should be doable. --- Sandbh (talk) 04:26, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Other suggestions
edit
  1. Types. What is the difference between classifying metalloids “as nonmetals”[123] and “as a sub-class of nonmetals”[124]? Why not treat these two as the same?
  2. Abundance. I wonder if the chart could be expanded to include a row about the universe, with the H / He / O percentages. This would require some rewording of the chart header.
    Note: I have copy edited this section a bit, trimming unneeded wordiness and relegating the irrelevant details about non-ordinary matter to a note.
  3. Extraction. This would be a fun place to insert another PT extract, with five colors (for the five sources) and two shadings (solid for exclusively, striped for mainly)

YBG (talk) 06:22, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandbh: I will consider each of these suggestions resolved if either (1) you implement the idea, or (2) you give what you (not me) consider is a good reason not to implement the idea (or not to implement it now). YBG (talk) 13:46, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PS, I’m willing to help in any of these if you provide me with the needed data. YBG (talk) 13:50, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@YBG: I've implemented #1 and #2. I'll have to get back to you about #3. --- Sandbh (talk) 03:31, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Regarding a PT for extraction, I see several more-or-less equally acceptable resolutions:
  1. You state that you don’t think such a PT should be included.
  2. You implement such a periodic table.
  3. You provide the data and references necessary somewhere (article talk page? footnote? user TP? elsewhere?) so that other editors could implement such a PT.
  4. You simply state that you’d like to do this after this FAC is closed one way or the other.
YBG (talk) 11:24, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Coordinators

edit

@FAC coordinators: This has turned into a Peer Review and the FAC should be archived. It's not fair on reviewers or coordinators to expect them to wade through all this. Candidate articles are expected to be FA ready or very close at the time of nomination, but despite countless earlier nominations, it's not there. It some instances it's getting worse. See this in the Lead for example: "There is no universally agreed definition of the term... there is no universally accepted definition of a nonmetal". How many times do the readers need to be told? Graham Beards (talk) 14:54, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Graham Beards: Polite comments. With respect, I cannot control whether or not reviewers choose to do a line-by-line review, as I did with the TRAPPIST-1 FA nomination, which was promoted, after my review was acted on. Considerable signs of movement towards consensus to promote Nonmetal had occurred. There was a support from Mirokado; Michael D. Turnbull was inclined to support. YBG was inclined to support. Double sharp was neutral but was inclined to support subject to a few adjustments. No hard feelings. --- Sandbh (talk) 22:56, 22 October 2023 (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 David Fuchs via FACBot (talk) 18 October 2023 [5].

Galley

edit
Nominator(s): Peter Isotalo 18:29, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article about one of the most long-lived and important ship types in history. It's not that well-known today but it dominated much of Mediterranean (and European) maritime history for over 2000 years.

I've been working on the article on and off for over a decade, been through a recent peer review and I believe it's actually ready to get a barnstar. Regarding the length of the article, I just want to acknowledge that it's been discussed to some degree. I recognize that there are differing views among Wikipedians on ideal length, but my view is that the article is within the confines of WP:SIZE, especially since it's a somewhat unique ship type viewed by historians as having a continuous and unbroken history that goes back to around 700 BC. Peter Isotalo 18:29, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Avoid sandwiching text between images. You probably have a few too many images for the amount of text, particularly as the captions are generally quite long.
  • Don't use fixed px size
  • Suggest adding alt text
  • Captions need editing for grammar
  • File:Galley-knightshospitaller.jpg needs a tag for the original work. Ditto File:Kylix_Dionysus_on_a_ship_between_dolphins_530_BC,_Staatliche_Antikensammlungen_Munich_120637.jpg, File:Swedish_galley_(1715)-rambade.jpg, File:Dauphine-IMG_6926.jpg, File:Dauphine-IMG_6921.jpg, File:Venice_galley_rowing_alla_sensile1.jpg
  • File:The_Charles_Galley-Willem_van_de_Velde_the_Younger-2.jpg needs a US tag. Ditto File:Valcour_canadianarchive_c013202k.jpg, File:Monuments_of_Niniveh_-_Plate_71_-_Heidelberg.jpg, File:Peregrinatio_in_terram_sanctam_MET_MM6974_crop_1.jpg, File:Vroom_Hendrick_Cornelisz_Battle_of_Haarlemmermeer.jpg, File:Peregrinatio_in_terram_sanctam_MET_MM4640_crop_1.jpg, File:Battle_of_Lepanto_1571.jpg, File:A_French_Ship_and_Barbary_Pirates_(c_1615)_by_Aert_Anthoniszoon.jpg, File:Vroom_Hendrick_Cornelisz_Dutch_Ships_Ramming_Spanish_Galleys_off_the_Flemish_Coast_in_October_1602.jpg, File:Vittore_Carpaccio_-_Sant'Orsola_polyptich_-_Ritorno_Degli_ambasciatori-detail.jpeg, File:Morisot-Nova_Triremis_quam_dicimus,_Galere-detail.jpeg, File:Byzantines_repel_the_Russian_attack_of_941.jpg, File:Gouache_of_17th_century_French_royal_galley-side.jpg
  • File:058_Conrad_Cichorius,_Die_Reliefs_der_Traianssäule,_Tafel_LVIII.jpg needs a tag for the photo
  • File:Sloane_3584_f.78v_Turkish_galleys_in_battle,_c.1636.PNG: source link is dead, needs a US tag
  • File:Science_and_literature_in_the_Middle_Ages_and_the_Renaissance_-_figure_207.jpg needs a US tag and author date of death
  • File:Fernando_Bertelli,_Die_Seeschlacht_von_Lepanto,_Venedig_1572,_Museo_Storico_Navale_(550x500).jpg: source link is dead
  • File:AnthonyRoll-30_Galley_Subtle.jpg needs a US tag and has a malformed deletion request?

Oppose simply due to the volume of image issues. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:35, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. Everything seems reasonably straightforward to fix, but I have some questions:
  • I don't know what the practice is regarding image sandwiching. What's accepted and what's not? Can you point out examples of what's accepted and what's not accepted?
  • What does "tag for original work" mean?
  • Which US tag is required exactly? I'm just not up to date about which of the dozens of Commons templates that's expected.
Peter Isotalo 10:28, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The theory is explained at MOS:SANDWICH. In practice, Alexander Hamilton U.S. Custom House has quite a few images but largely avoids any issues, whereas Venice is of greater concern. (The tag at the top of Venice will help find more articles that someone has raised this concern about - unfortunately examples of articles with many images but done well are harder to find).
  • There is currently a tag reflecting the copyright of the photographer, but the thing being photographed itself potentially warrants copyright protection - a tag should be added indicating its status (eg it's public domain due to its age).
  • It's going to vary depending on the situation, and in particular the earliest date of publication. If you can demonstrate a publication (not just creation, see Wikipedia:Public_domain#Publication for definition) before 1928, {{PD-US}} will generally be most appropriate; if not there are many other possibilities. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:32, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Been trying to look at images that need US, original work and photo tags and I'm honestly at a loss as to which ones to use. I sense a pretty massive gap between what's accepted at Commons and what's required for an FA. Could you link examples recently approved FA images where I could simply swipe the formatting instead of trying to apply everything from scratch? Peter Isotalo 16:14, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify: images hosted on Commons are technically required to have tagging reflecting their status in both their country of origin and the US (when they are not originally US images). So US tags should be in addition to not instead of existing tags (eg File:Science_and_literature_in_the_Middle_Ages_and_the_Renaissance_-_figure_207.jpg will need fixing).
Here's an example of a properly tagged image from a recent FA. It is a photo of a 3D object (coin), so we need to be concerned with the copyright of the object itself as well as the photograph. So we have the PD-UKGov tag which covers the copyright of the coin. Then we have the CC tag covering the copyright of the photo. By comparison, File:Swedish_galley_(1715)-rambade.jpg has the CC tagging covering the copyright of the photo, but lacks tagging covering the copyright of the model itself.
Here's another example. This image is from the UK and uses a combined tag, PD-old-70-expired. This encompasses a life+70 claim covering UK status, supported by an author death date provided in the author field, and also a pre-1928 publication claim for US status, supported by a source indicating the image's inclusion in an 1836 book. By comparison, File:Byzantines_repel_the_Russian_attack_of_941.jpg has the life+70 component for country of origin but is missing the US component.
I'd suggest starting by identifying the earliest known publication for each of these works, and then using the Hirtle chart to match that to appropriate US tags. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:20, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Still confused about one thing here. Why is it okay for File:1820 two pounds obverse.jpg to not have a US tag? Peter Isotalo 09:35, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Both of the tags (PD-UKGov and CC) are indicated to apply worldwide, and therefore cover both UK and US status. In contrast, the life+70 tag explicitly indicates that an additional US tag is needed. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:28, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Thanks for all the helpful clarifications. I believe I've addressed all the specified issues. I couldn't find any info on the model in the lead pic photo. I'm quite sure the model is old enough to be out of copyright, but I just can't verify it.
I've only added alt text to a few images because I'm not sure if I've gotten them quite right. Please have a look and see if you have any concerns. If not, I'll just run through the rest. Peter Isotalo 14:50, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not generally necessary to include "image of", "photo of", etc, unless there is some significance to the specific medium. Otherwise good start on alts. Still some sandwiching going on. On licensing (outdent):
  • File:Dauphine-IMG_6921.jpg and File:Dauphine-IMG_6926.jpg list a date of "early century", which doesn't make sense
  • File:Battle_of_Lepanto,_1571_(by_Ignazio_Danti)_-_Vatican_Museums,_Gallery_of_Maps.jpg: source links are dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:23, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, take a look now. Just note that I'm editing in the dark regarding the sandwiching. The extreme smooshing WP:SANDWICH exemplifies does not exist in the article and there's no other guidance to go by. If you think there are still issues, please edit at least one of them directly so I get a sense of the results you're aiming for.
    I fixed the link to Archivio Scala in the Lepanto fresco. Just note that it's more of a sort of "further reading" type link, not where the image was lifted from. At least that's how the "reference" parameter is defined on Commons for the artwork template. Peter Isotalo 05:22, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Harrias

edit

At this point I'm going to oppose based on the quality of the prose. There are lots of little language issues that should have been resolved before a FA nomination. I take it the nominator isn't a native English speaker, and I would recommend withdrawing the nomination, getting GOCE to give it a once over, and then renominating. Harrias (he/him) • talk 13:58, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for highlighting the language snafus. I've tweaked them according to your pointers. I'm not sure what to clarify regarding oar systems, though. Can you expand on that?
    If I'm not mistaken, "there has been a wide variety of terms" is perfectly correct. The agreement is arguably with "variety", not "terms", but it looks like one of those examples where both would work fine.
    Yes, I think you're right on this, I blame the missing "a" for throwing me off. Harrias (he/him) • talk 21:06, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see any complaint serious enough to merit an objection or withdrawal. I see that you've done far more extensive comments in other FACs so I'd appreciate if you could provide more actionable pointers. Peter Isotalo 16:33, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In my opinion, the density of minor language issues mean the article falls well short of the "professional standard" required by Criterion 1a, and I'm unwilling to essentially copy-edit this article; that is not the purpose of FAC. If another reviewer is willing to do that, I'm more than happy to come back and review the article content once it is in a good enough state, but at the moment, I stand by my oppose. Harrias (he/him) • talk 21:06, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been through a few FACs. I've never had someone imply I can't be trusted to fix minor language errors without a copyediting chaperone. I'm kindly asking you to provide more than a handful of examples and to explain what you mean regarding the row/line/bank comment. Peter Isotalo 21:50, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    See WP:FIXLOOP. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:37, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

edit
  • Sources appear to be high quality and reliable.
    • Glete, Guilmartin, and Pryor, are all go-to experts on this subject (fwiw I studied under Guilmartin years ago).
    • The only question I have is Higgins - we generally don't cite master's theses - per WP:THESIS, "Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence."
  • I've always applied title case to books, even if the publisher didn't (for example, I look over at my bookshelf and see Pryor's book uncapitalized, but I'd still cite it as "Geography, Technology, and War" - there are cases where we apply house style regardless of what the author and/or publisher chose to do).
  • There are those who will request that all ISBNs use a standardized format (i.e., either all 10 or 13 digits) - not a hill I'd die on, myself, but something worth considering
  • Liddel & Scott and Mooney both need an identifier - typically for pre-ISBN books, an OCLC number will do
  • Footnotes all appear to be formatted uniformly. Parsecboy (talk) 15:58, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Higgins only supports the image itself and the caption describing it. Do you still consider it a problem to keep it?
    • Do we have a guideline on how to render source titles?
    Peter Isotalo 15:42, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Cplakidas

edit

Reserving a spot here, this topic is of interest to me. Constantine ✍ 17:32, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lede
  • Early 16th century galleys 'Early-16th-century galleys'?
  • Occasionally, much larger polyremes I would strike the occasionally here, the quinquereme was the main warship from the 3rd century BC until after Actium, for example.
  • The rowing setup was also simplified and eventually developed into a system called alla sensile add a date here (century would suffice)
  • This was suitable for skilled, professional rowers. This does not apply to the alla sensile only, but generally to systems where one man was placed per oar. I recommend moving this up, adding here that this was the reason why historically, most galley rowers were freeborn men and even citizens, contrary to the common perception of galleys using slaves (it is mentioned further down).
  • This was further simplified to the a scaloccio method... as before, add a date
  • Optional: mention that we have almost no remains of ancient galleys, whence a lot of our knowledge is speculative.
Terminology
Early history
  • the two-level galley as above, for consistency, 'two-banked'
  • Link ancient Egypt, Old Kingdom, Red Sea, Hatshepsut, naval ram, Carthaginian, Sicily
  • in a distinct split in the design of warships not entirely sure what is meant here
    • (See below).
  • and set trade vessels apart clarify that this was because trade vessels did not have rams
  • The Phoenicians used galleys for transports that were less elongated The 'that' appears to refer to the transports here
  • Carthaginian galley wrecks found off Sicily that date to the 3rd or 2nd century BC had a length to breadth ratio of 6:1, proportions that fell between the 4:1 of sailing merchant ships and the 8:1 or 10:1 of war galleys. This implies that these wrecks were not war galleys? I would make it explicit: 'Carthaginian trade galley wrecks'
  • The first true Mediterranean galleys when did these appear?
  • Not long after they appeared but the triaconters and penteconters were monoremes, so the appearance of the bireme is sprung over here. I would move the Shipbuilders, probably Phoenician, ... diērēs, or bireme here (as it is not directly followed up), and add a date.
    • Sources seem pretty clear that they could be both, at least the ones I've used. I've tried to rewrite the final paragraph of the section quite a bit to clarify development in a reasonably condensed way. I removed the mention of "trieres", though, since it was originally about later terminology which then got lost in further edits and moved "dieres" into a commentary note. And you're right about "Shipbuilders, probably..." This sentence probably caused most of the confusion since it was a thematic statement in an otherwise mostly chronological narrative. Peter Isotalo 09:43, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • penteconters disappeared altogether this is incorrect: penteconters fought at Salamis, and the smaller vessels of the Hellenistic era like the liburnians are arguably their successors.
  • In general, this section is a bit confusing: it appears to follow a division by civilization, but is not strict in doing so (e.g. Egypt, Phoenicians, then Minoans, back to Egypt, then Carthaginians and Greeks). I would argue that a chronological sequence makes more sense.
Trade and travel

Will pause here, will do the rest later. Constantine ✍ 10:03, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter Isotalo: sorry for the delay, real life is a bit unpredictable currently. I've stricken through the addressed comments above. Here is my review until 'Design and construction', which I hope to get done later during the week Constantine ✍ 19:52, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient and medieval warfare
  • until the middle of the 2nd millennium BC had no real distinction from merchant freighters. perhaps 'until the middle of the 2nd millennium BC there was no real distinction between warships and merchant freighters.' or similar?
  • The later Athenian historian Thucydides replace 'later' with '5th-century BC'
  • while making them strong enough the relationship between shortening the length of the ship and its 'strength' (which should be closer specified) is unclear
  • more advanced states 'advanced' is an unclear and possibly loaded term when referring to polities; I think what you mean something like 'more organized states'? I'd go a step further and expand on it, something like 'more organized states capable of dedicating considerable resources to naval construction and a more systematic pursuit of naval warfare'...
  • including the Battle of Aegospotami in 405 BC, which sealed the defeat of Athens by Sparta and its allies. Salamis as the most important trireme battle should be mentioned here as well. Personally I would leave Aegospotami out, but if it is included, some context is necessary, as the average reader probably won't know the combatants of the Peloponnesian War.
  • sizable states with an advanced economy to build and maintain see my comment above about 'advanced' states, perhaps move this there? I would certainly recommend moving the entire The trireme was an advanced ship that was expensive to build and to maintain due its large crew.... years of experience at the oar to before Triremes fought several important engagements, which might also provide a suitable intro, after oarsmen were mostly free citizens who had years of experience at the oar to go a bit into Athenian naval power and its impact on Athenian democracy as context for the conflicts after.
Hellenistic era and rise of the Republic
  • Hellenistic era and rise of the Republic add 'Roman' before Republic ;)
  • The successor states of Alexander the Great's empire link the Diadochi somewhere here, and introduce the term 'Hellenistic era' that is on the section title
  • Ptolemy II add that he was ruler of Egypt
  • are considered by modern scholars
  • which included massive naval battles with hundreds of vessels and tens of thousands of soldiers, seamen, and rowers add Ecnomus here as the example par excellence?
  • Nothing about piracy? The two-three centuries before Actium were a golden age of piracy. Would also give a nice way to bring in lighter craft into the narrative, like the hemioliai or the liburnians
Roman Imperial era
  • fleet arm is a bit modern? would simply strike 'arm'
  • After Augustus' victory at Actium, most of the Roman fleet was dismantled and burned would add the reason why: the Mediterranean was a Roman lake, and no other power had access to its shores.
  • Add also that Actium marked the transition from the Republic to the Roman Empire under Augustus
  • galley crewmen themselves called themselves duplicate and something is missing
  • 'liburnian' is English, so no italics necessary.
  • included a trireme as the Roman flagship I think it bears emphasizing the point that a trireme is a flagship, i.e. the heaviest ship of the fleet, whereas a century ago it would have been considered as a light craft at Actium.
Early and High Middle Ages
  • A transition from galley to sailing vessels as the most common types of warships began in the High Middle Ages (c. 11th century). For reasons of chronological consistency, I'd recommend putting this at the end of the section, after the early Middle Ages are covered.
  • Link Early Muslim conquests, Arab-Byzantine wars, Emirate of Crete, Siege of Chandax, Constantinople (and add that it was the Byzantine capital)
  • a buildup of fleet, 'a buildup of fleets'?
  • The genitive for someone from al-Andalus is 'Andalusi'
  • base for (galley) attacks is the parenthesis necessary?
  • on Christian shipping add 'in the Aegean Sea'
  • raiding...by newly arrived Muslim invaders if they were raids they were not invasions, nor 'newly arrived'. If e.g. the Aghlabid and Fatimid raids are meant, I would mention and link them (as well as possibly the pirate emirates like Bari)
  • A mention of the Crusades is missing, where naval fleets played an auxiliary, but nevertheless important role. Even beyond the Levant, the permanent debilitation of Byzantium through the Fourth Crusade for example is important in explaining Venetian and Genoese dominance in war and trade during the 13th-15th centuries, as well as the emergence of the Ottomans later.
  • The decline of Byzantine naval power from the 11th century on should be mentioned in the context of the rise of the Italian maritime republics.
  • Do we know anything about Carolingian warships?
  • A mention of Horse transports in the Middle Ages should be made as well.
Late Middle Ages
Transition to sailing ships
  • required to replenish food stuffs far from food, it was water that was the crucial supply (and another reason why they stayed close to coasts).
Early modern war galleys
  • Relink Constantinople to Ottoman Constantinople or Istanbul as the former covers the Byzantine period mostly
  • Outside European and Middle Eastern waters, Spain built galleys to deal with pirates and privateers in both the Caribbean and the Philippines is repeated later at The Spanish used galleys to more success in their colonial possessions in the Caribbean and the Philippines to hunt pirates
  • Together they formed the largest galley navy in the Mediterranean in the early 17th century. Can we have some numbers for reference?
  • Recommend briefly explaining what a galleass was
Introduction of guns
  • it was the galley that was favored by the introduction of heavy naval guns. would add an 'initially' before favored here, since a section above has already made clear that the galley would lose out in the end.
  • generalizing of bronze cannons perhaps 'generalization of the use of bronze cannons'?
  • those dependent on them 'the militaries dependent on them'?
Zenith in the Mediterranean
Decline
  • Analogous to 'Zenith in the Mediterranean', suggest naming the section 'Decline in the Mediterranean'
  • virtually no naval battles between other nations either. dubious; at the very least the Venetians and Ottomans would disagree, at least until 1717. If the during this period means the 18th century, then this needs to be clarified.
  • I would hesitate in calling either the Papal or the Hospitaller navies 'major sea powers'. They fielded a squadron at best, when Venice and the Ottomans had dozens of ships.
  • the galley corps 'the French galley corps' for clarity
  • Few large-scale naval battles were fought in the Mediterranean...Venice, the Papal States, and the Knights of Malta were the only state fleets that maintained galleys some of this is already mentioned previously, suggest consolidating this information here.
Northern Europe
  • In the Italian Wars and Under King Henry VIII add dates
  • Link Dano-Swedish War
  • The section is titled so as to cover Northern Europe generally and provides a general operational context; the '18th-century Baltic revival' section should probably be a subsection of it? There is considerable overlap between the two sections, and most of '18th-century Baltic revival' covers things that do not pertain to the 18th century, so a consolidation and striking of the second header might be in order.
18th-century Baltic revival
  • Galleys were introduced to the Baltic Sea in the 16th century but the details of their designs are lacking due to the absence of records. Is already covered in the previous section
  • Mediterranean style vessel 'Mediterranean-style vessel'

Requesting withdrawal

edit

Thank you for your comments and reviewing, @Nikkimaria: @Harrias: @Parsecboy: @Cplakidas:. Unfortunately, I need to request a withdrawal of this FAC unless someone wants to step in and take it over. I feel I won't be able to any real improvements to the article for at least a month, perhaps two.

There's been an unexpected and somewhat rare pile-up of off-wiki stuff that is driving my stress levels up way too high. It's not an issue with the feedback as such, and nothing serious in my life. Just suddenly got a whole bunch of stuff on my plate right now. To my great chagrin, they're more important than an FAC, even one involving galleys. 😏

I'd be more than happy to re-nominate at a later date and after comments are addressed. Peter Isotalo 13:43, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to hear that Peter but I understand and fully sympathize. If you need any input while preparing the next FAC, don't hesitate to ping me. Constantine ✍ 19:44, 18 October 2023 (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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 16 October 2023 [6].

I Am the Best

edit
Nominator(s): ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 14:03, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a K-pop song called "I Am the Best" by 2NE1. It is often regarded as a classic in the K-pop world with it being one of the most popular songs that went against the "cute" or "sexy" female stereotypes that were common amongst Korean girl groups around that time. In addition, it was one of the first Korean-language songs (after Gangnam Style) to make waves in the western world upon being featured in a Microsoft commercial, with various critics noting "I Am the Best" as one of the works that helped spread the Korean wave. This is my first featured article nomination, and was also the first article rewritten by me to be upgraded to good article status back in December 2020. After a large amount of edits since then, I believe this article meets FA quality standards. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 14:03, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First-time nomination

edit

GWL

edit

I don't consider myself a Kpop fan, but this is one of the few songs I'd listen to out of the blue; even with the continuous airplays it doesn't get old. Here to save this nom from entering the FAC void. I've put invisible comments to divide my comments based on sections. GeraldWL 07:40, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, thank you for all the feedback you've given for this FAC, I appreciate it a lot. I believe that I addressed all of your points—aside from the Justin Bieber thing, as I find it extremely, and I mean extremely, hard to believe that this song was originally a collab with Justin Bieber. The body of the article refers to it as an "alternate version" so I figured that would suffice. Best, ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 18:37, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's a good idea to use our opinion to alter what the singer herself has stated. There have been many unexpected collabs in the music industry, but they happened anyways, and this is no exception. Not-so-popular singers have seen collabs with famous ones, so I can't see where the impossibility is. The crucial word here too is "unreleased", the equivalent to deleted scenes in movies-- they were originally supposed to be there, but it was decided it'd be left out. It is best to stay true to the source, especially when it directly quotes the subject. I'll continue with some more prose comments after this is resolved. GeraldWL 03:21, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I should just stick to the source actually. Ready for more comments. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 03:38, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments #1: 04:00, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
* Sound review: please complete the rationale for the soundclip.
  • Image review: please complete the rationale for the mv. Ippan'[s comments seem to be resolved with the OTRS verification ticket. Free images seem to have proper licenses too. In the caption; "at Google Korea" might be excessive info
  • The exlink to the mv might be repetitive of the infobox exlink
  • Are there any more sources that can be archived?
  • Change url status to dead, ref 38. Make sure to check the other archives too, IABot can't seem to catch 'em.
  • If the video archives dont work use Ghostarchive
  • Add links to the website/publisher in refs: 10, 14, 16-18, 21, 22, 25-27, 29, 31, 32, 34-36, 38, 48-55, 59-61, 64, 65, 68, 74, 77, 80, 82 (Naver), 88, 89-91 (Naver), 92, 93 (SCMP), 96-98, 104, 107, 111, 114-116, 119, 121-128.
  • Change website to publisher parameter (or vice versa): 16, 22, 80 (Yonhap News Agency), 92, 104 (Fox), 107 (Capital London), 112, 117, 128.
  • Add publisher: ref 28, 110. Remove publisher in ref 108 as its identical to the website name.
  • Gaon Music Chart --> Gaon Digital Chart
  • "from the EP 2NE1 (2011) and Nolza"-- does the 2011 need to be specified here? I think it's repetitive given there's a release year just below.
  • "This article is about the 2011 single by 2NE1" --> "This article is about the 2NE1 single"
  • "for their self-titled second EP" --> "for their self-titled second extended play (EP)"
  • "it would be a more intense song, with a quick tempo (combining electronic music and hip-hop) and would be familiar to the youth who are used to clubbing culture." --> "with a quick tempo (combining electronic music and hip-hop), it was intended to be more intense and familiar to the youth who are used to clubbing culture."
  • "download via Recochoku"-- it's encouraged to use Template:Interlanguage link for links to other wikis
  • Here and in the lead: I think empowerment is overlinking
  • The last paragraph: the source states it was originally meant to be with Bieber, meaning it's not alternate. You can weave this in somewhere in paragraph 1, saying that like, "It was originally intended to feature Justin Bieber but was later omitted."
  • "They received awards for Best New Artist Video and Best Dance & Electronic Song with "I Am the Best"" --> "The song also received awards for Best New Artist Video and Best Dance & Electronic Song"
  • "and the song reached the top spot" --> "and reached the top spot"
Resolved comments #2: 05:52, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
* "by GG (Park Myung-soo & G-Dragon) feat. Bom" --> "by GG (Park Myung-soo & G-Dragon) and Bom". "feat." isn't the kinda word WP would abbreviate.
  • The Japan part is at a very awkward position. It's weird that it is combined with Korea even with the word "Elsewhere" (it'd make sense if it's in the second paragraph "Elswhere in Japan .... Meanwhile in the US"). But at the same time, combining it with the US would make the second paragraph too long. What I think you can do is have it be a separate second paragraph combined with the France part, since they only make up a couple lines, leaving Korea and US as having separate paragraphs since they have a more elaborate history.
  • You can also make it into one sentence: "Elsewhere, in Japan, the song was certified gold by the Recording Industry Association of Japan (RIAJ) for digital sales of over 100,000 units, but only peaked at number 37 on the RIAJ Digital Track Chart and number 53 on the Billboard Japan Hot 100." Add Billboard since it might be misunderstood as being RIAJ's chart.
  • "Microsoft Corporation"-- corporation is redundant
  • "Surface Pro 3 commercial" --> "Surface Pro 3 laptop commercial"
  • "As a result of increased exposure from the advertising campaign, the song reached" --> "It further increased exposure to the song, which reached"
  • "The song received airplay from radio stations in New York and Boston"-- NY or NYC?
The source just says New York
  • The second, third, and so forth mentions of the US can just be referred with the abbreviation
  • "After a three-day delay due to a scaling issue"-- what's a scaling issue?
  • Link Adidas, DVD, AK-47
  • "The music video has been called "extraordinary, intense and eye-catching""-- by who? Also I feel like this fragment belongs best in Reception.
Removed
  • Link glam punk, un-hyphenate it
  • "The group"-- it's awkward to start the section this way --> "2NE1"
  • Link Okinawa
  • Motorbikes is overlink
  • "was ranked the eighth-best Olympic live music performance of all time"-- by who?
By the Olympics
  • "in the drama Mr. Queen" --> "in the drama series Mr. Queen"
  • "for the 2019 Kia Forte by Kia Canada" --> "for the 2019 Kia Forte car by Kia Canada"-- add Kia Canada link
  • "GQ named it one of 24 songs"-- GQ dup link
  • "along with the intro to "Gangnam Style" to be released the following year." even with omitting "to be" it still holds the same message
Done all. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 05:29, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks much better now imo, so I'm supporting! This is a rare FAC where even entering the old nominations section doesn't attract multiple editors, so I'm glad to fill in the spot. Wish this article all the best. GeraldWL 05:54, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment

edit

Three weeks in and just the single general support. Unless this nomination makes significant further progress towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:05, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from Chris

edit
  • "integrates a variety of musical genres such as electro house, electronic and hip hop, complete with instrumentations of synthesizers" - I think "integrates a variety of musical genres such as electro house, electronic and hip hop, featuring synthesizers" would be cleaner
  • "and middle eastern inspired rifts" - pretty sure you mean riffs, not rifts
  • "achieving the number one position on the Gaon Digital Chart and garnered" => "achieving the number one position on the Gaon Digital Chart and garnering"
  • "it would be a more intense song, with a quick tempo (combining electronic music and hip-hop), it was intended to be more intense and familiar to the youth who are used to clubbing culture" => "it would be a more intense song, with a quick tempo (combining electronic music and hip-hop), and was intended to be more intense and familiar to the youth who are used to clubbing culture"
  • "praised it's energy" => "praised its energy"
  • "calling it "show-stopping" and further noted" = "calling it "show-stopping", and further noted"
  • "bound by the sound of other countries'" => "bound by the sound of other countries"
  • "Caramanica called 2NE1 powerful influence in the industry" => "Caramanica called 2NE1 a powerful influence in the industry"
  • "By the end of 2011, the song accumulated" => "By the end of 2011, the song had accumulated"
  • "As of October 2014, the song has held" => "As of October 2014, the song held"
  • On that last point, is it really as of 2014? The source seems to be dated 2020.....
  • "It features CL sporting a wrestler (complete with a sparkling WWE championship belt), futuristic and punk-inspired attire, metal-studded leather pieces, and unconventional hairstyles;" - does all of that relate to CL (even the multiple hairstyles) or are there some words missing?
  • "Jung Hae-in's character watches Son Ye-jin's casually dancing" => "Jung Hae-in's character watches Son Ye-jin casually dancing"
  • "It was featured in the season 10" => "It was featured in season 10"
  • That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:19, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your feedback! Done with all. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 21:38, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:56, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review (Pass)

edit
  • What makes these high-quality sources: Musicstax, Don't Bore Us, Dailymotion, PopCrush, Teenage Magazine, Capital FM, Bleeding Cool?
Removed Musicstax, Don't Bore Us, PopCrush and Bleeding Cool; I believe that Teenage Magazine is one of the most popular youth magazines in Singapore and Capital FM is one of the top 5 most popular radio stations in the UK. Kept Dailymotion as I kind find an alternative source for the nomination.
  • Conde Nast is included as the publisher in GQ refs but the other ones do not use the publisher parameter. This should be consistent.
  • Jon Caramanica should have an author link in ref 20.
  • There is usage of both Recording Industry Association of Japan and RIAJ in the publisher parameter in references. This should be consistently one or the other.
  • Billboard should be italicized in the title of ref 65.
  • Cumulative sales counts combining numbers from different chart issues are generally not allowed. A source directly stating the 3,795,02 sales figure would be required.

First-timer's spotchecks

  • These refs are dead: Ref 13 (Don't Bore Us), Ref 38 (Dailymotion), Ref 103 (Teenage Magazine). Refs 48-55 and most of the links in ref 128 redirect to the Circle Chart homepage. They should be marked as dead so people clicking on them are taken to the archives.
  • No close paraphrasing or source-text integrity issues found.--NØ 20:04, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed all. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 22:19, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, looks fine source review-wise. I have changed the date format to mdy consistently. If dmy or some other format should be followed according to the Korean system then let me know.--NØ 16:28, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47

edit

I was asked to do a review for this FAC on my talk page (here). I had initially refused as I did not have the time to do so, but I have freed up some time now. I will post a full review later on, but before I do that I have a few quick comments first:

  • Do you have an answer for Ippantekina's question about File:2NE1 I Am the Best cover.jpg as I have a similar concern about that.
  • I do not see the value in either of the images used in the "In popular culture" section. They seem more decorative than anything.
  • I have a comment on this sentence: (In 2021, CL revealed that the song had originally featured Canadian singer Justin Bieber.) It is just awkward placed at the end of the section as its own paragraph. This information should be integrated into the prose.
  • Just adding more context does not address my point. It is just randomly tacked-on at the end of the section. It should go in a spot that makes more sense, and it just comes across as random to have it brought up after the paragraph about the song's composition. Aoba47 (talk) 02:57, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a suggestion on where this could be moved to?
  • Lee Kyung-joon and Jason Robert are only mentioned in the "Credits" section, when they should also be discussed in the prose. I would also link mixing in both contexts as it is music jargon that some readers may be unfamiliar with.
  • I'd revise this part, (but only peaked at number 37 on the RIAJ Digital Track Chart and number 53 on the Billboard Japan Hot 100) as it is putting an opinion in Wikipedia's voice. This part is setting up an apparent contrast between the certification and these chart positions and emphasizing them as low when that seems more like an opinion than fact. This is pertaining specifically to the "but only" word choice, which I would remove and revise with something else instead.
  • For the "Awards" section, I would remove the table and present all the information as prose. Look at song FAs like "Your Power" and "Blank Space" which present this information as prose to see what I mean.
  • For this part, (starting with Bom's solo track "Don't Cry" on April 21 and leading up to a new mini-album), Bom's full name should be used since this is the first time she is mentioned in the article. Also, the prose should identify who is she in relation to 2NE1.
Fixed
  • There is an instance in the second paragraph of the "Background and composition" section where four citations are used so I would consider citation bundling to avoid citation overkill.
  • This part, (An empowerment anthem, its lyrics explore), is grammatically incorrect as it is calling the lyrics an empowerment anthem, not the song. The same is true for this part, (An empowerment anthem, the lyrics revolve), in the lead.
  • These parts are still not grammatically correct. Changing these parts to "the song's lyrics" does not change the problem. The beginning, dependent clause/description (An empowerment anthem) will apply to whatever is in the subject position and that is still lyrics so both sentences are calling the lyrics an empowerment anthem still. Aoba47 (talk) 02:57, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded
  • I have a comment on this part, (became one of the few non-English songs to have received airplay on American radio stations). This just does not seem true to me as I would have imagined by this point Spanish-language songs would have already received airplay on American radio stations.

I hope these comments are helpful. Apologies that they are all over the place. These are things I have noticed while doing a quick look through the article, but I will do a more thorough reading once everything has been addressed above. I just wanted to make sure that I had reserved my spot in this FAC. Aoba47 (talk) 22:44, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed all; as for the single cover, there is a OTRS verification ticket attached to the file. I kept the images in the pop. culture section as I believe the commercials (particularly the Microsoft ones) are a major part of the song's impact internationally. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 02:43, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the clarification about the image. I still do not think the other images are helpful. I just do not see how the image of the computer or the car help to further illustrate the point about this song being used in the commercials. I have left responses above. Aoba47 (talk) 02:57, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would link mini-album as readers may not be familiar with this concept. Also, why is 2NE1 marked as an EP and not a mini-album? I am curious because it has mini-album in one of its titles.
    • In K-pop, the terms mini-album and EP are used synonymously, but I removed mentions of mini-album in the prose as the term is not as recognizable outside K-pop.
  • I would separate the last sentence of the lead's second paragraph. It runs a tad long. I think it would benefit from breaking into two sentences.
  • This part, (elaborate sets, props, attire and hairstyles with unconventional aesthetics), is rather vague. The article goes into more detail and mentions things like glam punk, and I think it would be best to be more descriptive here while also being brief as this is the lead.
  • At the start of the "Background and composition" section, I have noticed a repetition of "new" in ("a new series of singles", "new mini-album", "promote a new single"). I am not sure this is necessary as I would imagine readers would assume that the group would be releasing new music as opposed to re-releasing old songs/albums. I would remove "new" from these instances.
  • It is unclear who is saying this information: (it would be a more intense song, with a quick tempo (combining electronic music and hip-hop), and was intended to be more intense and familiar to the youth who are used to clubbing culture.)
  • For this part, (They reunited for the mini-album's second single), it is not clear why "reunited" is used. Was the group separated prior to this song's release?
  • The prose in this part, (and was intended to be more intense and familiar to the youth who are used to clubbing culture) reads awkwardly to me.
  • The following quote ("opposite vibe") should be clearly attributed in the prose as it is not clear who is saying this.
  • For this part, (the song has been described as a powerful, energetic, self-confident anthem), it is unclear who is describing the song in this way.
  • The article says that electro house, electronic and hip hop are musical influences, but they are presented in the lead and the infobox as the actual genre. For genre, the citation would need to explicitly describe the song as the genre. Influences do not count.
  • For this part, (A Rolling Stone article noted), the author's name should be used.
  • I would be mindful of using too many quotes. I notice that this in the first paragraph of the "Critical response" section. I would avoid one-word quotes like "show-stopping", "manic", and "larger-than-life" as they can actually take away from the other quotes.
  • I am uncertain if "In popular culture" is the best section name. I am not sure what I would replace it with though.

I am sorry, but I oppose this FAC on the basis of the prose. As I read the article more and more, I am noticing more and more spots where I do not think the prose meets 1a of the Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. Apologies again as I appreciate the time and work you have put into this article, but I do not think it is ready to be a FA or for a FAC in its current state. Aoba47 (talk) 03:19, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed your points. Can you point out the spots in the prose that needs adjustments? I don't really feel like the prose is at a point where its so badly written, but there may be places where it needs fixing. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 03:58, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, but I must decline that request. I feel that listing out individual examples will just lead to a fix loop and I do not think that would be productive. I stand by my assessment that I do not think the prose is on the level expected of a FA. Two editors have supported this FAC for promotion so it may be the case that if this FAC gets more attention that a consensus may still be reached to promote even with my oppose. Aoba47 (talk) 15:43, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by FrB.TG

edit

Hello, Nkon21, and welcome to FAC.

  • "...featuring synthesizers and Middle Eastern inspired riffs." - there should be a hyphen after "Eastern" since "Middle Eastern" and "inspired" are working together as a compound adjective to describe the type of riffs.
  • "Various publications recognized it as an important work in the spread of the Korean wave around the world and has been ranked amongst the top K-pop works of the decade and all time." The second part (the song) of the sentence has a different subject than the first ("various publications"), but it currently reads as if "various publications ... has been ranked.." To solve this, I would add an "it" before "has been".
  • Apologies for butting in, but I take responsibility for that part. I had edited that part in the lead (in this edit) to avoid having two sentences in a row start with "It is/It was". I just wanted to clarify this as it is my fault. Aoba47 (talk) 18:12, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It was commercially successful in the group's native country, achieving the number one position on the Gaon Digital Chart." This is too verbose. "It was commercially successful in South Korea, reaching number one on the Gaon Digital Chart." also does the job with fewer words.
  • "The song was subsequently released in the United States on December 10, 2014 by Capitol Records and became one of the few Korean-language songs to have received airplay on American radio stations." - "subsequently" is redundant and the word "song" is repeated twice in close proximity.

Oppose. While I appreciate your commendable efforts to enhance the article's overall quality, I must express concern about the prose not meeting the FA standards. A quick scan of the lead paragraph reveals grammatical issues and sentences with complex structures, making them challenging to read. I recommend seeking assistance from an FAC regular or utilizing the resources available at WP:GOCE for copy-editing. Additionally, a peer review might be beneficial to bring the article up to the desired FA standards, as addressing these issues may not be feasible within the FAC process. Might I also suggest seeking the involvement of a mentor? FrB.TG (talk) 16:07, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]


  • I am sorry, but with two well-argued and adamant opposes it is clear that the article is not going to achieve a consensus to promote within the sort of timescale FAC requires. I am going to archive this and suggest Nkon21 take up the advice is FrB.TG's closing comments. The usual two-week hiatus will apply. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:00, 16 October 2023 (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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 16 October 2023 [7].

Paul Hunter

edit
Nominator(s): Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:59, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about one of the freshest snooker players who ever lived, who should have been a world champion before his untimely death. Three times a winner of the Masters the event's trophy was eventually named in his honour, alongside a series of tournaments. Hunter was almost universally beloved by all accounts. I do hope you enjoy reading about a very important player.Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:59, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

MyCatIsAChonk

edit

Lee Vilenski, all done, great job! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 20:37, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Lee Vilenski? MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 23:37, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by HurricaneHiggins

edit

Lead:

  • "A prolific break-builder, he made 114 century breaks..." Hunter played professionally for 11 seasons, making only 114 career centuries, amounting to just over 10 centuries per season on average. I don't think this can legitimately be described as "prolific" break-building.

Early career (1995–2000):

  • "His form that season elevated him to 12th in the 1999–2000 world rankings resulting in automatic qualification into the final stages of ranking tournaments for the first time, a position he retained for the 2000–01 season." It might be easier to note how many consecutive seasons Hunter spent within the top 16. Also he didn't retain 12th position in the rankings for two consecutive seasons, from what I can tell, so the wording of this sentence is misleading.
  • "For 1998, he was named the Snooker Writers Association's Young Player of the Year, still playing as a teenager." This is potentially confusing because Hunter turned 20 in October 1998; the previous sentence mentions his performance at the 1998 UK Championship, which took place when he was no longer a teenager. I would remove "still playing as a teenager" from this sentence.

Masters champion (2001–2004):

  • "After winning the championship, Hunter claimed he had sex with his girlfriend when he trailed 2–6, which had caused him to play significantly better." Readers who don't know the history of this match may think this was just a random girlfriend. She should be identified here as his future wife Lindsey Fell. This Guardian piece says she was then his fiancée: https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2006/oct/10/snooker.simonburnton We could also note that the encounter happened in their hotel room between sessions.
  • "The 2002 World Snooker Championship had Hunter lose to Quinten Hann. The 2002 British Open had Hunter defeat Ian McCulloch 9–4 in the final to win his third ranking event championship." The word "had" in these sentences feels off. I'd replace it with "saw" or otherwise rephrase. It might also be useful to note at which stage of the 2002 World Championship he lost to Hann.
  • "He trailed Ronnie O'Sullivan in the final throughout the entire match, being behind 1–6, 2–7, 6–8 and 7–9. However, Hunter won the final three frames to win the match. Making five century breaks in the match, the match was voted as one of the best matches of all time by Eurosport in 2020." Some grammatical issues here. I'd suggest the following revision: "He trailed Ronnie O'Sullivan 1–6, 2–7, 6–8 and 7–9 in the final, but won the last three frames for a 10–9 victory, making five century breaks in the final. In 2020, Eurosport voted the match one of the best of all time."
  • "He reached the second round of the 2004 World Snooker Championship, where he lost 12–13 against Matthew Stevens, despite leading 10–6 and 12–10 at various stages of the match." Suggest deleting "at various stages of the match" because the specific stages are identified.

It may also be relevant to note in the Personal Life section that Hunter disinherited his father Alan on his deathbed. https://www.standard.co.uk/hp/front/legal-dispute-after-beckham-of-the-baize-snooker-ace-cuts-father-out-of-his-will-6656350.html

That's it! HurricaneHiggins (talk) 12:50, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Vilenski, nudge. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:55, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I've been beyond unavailable for this. Shall take a look. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:34, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lee Vilenski, this is in imminent danger of being archived due to lack of response. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:20, 30 September 2023 (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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 12 October 2023 [8].

Diadumenian

edit
Nominator(s): Unlimitedlead (talk) 23:29, 30 August 2023 (UTC), User:Iazyges[reply]

Howdy, everyone. Apologies for my long absence from Wikipedia and FA: I had been hiking through the mountains of Canada (highly suggest Lake Louise, by the way) for a little over a month, in addition to going through some personal matters that have dwindled my motivation for editing. However, I plan to slowly but surely start being involved in the community again, so I hope y'all will receive this FA nom with open minds! Another collaboration between myself and the sage Iazyges, Diadumenian was declared augustus, ruler of Rome, at the tender age of eight/nine. Sadly but unsurprisingly, he was shortly thereafter executed. Have fun reviewing, Unlimitedlead (talk) 23:29, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass (t · c) buidhe 02:07, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MyCatIsAChonk

edit
Done. Unlimitedlead (talk) 00:57, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it typical to follow the years with AD? I ask this as I'm not familiar with articles about such old subjects
I think it is okay, but if not, I will be happy to ammend. Unlimitedlead (talk) 00:57, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • first proposed by ancient numismatist Curtis Clay, - false title
Fixed. Unlimitedlead (talk) 00:57, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unlimitedlead and Iazyges, I have no other comments, very good work! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:51, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MyCatIsAChonk: Thank you kindly for the review! Please let us know if anything else can be done to better the article. Cheers, Unlimitedlead (talk) 00:57, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - impressed by the speed! Excellent work to the both of you. By the way, if you get some extra time, I'd appreciate any comments here. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:58, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your support. I would be glad to take a look at the article and give some feedback. Unlimitedlead (talk) 01:01, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PCN02WPS

edit

Review to come. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 18:07, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • "the Roman Emperor Macrinus, and served" → remove comma
  • "brought to Elagabalus, and reportedly" → remove comma
  • "They were subject to damnatio" → although the emperors are the last potential "they"s mentioned in that sentence, the subject of the sentence (the Senate) still produces some potential ambiguity (though if I'm the only person bringing this up, I won't throw a fit about it one way or the other)
  • "Notably, some eastern provincial coins from the period" → "Notably" is a editorial word; recommend replacing it.
  • "on the obverse, and displaying Spes standing" → remove comma
  • "on the obverse, and displaying himself" → remove comma

That's all I've got, nice work. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 17:26, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@PCN02WPS: Thank you. I believe everything has been taken care of. Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:43, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome, happy to support. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 17:44, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

edit
Hi ChrisTheDude, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:08, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: - because there was such a massive block of comments right below mine, I was waiting to see what happened with that...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:09, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No problem Chris. Just checking. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:47, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UndercoverClassicist

edit
  • the son of the Roman Emperor Macrinus: with the the, emperor should be decapitalised per MOS:PEOPLETITLES.
Done. Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:54, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could we say a bit about how Macrinus went from declaring himself emperor to being one, and what Diadumenian was doing in Antioch at the time?
More has been added regarding Macrinus' accession, but I could not locate anything specific regarding Diadumenian's presence in Antioch. Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:09, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • a process called damnatio memoriae: pedantry, but this term is not Roman: called invites the misconception that it was called that at the time. Suggest known in modern scholarship as or simply now known as.
Fixed. Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:41, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • His mother was Nonia Celsa: suggest leading with what we know more securely, that she was Macrinus' wife: something like "his mother, Macrinus's wife, is named as "Nonia Celsa" in the Historia Augusta, though this name may be fictional". I'm sure it hasn't escaped scholarly notice that the description is pretty much a collage of descriptions of "good emperors" plus pretty (and usually doomed) boys from classical literature.
Done. Unlimitedlead (talk) 17:22, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem as such, but why omit that she was Macrinus' wife? Seems odd to exclude something we are fairly sure to be true in favour of something we suspect to be false. UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:20, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:41, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The unreliable Historia Augusta: we can be more nuanced than this. Suggest giving the idea a bit more space to breathe. The key ideas, in my view, are that the HA is much later than most of its subjects and is largely fictionalised: it's not even trying to be a wie es eigentlich gewesen reconstruction of the life and times of the people in its pages.
  • The Historia Augusta, a collection of biographies of Roman emperors: a bit of a nit-pick, perhaps, but not all of the HA's biographies were emperors: by its own standards, it was Vitae Diversorum Principum et Tyrannorum, with the tyranni being illegitimate usurpers. Some of those usurpers didn't actually exist.
I take your point but I do not know how I can adjust the statement without it becoming convoluted and unreadable. Unlimitedlead (talk) 14:18, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I left this one to think on it, and never got back to it. It does need to change, as it currently isn't true. The Oxford bibliography calls it a collection of biographies of Roman emperors, co-emperors and usurpers: there's a case to be made that "co-emperors" are covered under "emperors", and so that "of Roman emperors and usurpers" would be fine. I don't think those two extra words cause too much difficulty. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:02, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:06, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • the details of his physical appearance can be deduced from coinage and a description from the Historia Augusta: I'm not sure I'm happy with us being so credulous of either of these; Roman imperial coins (and portraits more generally) have a highly stylised visual idiom, and the Historia Augusta is never far from the line of fiction, and often veers pretty hard over it. Given that this is such a short article, I think we've got the space for a brief explanation to the effect that we have descriptions of his appearance in both of these, but that for various reasons, neither really means all that much.
Agreed; do you know where I can find reputable sources to back up these claims? Unlimitedlead (talk) 14:18, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would imagine that any introductory work on either imperial image via coinage or on the HA will make those points. I'm not in a position to find sources immediately, but happy to come back at this in a couple of days when I am, if you haven't managed to do so by then. UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:54, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not a fan of "Emperor Caracalla" vel sim as a title: it's a bit anachronistic (the Romans used the title from which we get the word, but not as such a strong adjunct to someone's name). Would prefer something like "the emperor Caracalla".
Fixed. Unlimitedlead (talk) 14:18, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a bit of potential confusion over the word caesar: under the Tetrarchy, it means a junior emperor, but I don't think it was anything more than an honorific generally given to presumptive heirs at this point. Perhaps worth an EFN, so that those who already know a bit about Late Antiquity don't get the wrong end of the stick?
The text says "...caesar – formalising his position as heir to the throne...", which I believe is clear enough. If you still feel strongly, I can perhaps find a way to work it in. Unlimitedlead (talk) 14:18, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't avoid the possible confusion - compare, for example, "Smith appointed Jones as vice-president for acquisitions, formalising her position as his successor": the job entailed recognition as a successor, but no reader would conclude that it only represented recognition in this capacity. In the same way, I think most readers who know what caesar meant will conclude that he was made junior emperor, and that being named junior emperor made him the heir of the senior one. UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:15, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Macrinus participated in a plot to have the Emperor: decap for consistency, and per MOS:PEOPLETITLES.
  • Suggest clarifying that "the Antonine dynasty" specifically meant "Caracalla", who was still wildly popular with the soldiers - indeed, that popularity was what did for Macrinus.
  • Before fleeing, he entrusted Diadumenian to loyal servants, instructing them to take him into the Parthian Empire, to the court of Artabanus IV, to ensure his safety: weren't Rome and Persia historic and rather implacable enemies? Do we know why Macrinus would trust Artabanus with his son?
  • Suggest briefly saying where Zeugma is, to give us an idea of how far he got.
  • They were subject to damnatio memoriae, with their images and mentions in inscriptions and papyri being destroyed during the reign of Elagabalus.: I think the picture here of damnatio as a complete erasure from the record is no longer in step with the scholarship. The general paradigm nowadays is to see it more as an act of conspicuous rejection: after all, the whole power of seeing a monument with a name scratched off is that you know whose name it is that's been so deleted.
  • Elagabalus ... dated his reign to the end of that of Caracalla: I think this would be a bit clearer if expanded and spelled out a little more.
  • Surviving busts of Diadumenian are mangled, with the facial features barely being discernible: do we know how many we're actually talking about here? If it's just one or two, it would be good to say so. Do we know how they're identified as him?
  • augustus are extremely limited, and the only known coins from this time are denarii: I think we really need to italicise both denarii and augustus; denarii is not really a naturalised English term.
  • first proposed by the ancient numismatist Curtis Clay: this is cited to Vagi; could we include in the footnote where Vagi thinks Clay said it? (e.g. Vagi 2000, p. 1, citing Clay 1970). More generally, I don't really 'get' the link between the titles on the coins, the denominations of the coins, and this hypothesis of a large minting-in-progress: perhaps a slightly slower explanation would be clearer.
  • We should briefly explain who Spes was.
  • We never actually explain what Augustus is or means: we use it to mean co-emperor, but that hinges on the audience's understanding of its "real" meaning. That makes the explanation of sebastos a little tricky.
  • Standard is linked as aquila. These things weren't quite the same thing (a legion had many standards but only one aquila): if it's a legionary aquila (eagle-standard), suggest clarifying as such.
  • Bibliography: a few thoughts.
    • Sources generally look fine, though Matthew Bunson's encyclopaedia seems a bit non-specialist.
    • I'm surprised not to see standard works like the Cambridge Ancient History mentioned at all. Of course, they might just have nothing of interest, but have they been consulted?
    • A few extras: There's a nice quote/factoid in this article which might be added: "The aureus of Diadumenian is one of the greatest rarities in the Roman coinage".
    • More substantially, there's quite a bit in this paper, particularly around his early life and a prophecy made about his future rule.
    • this Scott article also has, inter alia, his title as princeps iuventutis.
    • There seem to be two useful articles cited elsewhere, though I don't have access to them:- C. Clay, "The Roman Coinage of Macrinus and Diadumenian," NZ 93 (1979) 21-40, and P. Cavuoto, "Nome e titoli di Macrino e Diadumeniano," Ottava miscellanea greca e romana 33 (1982) 33.
    • Harry Sidebottom has a new-ish book out on Elegabalus: have you been able to get hold of that?

Hope this is helpful. As it's a (very) short article, most of my points are about making sure that it's truly comprehensive: to me, an FA of this length really needs to leave no stone unturned. UndercoverClassicist T·C 22:55, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

T8612

edit
  • The article is missing several sources. I concur with UndercoverClassicist on the lack of a reference to the Cambridge Ancient History for the context (even though there is only one mention of Diadumenian), instead of Bunson, which is a tertiary source. Curtis Clay's "Roman Coinage of Macrinus and Diadumenian" should be used as well. Ask for a pdf in the Wikipedia resource request.
  • Friedberg is not a reliable source to me on Roman numismatics. I expect to find references to the Roman Imperial Coinage (volume 4b), which is the standard work on the subject.
  • I have added thee pictures of coins in the British Museum. The one of Diadumenian is described here: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4422568 and for this reason I would use it in the infobox. The denarius is one of the very few of Diadumenian as Augustus. I added the refs from the RIC, format them as you wish. You can amend the captions, but I think it's more informative to tell about the coin, than transcribing the legend.
  • You cite the Historia Augusta, but you must tell that it's an unreliable work. T8612 (talk) 16:37, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:14, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note

edit

Unlimitedlead, Iazyges, this has had minimal attention over the past month. At the moment it is failing "Nominators are expected to ... make efforts to address objections promptly" badly. Help me out here, give me some reasons not to archive it. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:32, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: I reached out to Unlimitedlead about asking for an archive, so that we have an easier time introducing the sources that have been recommended, but I have yet to receive a response. I have no opposition to it being archived, as I agree that the new sources are necessary for FA quality. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:50, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]


@Gog the Mild Hey Gog, I have corresponded privately with Iazyges and we have decided to request that this nomination be archived. Iazyges is presently occupied with outside work, and I have been navigating some serious personal issues, so I believe I will be stepping back from Wikipedia for around a year. I hate to leave so abruptly with so much work I had planned, but I do not believe I can juggle Wikipedia with everything else on my plate. Apologies, everyone, and I will see y'all on the flip side. I am always available by email if anything should come up. Cheers, Unlimitedlead (talk) 17:17, 12 October 2023 (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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 10 October 2023 [9].

Electron backscatter diffraction

edit
Nominator(s): FuzzyMagma (talk) 10:10, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a scanning electron microscopy (SEM) technique used to study the crystallographic structure of materials.EBSD is a versatile and powerful technique that can provide valuable insights into the microstructure and properties of a wide range of materials. Hence, it is widely used in materials science and engineering, geology, and biological research. It is a key tool for developing new materials and understanding their behaviour under different conditions. FuzzyMagma (talk) 10:10, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First-time nomination

edit

Hawkeye7

edit

Very impressive. Some minor points to prove I read it (fixed one minor one myself):

  • "Typically they can not be easily used in modern SEMs with multiple designated uses" Comma after "typically"; "can not" -> "cannot"
  • MOS:STATEABBR: "In references and bibliographies, 2-letter United States Postal Service state abbreviations should not be used"
  • fn 29: Page number?

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:20, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind words. I amended as requested, although point 2, I am not sure if you mean changing NY to New York or something more? FuzzyMagma (talk) 12:37, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would change it to "New York". There is no pressing need to save a few bits. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:05, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did it earlier. Was just checking if you were pointing to something more. FuzzyMagma (talk) 21:32, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:05, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit

Didn't check the captions. I think that File:Overview of EBSD indexing procedure.jpg while freely licenced is a derivative work of another file here which is under a non-free licence. File:Indent Si.tif is from an arXiv - is it a reliable source for the file content? None of the images seems to have ALT text. The "Depth resolution" section may have some WP:SANDWICH issues. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:30, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • The authors are the same, Ben Britton and Angus Wilkinson, so I am not sure what rules apply here since the image is free from one source and not from the other one, under different journals but the same 1st and last authors
  • The Arxiv image is typical, you can compare it to the one from here (same link you posted previously)
  • Added ALT text, although mostly from the caption but replaced symbols and equations with words where needed
  • Removed one of the images from the "Depth resolution" section
let me know what you think FuzzyMagma (talk) 12:52, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think ALT text works better when it shows what the image looks like, rather than saying what it represents. I've sent the file to the Commons deletion process; if they keep it, it will automatically stay. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:24, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
contested image removed and ALT text added FuzzyMagma (talk) 20:00, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbh

edit

I read through the section called Pattern formation and collection.

I wasn’t able to follow the logical flow of the contents of this section, since the topic sentences for each paragraph don’t tell a story. Unfamilar terms are introduced (recall the trarget audience of WP is the general reader) without explanation.

For example, here are the topic sentences from the first subsection:

Setup geometry and pattern formation
"For electron backscattering diffraction microscopy, a flat polished crystalline specimen is usually placed inside the microscope chamber, tilted ~70° from Scanning electron microscope (SEM) original specimen positioning and 110° to the diffraction camera."

Grammatically, this sentence doesn’t make sense. And what does "original specimen positioning" mean?

"The phosphor screen is located within the specimen chamber of the SEM at an angle of approximately 90° to the pole piece."

Suddenly, the concept of a phosphor screen is introduced without any connection to the topic sentence of the previous paragraph.

"The systematically arranged Kikuchi bands, which have a range of intensity along their width, intersect around the centre of the regions of interest (ROI), describing the probed volume crystallography."

Ditto, re Kikuchi bands.

"If the system geometry is well described, it is possible to relate the bands present in the diffraction pattern to the underlying crystal and orientation of the material within the electron interaction volume."

This one introduces “system geometry”. Where does that come from?

"While this 'geometric' description related to the kinematic solution (using the Bragg condition) is very powerful and useful for orientation and texture analysis, it only describes the geometry of the crystalline lattice."

What is the kinematic solution? What is the Bragg condition? What is "orientation and texture analysis"?

The rest of the section appears to suffer from the same problems. Sandbh (talk) 07:39, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • "For electron backscattering diffraction microscopy, a: fixed by separating to two sentences and replace "original" by "flat"
  • "The phosphor screen is located ..: fixed by introducing the concept first and change the wording to "EBSD detector"
  • "The systematically arranged Kikuchi bands..", Ditto, re Kikuchi bands.: this described in the sentence above it as it reads "The backscattered electrons form Kikuchi lines – having different intensities – on an electron-sensitive flat film/screen (commonly phosphor), gathered to form a Kikuchi band." no change
  • {{tq|"If the system geometry is well described,": changed "system" to "setup"
  • What is the kinematic solution? What is the Bragg condition? What is "orientation and texture analysis"?:
    • "What is the kinematic solution?": the whole sentence is moved to the "Pattern indexing" section. Wikilinked the word kinematic solution vs. the word dynamic later in the paragraph
    • "Bragg condition" is described and wikilinked earlier at "In this configuration, as these backscattered electrons leave the sample, they interact with the crystal's periodic atomic lattice planes and diffract according to Bragg's law at a range of scattering angles (θhkl)."
    • "orientation and texture analysis": that was descried in the sentence above it at "it is possible to relate the bands present in the diffraction pattern to the underlying crystal and crystallographic orientation". The word texture is wikilinked too
Commed and copyedited until the section of "strain measurement". FuzzyMagma (talk) 13:57, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I intend to give the next part of this article a look, likely towards the end of this week or over the weekend. Sandbh (talk) 08:21, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from RoySmith

edit
  • I agree with Jo-Jo Eumerus about the alt texts. I've taken a shot a writing one that I think is more descriptive. I hope I have accurately represented how this is supposed to work; I'm particularly unsure if "disk of diffraction cones in which the specimen is embedded" is correct, so please double-check that. Also T346835 :-(
    • PS, I confess I chose this image because it was the easiest to write a coherent alt text for. Most of the others will be more difficult to describe in this fashion.
      • thanks for doing that, now I know how to do it and will fix other figures in due course
  • Setup geometry and pattern formation
    • I (mostly) get why tilting the sample gives you more scattered electrons, but when I see "70 degrees", I want to know what's so special about that angle. Why did they pick 70 and not, for example, 45? It would be good to explain this.
      • The next sentence explains the logic of tilting, and there is a reference with detailed explanation and simulation of this at page 17 (the book is available for free). Also in the external links there is a link for software to simulate patterns while using different configuration. But the configuration that I used is vert typical and if you randomly open any of the paper that I have cited or any to be honest, they will use similar configuration as it reduce uncertainties when comparing results between different maps.
    • Likewise, why 20kV? I'm guessing it's some compromise between better resolution and blasting the sample to smithereens, but worth explaining.
      • see above. I will add that the text states that "The spatial resolution varies with angular width, interaction volume, etc".
    • The screen is coupled to a compact lens... It might be worth saying "compact optical lens" to differentiate it from what I assume are magnetic lenses which focus the electron beam. Or maybe handle that by saying "visible-light image" instead of just "image" later in the sentence?
    • removed the word "compact" as it indicate fibrous structure that is not there for CMOS cameras. I am not really not sure if the image is "visible-light image" or not. if you are confident, then please change it. As far as my experience with X-ray detectors, visible light has a different photon energy. The phosphor screen here is excited by the backscattered electrons.
  • image caption: I assume gnomically projected refers to Gnomonic projection. If so, link it.
    • yes wikilinked
  • EBSD detectors
    • Commercially available EBSD systems typically come with I would imagine this is rapidly developing technology, so {{as of}} would help here.
      • done
    • Link "binned" to Data binning? Oh, I see you link to pixel binning further down; maybe link to that instead, the first place it's used.
      • fixed
    • This enables very rapid and rich... Perhaps my personal hang-up, but delete "very"
      • done
  • Sample preparation
    • or 2 hours (50 rpm speed and 5N force) and using 7.5 keV dual beam energy for 15 min, with a gun angle of 8° good for a method paper, but perhaps an excessive level of detail for this kind of article? I'm assuming the ion beam polishing is done with a Ion milling machine; if so, link to that.
  • Depth resolution
    • Besides, even for a given definition drop "besides"
      • removed
    • Most reports on depth values do not mention a definition or present any rationale for the definition of depth resolution I'm not sure I get the point of this section. Who said "most reports"? Is there some survey paper which has evaluated the poor quality of the literature in not giving this data, or are you extrapolating (i.e. WP:OR) from the two reports you cite that "most" omit this data? In any case, how does it enhance the reader's understanding of Electron backscatter diffraction to know that the literature is deficient in reporting these things?
      • paraphrased, changed to "A recent comparison between reports on EBSD depth resolution, Koko et al indicated that ...". The Depth resolution is critical to know what exactly are mapping, as you are not mapping the immediate surface.
  • Pattern indexing
    • File:Overview of EBSD indexing procedure.jpg is up for deletion, but even if it wasn't, the text in the image is barely readable on my large desktop monitor. I would imagine it's totally illegible on a small screen. I know image quality isn't a WP:FACR, but if you can't read the text, it's hard to see how it meets MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE. Not to mention MOS:TEXTASIMAGES.
      • I agree, removed
    • then four (four choose three) votes will be cast, I assume we're talking about Combination, so link to that. My understanding is that while this is often pronounced "n choose k", it's not usually written that way, so consider writing it as C(4,3) or some other standard way (and still link to Combination).
  • As a FA newbie, I think I've gone as far as I can with this. This is clearly a highly technical subject. Looking at WP:TECHNICAL#Audience, I would put myself in the "knowledgeable reader" class. I have a good grounding in physics and understand the basics of crystallography, but to be honest, I'm having trouble getting through the article. Maybe that's unavoidable for a topic like this.
    Glad I could add some value. Us newbies need to stick together :-) RoySmith (talk) 20:51, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    done with ALT description :) FuzzyMagma (talk) 20:00, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

edit

There are no supports and no recent edits on this 3-week old nomination, if there is no progress towards promotion in the next few days it may need to be archived for inactivity. (t · c) buidhe 07:56, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

With little further movement towards a consensus to promote, I am archiving this. The usual two-week hiatus will apply.


@Buidhe I can see there is one support for now. I wonder if waiting for @RoySmith or @Sandbh to finish their analysis will give more support FuzzyMagma (talk) 17:40, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild closed it so you would need to communicate with him (t · c) buidhe 17:43, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild some clarity would help if you can and what I can do next. I am not sure if the lack of support is due to the nature of the article or something that I need to work on FuzzyMagma (talk) 20:34, 10 October 2023 (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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 8 October 2023 [10].

All the Light We Cannot See

edit
Nominator(s): Lazman321 (talk) 05:44, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All the Light We Cannot See is a 2014 novel written by Anthony Doerr, released to critical acclaim and commercial success. A Netflix adaptation will be released on November 2, 2023. This is my second nomination. I withdrew my previous nomination because of an academic summer program that prevented me from finding time to address the critiques raised. Since then, I have found time to address some points brought up in the previous candidacy. I hope to finish this candidacy in time for nominating it as the TFA on the date of, if not the release of the adaptation, the novel's tenth anniversary. I would prefer suggestions to be specific rather than overly general; telling me there are still prose issues is not good enough unless you tell me what those issues are. Lazman321 (talk) 05:44, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: Upon further consideration, I have no choice but to withdraw my nomination. While I still don't see how I was insulting, copyediting the article is making me realize that it may need additional work beyond what can be done during the candidacy. Oh well. I'll come back at a later time. Lazman321 (talk) 17:53, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MyCatIsAChonk

edit
  • and Werner Pfennig, a bright German boy who is accepted into a military school because of his skills in radio technology, before being sent to the military. - the comma after technology is confusing, since commas were previously used in that sentence to list characters and then to describe them. Either cut the comma or "before being..." entirely
  • The novel is written in a lyrical style - I'm not too sure what this means- is it a novel-in-verse?
  • That's not what lyrical means. Lyrical has been defined as "having an artistically beautiful or expressive quality suggestive of song" [11], "expressing personal thoughts and feelings in a beautiful way" [12], and "expressing strong emotion in a way that is beautiful and shows imagination" [13]. It's basically saying the writing style is expressive. Lazman321 (talk) 16:09, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Now I see, thanks for clarifying MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 22:03, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • and almost all of the chapters alternate between Marie-Laure's and Werner's stories, which parallel each other. The narrative has a nonlinear structure, flashing between the Battle of Saint-Malo and the events leading up to it. - do the chapters flash between Laure's and Werner's stories, or between the Battle and events before? There's conflicting info here, as far as I'm reading it
  • It might be worth clarifying the whole "alternating timeline" thing at the start of "Plot", before the first subsection
IMO, it would still be helpful, since it's divided into subsections; Memento (film) has a sentence to clarify the odd timeline of the film, even though it has an entire subsection called "Film structure". MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 22:03, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done Lazman321 (talk) 23:15, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • who spends his time broadcasting old records of his dead brother across Europe - he broadcasts records formerly owned by his brother? Or recordings of his brother?
  • transmitting secret messages alongside - "alongside" seems like the wrong word- "through" makes more sense
  • During this, von Rumpel unsuccessfully searches the entire house - "entire house" suggests he also searched the attic where the gem is

More soon MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 12:57, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MyCatIsAChonk: Addressed your concerns so far. Lazman321 (talk) 16:09, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • a fact that amazed him once told by his editor because of how old he perceived the buildings to be - the interjection of "once told by his editor" is a bit confusing, I think it'd be better in commas before this sentence: "Saint-Malo was a coastal city that had been destroyed near the end of World War II;[6] when his editor told him this, he was amazed..."
  • Doerr read diaries and letters written and sent - letters are written and sent, but not diaries; IMO, just written is fine
  • All the Light We Cannot See portrays "the desolation and barbarism of war." - period outside of quotes per WP:QINQ
  • NPR is not italicized; in the cite afterward, it should be the publisher, not the website/work name
  • While, I'm fine with removing the italics in the running text, but this type of request in regards to references is a major pet peeve of mine due to it being both common and explicitly against the manual of style. As stated by footnote b in MOS:WEBITALICS, "Do not abuse incorrect template parameters (e.g. by putting the work title in |publisher= or |via=) in an attempt to avoid italicizing digital sources." Lazman321 (talk) 23:15, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough then, if there's some MOS policy about it. But, be wary of the info at Template:Cite news, which is what I base my own citations on; see this quote about the publisher parameter: "publisher: Name of publisher; may be wikilinked if relevant. The publisher is the company, organization or other legal entity that publishes the work being cited. Do not use the publisher parameter for the name of a work (e.g. a website, book, encyclopedia, newspaper, magazine, journal, etc.)." MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:31, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Josh Cook of the Star Tribune and Yvonne Zipp of The Christian Science Monitor considered All the Light We Cannot See to be Doerr's best book - also an IMO, but the reviewer names are not needed; wrapping it into "multiple critics" is appropriate
  • while Alan Cheuse found it annoying.[51] Contrasting the praise, some critics felt that the novel was overwritten - using "contrasting" right after naming a criticism of the book sort of defeats the purpose; cutting the ind claue would be fine
  • Anytime the title of the book is said in a citation title, it must be italicized per MOS:CONFORMTITLE

Lazman321, all done, very nice work, and thanks for the quick replies above! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:53, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have addressed all your concerns, thanks for reviewing. Lazman321 (talk) 16:09, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - also, if you get any spare time, would appreciate any comments at this FAC- thanks! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:36, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by Nick-D

edit

I developed the Battle of Saint-Malo article to FA status, and will comment on the article largely from that perspective (noting I haven't read the book):

Thank you for posting your review. I will get around to addressing concerns once I find the time. Lazman321 (talk) 23:15, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nick-D: Well, I have responded. Lazman321 (talk) 09:10, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "after Paris is invaded by Nazi Germany" - there was no such country as 'Nazi Germany'. It was just 'Germany'.
  • How? Just because the name "Nazi Germany" was retroactively applied to WWII-era Germany does not mean it is factually incorrect. By that logic, referring to one of the early 19th-century political parties as the "Democratic-Republican Party" would be factually incorrect because it's a retroactive term; it was referred to as the Republican Party at the time (not to be confused with the modern Republican Party). Lazman321 (talk) 09:10, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is indeed factually incorrect. The body of the article correctly uses the term 'Germany'. Historians generally discourage the use of 'Nazi Germany' in contexts such as this as it gives the impression that Germany during the Nazi era was a different country or some kind of step change in Germany history, when this is not the case. Nick-D (talk) 06:36, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with chapters depicting the Battle of Saint-Malo interspersed with the events leading up to it." - I'd suggest noting here when the battle took place (e.g. 'the August 1944 Battle of Saint-Malo' or similar)
  • " after Allied forces bomb the hotel" - while the book may not be specific here, almost all firepower used in the battle was from American artillery and aircraft
  • "Werner is captured and sent to an American disarmament center" - he would have been sent to a prisoner of war camp
  • "a fact that amazed him once told by his editor because of how old he perceived the buildings to be" - this is true for a lot of European cities, which were rebuilt to resemble their pre-war selves. The wording here is also a bit clunky.
  • The para starting with 'Critics praised All the Light We Cannot See's lyrical writing' should attribute all of the views noted, rather than attributing them to nameless critics
  • Not necessarily. Consolidating opinions shared by multiple critics is fairly common among reception sections in featured articles of media works, especially if there are a high number of reviews for the work (see The Dark Knight for example.). Successive "A said B" sentences do tend to get boring. Lazman321 (talk) 02:44, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The quotes here are the views of individual reviewers, not articles discussing themes in reviews, so I think that the views should be attributed if they're going to be quoted. An alternative (which I think would work better) would be to reduce the numbers of these quotes and draw on works that discuss the book's overall critical reception instead. Nick-D (talk) 04:20, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have any historians commented on the book's accuracy?
  • This article offers useful analysis of how the book fits into the literature on the war, yet isn't properly used - it's simply one of a few references to a broad statement that "some critics felt that the novel was overwritten", when it actually provides quite a complex critique that among other things argues that the book presents the Germans as no worse than the Allies. This Guardian review is much more positive, but briefly notes similar concerns, but doesn't appear to be consulted at present.
  • The material here is really just some throwaway lines - for instance, you note that they express concern about the book's portrayal of the war, but not why they raise this concern. I think that you're missing the opportunity to provide some substantive analysis of the book as a historical novel, drawing on one of the few sources that appears to have done so. Nick-D (talk) 03:42, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I can certainly clarify why they express concern over the book's depiction of war, I am concerned that what you asking me overall could lead to undue emphasis being placed on one analysis, especially one from a source that is generally considered biased according to WP:RSP. Lazman321 (talk) 09:10, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure why these critical reviews are lumped together while positive reviews are treated separately. More broadly, the 'Publication and reception' reception section seems excessively positive about the book, with criticisms being noted only in passing.
  • That's because, as noted by several articles that are referenced, this book received critical acclaim. Nearly all the reviews have been positive, with critics sharing very few complaints, even among the mixed reviews. Given that you are an administrator, correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the policy on WP:NPOV say, "A neutral point of view should be achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources"? Shouldn't that also apply to reception sections? Lazman321 (talk) 02:44, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • What has me being an admin have to do with anything? Given that you are presenting the negative NY Times review as a positive review, I'm sceptical of this to be honest. Nick-D (talk) 03:37, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ignoring the fact that the New York Times review is a mixed review, not a negative one, and is portrayed accordingly in the article, I don't see how this addresses my point entirely. The claim that the novel received "critical acclaim" is directly sourced from three reliable sources from different contexts with no source saying otherwise, implying universal agreement on the critical consensus. This, along with the awards the novel has garnered or was at least a runner-up or shortlisted for and the end-of-year lists it has appeared on, all seems to indicate a very positive critical consensus. Still skeptical? By my count, either of reviews used in the article or cataloged by Book Marks, there are 18 positive reviews.[14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31]. In contrast, there are four mixed reviews[32][33][34][35] and one negative review.[36] This means about 78%, a vast majority, of all critics have reviewed this novel positively. Given all this, the reception section's portrayal of the critical consensus as being positive is not excessive, so you wanting me to place more emphasis on the criticism is a violation of WP:NPOV's policy of balancing opinions according to their weight in reliable sources. Me mentioning your adminship was me giving you the benefit of the doubt; maybe you know something about WP:NPOV that I don't that validates your concern, but nothing you have said so far has demonstrated this. Lazman321 (talk) 09:10, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The way in which the New York Times review is used also doesn't seem properly reflect the reviewer's conclusions. The article summaries them as the book being fast paced and a Nazi character being badly realised, when the review is actually quite critical, arguing that while the book is highly readable it's ultimately disappointing as a work of literature and is a somewhat lightweight 'good read' (see the last para of the review)
  • Except I'm not summarizing the entire review; I'm summarizing the overall critical consensus, both overall and on certain elements of the novel. Nowhere in the article is it implied that the expressed opinions used by William Vollman were his overall conclusion. Not to mention, said conclusions about the novel do not reflect the critical consensus and were thus ignored. The reason his criticisms were used at all was because he and Steph Cha were the only critics to compare the two main characters in terms of quality and he was the only critic to address the Nazis' characterization aside from the two you have pointed out. Lazman321 (talk) 02:44, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand the rationale for this. Aside from my concerns over how this reviewer's views are being presented, it's also a lost opportunity to include a discussion of critics views on whether this book should be considered serious literature or a light novel; quite a few of the articles cited on the book discuss this as well. Nick-D (talk) 04:20, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • My rationale in short: Only the critical consensus is being summarized overall; the individual reviews simply serve as pieces of evidence to strengthen that summary. In regards to reviews that discuss this novel's place as serious literature or light entertainment, I say provide them. I am not aware of any other review, mixed or otherwise, that brings this up, and given that the novel did indeed receive a laudatory appraisal and win the Pulitzer Prize, I am not inclined to search them out.
  • I really don't understand this view, and I'd note that the TLS review (which is also little used, despite being a top tier source of commentary on books) has a focus on this issue. I think that you could write something really interesting here. Nick-D (talk) 06:45, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article could include some photos of the battle that illustrate the book's themes - there are lots available on Commons.
  • Some of the prose is rather cumbersome and wordy, which makes the article heavy going to read. In particular (though I'd suggest a broader copy edit):
    • "Doerr's first inspiration for All the Light We Cannot See..." (could be something like 'Doerr drew inspiration from...')
    • " During the ride, he witnessed a passenger become frustrated when his telephone call disconnected as the train entered a tunnel" (bit wordy)
    • "a fact that amazed him once told by his editor because of how old he perceived the buildings to be"
    • "part of which was spent procrastinating or researching" (rather different things!)
    • "According to Doerr, he procrastinated by writing the memoir Four Seasons in Rome (2007) and the short story collection Memory Wall (2010)" - not really procrastinating then! This seems to be portraying the book from the author's perspective rather than a more common perspective. It's quite common for authors to work on multiple books, or books to take a lot of work to complete.
    • "He cited the research as a reason for his procrastination" - this also doesn't seem to be procrastinating, and this para by this stage has used three sentences to not say a great deal.
    • "the austere conditions of its occupying military lives" - I'm not sure what this means to be frank
    • "it also showcases optimism and redemption" - I don't think that 'showcases' is the best word here.
  • "Anthony Doerr found the novel's popularity unexpected due to it featuring a sympathetic Nazi" - this is odd. There's a huge literature with 'good Germans' of World War II being major characters, especially from the Cold War era. Some now-notorious Nazi war criminals like Albert Speer also had success in portraying themselves as being a 'good Nazi' on various grounds - Speer did this though his memoirs, which sold in vast numbers. Doerr doesn't seem to be well informed about the literature on the war if he believes this, and it would be good to draw on sources that discuss the book in this context instead like the New Republic article.
  • So you are objecting against this line because books with positive portrayals of Nazis did exist prior to this novel. Are you ignoring the fact that the contexts behind the publication of Albert Speer's memoirs and All the Light We Cannot See are completely different? Judging by his article, Speer wrote the memoirs to trick others into vindicating him despite his horrific crimes under the Nazis' regime. Doerr, who is an American writer, wrote All the Light We Cannot See partly as an attempt at a nuanced depiction of World War II. He published it long after the Nazis' gained widespread infamy, meaning it's not stupid of him to think that people would be unlikely to accept a sympathetic depiction of a Nazi. The New Republic article doesn't even analyze the book in the context you're asking; it analyzes it in the context of historical normalization. Lazman321 (talk) 02:44, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is an example of the article presenting the book through the eyes of its author, who seems to be ill-informed at best. A FA should include better rounded critical analysis. Nick-D (talk) 03:37, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, Doerr's surprise over his novel's success due to the presence of a sympathetic Nazi is not illogical considering when and where the novel came out. And just because it's through the author's lens does not mean the statement should be removed nor would it preclude substantial critical analysis. Also, analysis of what exactly? What you had just proposed was impossible for me to address in the article. The idea of analyzing the novel's success in the context of the Speer memoirs is absurd due to, again, the highly different contexts of their publications, which you seem to be ignoring. Lazman321 (talk) 09:10, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • More broadly, and this might reflect my interests/biases, the article would benefit from a section or at least paragraphs that focus on the book's portrayal of the war and the Battle of Saint-Malo; this appears to be a key element of the work and its popularity, but the article doesn't directly grapple with it. Nick-D (talk) 11:01, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, describe how the battle is presented in the book. It might be better still to have a section on how the book shapes up as a historical novel more broadly, which has attracted some interesting coverage in various sources (e.g. the book includes elements that are presented as historically accurate, with the author saying that he did considerable research, as well as fantastical elements). Material on this topic is spread across the article, and there's scope to bring this together and flesh it out further per my comments above. Nick-D (talk) 05:29, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • You say it has some "interesting coverage in various sources" and yet have only provided an unsubstantial Guardian review and two articles from biased sources, the New Republic article and the World Socialist Website article, the latter of which is only marginally reliable, and thus likely not high-quality. I feel like at this point, if you are going to ask such a huge request, you must show me better sources to indicate that there is significant enough discussion about what you are asking. Lazman321 (talk) 09:10, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also suggest drawing on this review, albeit in moderation and with provisos about where the reviewer is coming from. The World Socialist Website seems to be considered a notable source of opinion on historical issues per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 353#World Socialist Web Site, and it includes some discussion of the book as a work of history. Nick-D (talk) 04:31, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I've thought quite a bit about the above responses, and I'm afraid that I'm moving to oppose as a result of them. I imagine that it is difficult writing articles on books like this: there's quite a bit of material on the book available, but not much that goes beyond reviews dating from when the book was released and quasi promotional material such as interviews with the author. What concerns me with the above response is that you seem to be looking for reasons to not cover aspects of the book and the limited amount of critical analysis it's received, to the extent of dismissing a New York Times book review and making little use of a TLS review. A key thing about FAs is that they need to be much better than an average article, and when sourcing is thin that means making the best of these sources to ensure that the article is excellent and treats readers with respect. I'm afraid that I don't think that this has been done here. From reading the first nomination, UndercoverClassicist raised some broadly similar issues, which don't seem to have been fully addressed to my eyes at least. The rude responses to some of my comments above are also unnecessary, and I'm not going to engage with them. Nick-D (talk) 06:36, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick-D: I advise you to reconsider. Your refusal to engage with my concerns is unreasonable (Personal attack removed) given that I have demonstrated a willingness to cooperate and you have provided meager justification for your disinclination. Whether or not you think I was rude, I did not personally insult you and have instead provided genuine concerns regarding your requests. I also wish to clarify that I am not "looking for reasons to not cover aspects of the book", but instead trying to ensure the article follows WP:NPOV, which values balancing attributed opinions in articles to the degree in which they appear in reliable sources. As for my post on the FAC talk page, disregard it. It was a momentary lapse in judgment. Lazman321 (talk) 05:21, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I get that nominating an article for FAC is stressful. However, I don't dole out 'oppose' votes lightly, and calling me "unreasonable" and "dishonest" is really unhelpful. Nick-D (talk) 11:42, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GWL

edit

I just got the Netflix trailer in my YouTube recommendations and can't wait to see it! I'm currently overstimulated so I might not get some of my points across; please do tell me if my comment is confusing. I've put invisible comments to divide my comments based on sections. GeraldWL 09:44, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerald Waldo Luis:, I have addressed all your concerns. Thanks for your review. Lazman321 (talk) 06:32, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerald Waldo Luis: Well, since you haven't voted yet, are you willing to support it, or does this article still need additional work, especially given Nick-D's opposition? Lazman321 (talk) 05:36, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Paris is invaded by Nazi Germany" should probably be linked to the invasion article
  • "The chapters alternate between Marie-Laure's and Werner's stories, which parallel each other and are framed with a nonlinear structure, with chapters depicting the Battle of Saint-Malo in August 1944"-- might make more sense as "The book alternates between chapters depicting Marie-Laure and Werner, which parallel each other and are framed with a nonlinear structure, with chapters depicting the Battle of Saint-Malo in August 1944". I'm not sure how to explain, but "The chapters alternate betwen their stories and other chapters" suggest that within the chapters there are other chapters, when it's actually one book with multiple alternating chapters.
  • Link WWII
  • My bad! I didn't see it.
  • "book trip" isn't really a common term, isn't it? I think "book" can be omitted in this case
  • Netflix didn't produce the series, only distributed it. Rewrite to "A television adaptation produced by 21 Laps Entertainment was announced in 2019 and is scheduled for release on Netflix on November 2, 2023."
  • "For simplicity, Marie-Laure's and Werner's respective narratives"-- repetition of their names which were just stated a few words ago. --> "For simplicity, their respective narratives"
  • "will receive"-- is "will" the right word? It isn't really the future since you already made those subsections. "is given" seems like a better alternative to me.
  • "Marie-Laure went blind at the age of six in 1934, and Daniel helps Marie-Laure"-- change both instances of her name to "She"; it has just been stated one sentence ago
  • Might be useful to specify that it is Nazi Germany invading France, also per consistency with lead.
  • Is Great War a common term for WWI? I didn't know what it was until I hovered over the link, but could be just me.
  • "of the town of Saint-Malo"-- you already explained to us St-Malo is a town so "the town of" should be omitted
  • "transmitting secret messages through important Morse code information"-- I think it is the messages that are important, not its Morse language, right? "transmitting top secret messages through Morse code" seems more fit.
  • "Werner is exceptionally"-- "He is exceptionally.."
  • "Jutta hates Nazi values" --> "Jutta hates them"
  • "relating horrifying stories"-- horrifying seems subjective
  • "whose weakness"-- another subjective
  • "resulting in his"-- or him?
  • Wehrmacht should be italics per its article
  • "two soldiers named Neumann"-- there's only one here. If it's a collective term for two soldiers it should be specified.
  • "traveling to the bakery"-- travel is typically for long-distance trips, the general term is "going" or "heading"
  • "of Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Seas" --> "of science fiction novel Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Seas"
  • "Thirty years later, Volkheimer finds Jutta, who is now a married math teacher, and gives her Werner's belongings at the time of his death, including the model house that contained the Sea of Flames, and tells her that Werner was last seen in France and may have been in love." With three and-s I think this last sentence can be standalone; "He also tells her that Werner was last seen in France and may have been in love."
  • "Doerr drew inspiration for All the Light We Cannot See was during" --> "Doerr drew inspiration for the novel during"
  • Link WWII
  • "he perceived the buildings to be old"-- what makes this part noteworthy? Also it's probably not just a perception; objectively the buildings are old.
  • "part of which was spent researching, which Doerr says took significant time" --> "most of which spent on researching"
  • "a capable disabled person"-- as a disabled person myself, I don't get what this means, since every disabled person are still "capable", just with few obstacles. I think you meant "a talented disabled person"?
  • "he wrote over one hundred short chapters"-- I think it'd be interesting to contrast this with how many chapters there are at the final product.
  • It would be, but unfortunately the chapters are not numbered in the novel and the source does not give a definitive number; Doerr claims that he wrote 187 chapters, but it is preceded in the interview by "I think", implying doubt without any indication that it is the official number of chapters in the novel. Lazman321 (talk) 02:13, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wouldn't the novel itself be an okay source for this? In my opinion, numbered or not numbered, the chapters are still countable. The ebook I got has a table of contents that lists up to 178 chapters. GeraldWL 03:19, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "detailed" --> "as detailed"
  • "The last part of the novel takes place in the present day"-- this is misleading, since in the Plot you said it ends in 2014, yet here we are in 2023, so it's not present day.
  • Fate and self-protecc might be overlinking
  • "even the heroes"-- I don't know how novel articles handle this, but in the film WikiProject there's WP:PROTAGONIST, which states that such mentions of heroes or antagonists are quite subjective. I'd say this can be specified, "even those established as heroes". I didn't comment on the "evil Nazi archetype" part because I think you established well that it's an archetype.
  • "All the Light We Cannot See conveys "the desolation and barbarism of war"" --> "All the Light We Cannot See also has anti-war themes."
  • I don't think you need to mention "According to Jin Mengqi of the International Journal of English Literature and Social Sciences", it gets kinda wordy
  • "traveling them"-- between them
  • "Some critics felt" --> "There were also critics who felt"-- I think this might be more engrossing
  • "calling it "lovely", "gorgeous", "vividly rendered", and "opulent""-- I don't think you need to specify this; it can be simplified to "Critics praised the aesthetic of All the Light We Cannot See's lyrical writing"
  • I'd say prepare for when the series is released; might wanna add more stuff like its reviews and comparison with the novel. In the meantime, there are already reviews you might wanna add: here, there, everywhere.
    • Detailed material on TV series and movies based on books is usually covered in the article on the series/movie, rather than the book. Nick-D (talk) 23:18, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • It doesn't have to be detailed-- I agree it is reserved for its own place. But a brief comparison (what is omitted in the series) and statement that it "gained mixed reviews" or whatever the consensus is eventually, I think that can add a bit to the comprehensiveness of the section. GeraldWL 03:16, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from UC

edit

Echoing Nick above: when this article was first nominated, I raised concerns about the quality and accuracy of its prose, the WP:UNDUEWEIGHT on positive reception of the novel, and similar WP:UNDUEWEIGHT on the author's own narrative of its background, themes and genesis. I cannot see that either of these concerns has been substantially or sufficiently acted on in the current version. I can see that pointing out individual examples would quickly lead to a WP:FIXLOOP, and indeed would in some part duplicate the original FAC and the review already provided by Nick, including several comments upon which the nominator has chosen not to act. I am very open to revisiting this vote if changes are made. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:39, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@UndercoverClassicist: I'm afraid I don't see how specific requests for improvement would "quickly lead to a WP:FIXLOOP" nor do I see how the article is placing WP:UNDUEWEIGHT on the author's ideas or the positive reception given the available sources, but do what you wish. We'll see how this goes. Lazman321 (talk) 05:28, 8 October 2023 (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 Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 4 October 2023 [37].

Pokémon

edit
Nominator(s): Wingwatchers (talk) 06:38, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated this article because I believed it has met all the FA criteria stated. I seek to promote this article to featured status so one day it can become a TFA, but I also seek to improve the article further through this nomination just for the sake of improving it. Manifestation have worked on this article for several years, remarkably writing most of the History section and even creating a dedicated translation website; I greatly appreciate his contributions! Wingwatchers (talk) 06:38, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. There are several unsupported statements, including an entire paragraph in the General concept section (I didn't go down further than this). - SchroCat (talk) 07:16, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok let me source that. There is no need to oppose for such an easy task. Wingwatchers (talk) 13:56, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @SchroCat Everything should be fine now. Wingwatchers (talk) 14:20, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There is every reason to oppose for that. There are still numerous unsupported statements, so the oppose stands.
    You might also think about combing some of the sources - the citation overkill in places makes it hard to read. - SchroCat (talk) 14:38, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Just a small check revealed several sources of dubious value at best to outright unreliability at worst, such as International Business Times, Dexerto, TheGamer and may others. The citation formatting is also not consistent between sources, and I have further size concerns as the article has nearly 14,000 words of readable prose. This article needs some work outside of FAC before promotion. The Night Watch (talk) 15:57, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @The Night Watch The article is naturally inclined to have such prose size, and WP:SIZERULE stated that the "the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material." Although the prose size might appear visually overwhelming, it includes all the essential aspects of the franchise that are in fact necessary to provide a comprehensive and engaging reading experience. Wingwatchers (talk) 16:07, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Except for the International Business Times which is deemed generally unreliable per WP:RSPSOURCES, I believed sources like The Gamer and many others you mentioned are generally acceptable and reliable in the field of entertainment. Wingwatchers (talk) 16:13, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sonic the Hedgehog has been around for over five years more than Pokémon and has a much more turbulent history, yet that article has only 10,800 words. Final Fantasy has been around for nearly a decade before Pokémon and has only 7,000 words. God of War, Persona, and Kingdom Hearts have no more than 10,000 words despite all being media franchises with passionate fanbases. Regarding the sourcing, Criteria #1c says that sources should be high-quality, and WP:VG/S discussions have cast doubt on the reliability of Dexerto and TheGamer, only listing them as situational. There were even recent discussions debating whether TheGamer and its sister ValNet websites are now generally unreliable. The Night Watch (talk) 16:24, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I'm afraid I have to agree with SchroCat and The Night Watch on this. The article falls short of the quality expected for Featured Article status. The use of subpar sources, as highlighted by The Night Watch, is a concern. For a topic as important as this one, I would expect there to be a lot of peer-reviewed studies and sources. A cursory research shows several academic studies and sources that could significantly enhance the article's credibility.
Note that the small list of sources above is by no means exhaustive. Conducting a more thorough examination, preferably through a peer-review process outside the pressure of FAC, could uncover valuable resources to strengthen the article. FrB.TG (talk) 16:33, 4 October 2023 (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/October_2023&oldid=1182421815"