Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/September 2018

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 12:43, 28 September 2018 [1].

Marcus Aurelius edit

Nominator(s): Векочел (talk) 19:46, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Marcus Aurelius, Roman emperor from 161 to 180. He was the fifth emperor of the Nerva-Antonine dynasty, as well as the last during the era of the Five Good Emperors and the Pax Romana. He was also a Stoic philosopher known for his writings Meditations. Among the events of his reign were the Roman–Parthian War of 161–166, the Marcomannic Wars and the Antonine Plague. Векочел (talk) 19:46, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note Ian Rose, Laser brain and Sarastro1. There seems to be something wrong here. I can not see this nomination in the candidates list. Is it the bot's fault?.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 22:10, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I forgot that the bot doesnt do this. Its the editor who should do it. What should happen with this now? put it at the top of the list or between the nominations of early August?.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 22:15, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see many paragraphs ending without citations (which is a minimum requirement, really), and without looking further, I'd suggest the article be taken through peer review or good article nomination before FAC. FunkMonk (talk) 07:49, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@FunkMonk: I've added a citation for the adoption of Marcus Aurelius by Antoninus Pius. Which other unsourced paragraphs have you noticed? Векочел (talk) 12:14, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the easiest way to find out is to look through the article, everywhere a paragraph ends (it is not up to reviewers to point this out, it should be fixed before nomination). FunkMonk (talk) 12:16, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have added more citations where possible. I have had to remove a few things stated in the article. Векочел (talk) 23:12, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There has been a massive amount of work done recently on my favourite philosopher, and a credit to you. However, this article is attempting to jump from Quality=C to Quality=FA, and I agree with Funkmonk. It would benefit from a WP:GAC review first, which is still a major achievement in itself. The article attracts 4,000 visitors each day - or over 1 million each year - and warrants a bit more time being developed through the quality process. Here may be the best place to start: Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome/Guides William Harris • (talk) • 10:55, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- I agree that a great deal of work has gone into this but also with the implications I'm hearing from above, i.e. that this nom is probably premature and that the article would really benefit from review elsewhere before FAC, namely GAN and Peer Review (or indeed MilHist A-Class Review). I'm therefore going to archive this and recommend those avenues (and the guide William mentions) be pursued before a future FAC nomination. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:59, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian Rose: I plan to change the structure of the sources. Then I will probably nominate the article for GAC. Векочел (talk) 11:38, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Tks, hope things go well. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:43, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 02:56, 24 September 2018 [2].

Killdeer edit

Nominator(s): RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 21:40, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the killdeer, a species of shorebird (although it frequently appears very far away from the shore, and doesn't even need to be near water to breed). I got interested in them after I saw a family during class. I think that this article is up to the featured article criteria, and I tried looking it over before I nominated it, so hopefully that will make this process faster. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 21:40, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tony1 edit

Lead, 1a:

  • "is a relatively large plover found in the Americas."—Right at the opening (without context) is "relatively" adding anything?
Yeah; it is pretty small compared to a lot of other birds, like the American crow. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 04:00, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Again: why isn't that meaning captured by ""is a large plover found in the Americas."? Tony (talk) 04:21, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Eh... I'll change it. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 04:58, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It was described and given its current scientific name by Carl Linnaeus in the 10th edition of his Systema Naturae."— (year)?
Done in lead and article. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 04:00, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "often heard call"—hyphen necessary.
I'd personally disagree (isn't it just in "oft-heard"?), but I've changed it regardless"?
No, you need the hyphen. Tony (talk) 04:21, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have added it. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 04:55, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see it. You could alternatively remove "often heard" altogether. Tony (talk) 10:29, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I'm an idiot. Sorry about that. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 13:56, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also disease: "Its upperparts are mostly brown with rufous fringes. It also has patches of white and black on its head, in addition to two black breast bands. The belly and the rest of the breast is white." If the also was ... also ... brown with furuous finges, fine. But it's not. "Its upperparts are mostly brown with rufous fringes. It has patches of white and black on its head, and two black breast bands. ..." Sift through the whole text (printed out, preferably) to find opportunities for simplifying the grammar and removing words. Why is the last bit worth elevating over the other points, to be a stand-alone sentence?
I'd prefer to keep the "also", because it is a transition word, so it makes it look more connected together, instead of a string of statements. I will simplify the prose a bit, though. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 04:00, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Also" performs no useful service there. The "linking word" you speak of is "It". Tony (talk) 04:21, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would disagree; "it" is also used in the previous sentence. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 04:55, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you mean "I would disagree". I'm encouraging you to weed the fluff out of your writing. And here, the listing technique introduces distortions aside from the two redundant additive connectors. "Its upperparts are mostly brown with rufous fringes. It also has patches of white and black on its head, in addition to two black breast bands." -> "The upperparts are mostly brown with rufous fringes, the head has patches of white and black, and there are two black breast bands on the breast." Tony (talk) 10:29, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 13:56, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Resident resident resident. "It is resident in the southern half of its breeding range, in addition the subspecies C. v. ternominatus likely being resident in the West Indies and C. v. peruvianus being resident to Peru and areas of the surrounding countries. This species winters from its resident range south to Central America, the West Indies, and the northernmost portions of South America." Hate the noun-plus-ing grammar. "; the CVtern is likely to reside in the West Indies and perublah in Peru and ...". in then to? Do you need "areas of"? "This species" is now confusing, after mentioning the two subs. Name it again.
That wasn't my best writing, to be honest. Rejigged. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 04:00, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Now you've introduced "fOUND year-rOUND". And there's another "year-round" a few seconds later. Tony (talk) 10:29, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 13:56, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "(but locations such as rooftops may also be used)"—may also sounds like it's from a rule book. "are also"?
What do you mean by "rule book"? Rooftops are not usually used, hence the "may". RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 04:00, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"May" is ambiguous"—is allowed to? In the context, the reader will work out that you don't mean that; but why invite momentary fuzz in the first place?
I disagree with you (I won't go into it, because it's tangental to the subject at hand), but I've changed it to "are sometimes also used". RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 04:55, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Never a comma after "and". But it needs a semicolon instead, without the and. Think about how close or distant the last proposition is from what come before it. That's an issue in your writing ... how to put clauses together.
Could you maybe reconsider this? Without the "and", it feels like a rough transition. It just feel "ew". RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 04:00, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's not "ew" to follow one proposition after another, as long as the relationship between them is clear and comfortable. "And" implies too close a connection; that is why a semicolon is more suitable. Tony (talk) 04:21, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Huh; it seems to me to show less of a connection. For example, in the second sentence of your comment, you used a semicolon to follow a proposition with a proposition that logically followed it; that makes sense. But saying that it nests in fields and sometimes not close to water does not logically follow; fields can be close to water. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 04:55, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, a semicolon provides a sharper break than "and". The comma is still there. Why is "rooftops linked? Tony (talk) 10:29, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 13:56, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The nest itself is a scrape lined with vegetation and white material, such as pebbles or seashell fragments." Does "itself" add anything? (It's a back-reference ... but). Commas: "The nest is a scrape, lined with vegetation and white material such as pebbles or seashell fragments." It lays: what, the next lays?
Clarified. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 04:00, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • mid-March, etc.
Done. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 04:00, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And your edit removes the more accurate monthy ranges, replacing it with "later dates". Dates are specific days. Tony (talk) 10:29, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to "later timing". RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 13:56, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "where the chicks"—needs a comma, doesn't it?
Yeah, before. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 04:00, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd cut the "may be" rule-book stuff: "and may be watched over by their parents" -> "and are typically/usually watched over by their parents"
No, they are not; HBW says "fledged young sometimes stay with parents for up to ten days". RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 04:00, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Then use "occasionally" or "can" or "have been observed", or some such.Tony (talk) 04:21, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've actually removed this altogether, as it's not the most important. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 04:55, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Incubation is performed by both sexes, and lasts for 22 to 28 days on average." Why not simplify, binning the passive? "Both parents incubate their young, for 22 to 28 days on average." Tony (talk) 10:29, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Simplified (although I changed "their" to "the" and removed the comma). RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 14:00, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "after this event"—could refer to several events you've mentioned.
Clarified. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 04:00, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's two paragraphs of a rather detailed lead. Am I getting the helicopter view I need? How much of the detail is repeated in the body of the article?

In response to the last question, all of it. The lead is supposed to be based off of the article. I will admit that I went a bit deep in some areas, but I personally view the lead not just as a way to introduce a subject, but get the reader interested in the subject. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 04:00, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The lead is too long and too cluttered with detail. Readers do not want to encounter so much raw repetition further down. The lead is a summary of a summary style. Tony (talk) 04:21, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've pared it down a bit, while still keeping the interesting and important parts. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 04:55, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Rejigged latter sentence. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 14:00, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My view is: Withdraw, rework, and resubmit. The key review processes are embedded in my comments above. Tony (talk) 02:21, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Will you review the whole article, then? RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 04:00, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, because there are a lot of nominations to deal with, and we don't offer a full copy-editing service. It's a judgmental process, perhaps with pointers so that you (and preferably your collaborators too) can go through the rest. The prose is not at FA standard. I'm trying to help you improve your writing so you can do it yourselves. Then WP gets an advantage. Tony (talk) 04:21, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've added rebuttals to your rebuttals of a few of my points, inserted issues with some of your edits in response, and added comments on a few more issues in the lead. I'm not used to having to argue about redundant wording. I get it—your strategy is to discredit the reviewer in the hope that the system will disregard the suggestion to withdraw and resubmit. It's not a stratey I'm buying. I'm putting the time and effort into this to demonstrate global improvements you can make to your writing/editing. That is of wider benefit to WP. But the idea of putting this on the list for a few months until scarce reviewers and coordinators are worn down or bored with it so let it through ... please no. Tony (talk) 10:29, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't assume that I'm arguing with you so as to discredit you. I'm not trying to do that. I do like getting suggestions, and I thank you for that, but to me, you are being a bit abrasive. When I disagree with you, I'm trying to get you to explain it to me, because in some cases, I don't understand it. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 13:48, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I don't want to spend this much time on a single nomination. So what I want is for you to go through it. Here's the final para of the lead, full of vagueness, ambiguity, unidiomatic wording, etc, to show you how much there is to do. Does it get better after the lead? I want you to be able to edit this stuff. We need you. But it's not good enough yet for FAC.

The killdeer primarily feeds on insects, although other invertebrates and seeds are also taken [weird]. It forages almost exclusively in fields, especially those with short vegetation and those with cattle and standing water [listing technique, again]. In addition to foraging during the day, it forages during the night when the moon is full or close to full in the lunar cycle in the non-breeding season. This is beneficial [to farmers?] because insects are more abundant and there is reduced predation [at night? full moon?]. The predators of the killdeer include various birds and mammals. There are multiple responses to predation, ranging from calling at a stand to the "ungulate display", which, in some cases, is fatal for the performing individual. This bird is least concern according to the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), because of its large range and population. Although this is true [true that what—it's been classified?], its population is declining, but this trend is not severe enough for the killdeer to be considered a vulnerable species. Tony (talk) 15:15, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • I haven't looked at the article thoroughly yet, but given the comments above, I would generally recommend sending articles to GAN before FAC, as most of us do, since this will iron out most such issues so they won't become obstacles during FAC. FunkMonk (talk) 07:06, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. I generally don't like GAN, but I think that it probably will be for the better to go through there before I nominate an article again. Thanks! :) RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 13:48, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Riley, I'm not quite sure how to read this -- are you withdrawing this nom to take to GAN, or are you just saying that in future you'd go to GAN before FAC? Thing is, I'm really obliged to close this one way or the other, the FAC instructions are clear on coord actions if an early recommendation for withdrawal comes up, and no-one is exactly protesting the recommendation, so I'm kind of asking if you want to jump or be pushed... It comes to the same thing in the end, the nom being archived and a two-week wait for the next one, the difference is that if you request the withdrawal yourself it will say "withdrawn" here when I close it, rather than simply "archived". Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:47, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that sorta sucks. Well, I'll withdraw and take it to GAN (although I've gotta sleep, so I can't do it today). Thank you for informing me of my options. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 01:04, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, tks for that. FWIW, I like GAN myself as first step towards FAC, although if you can organise a peer review -- formal or informal -- that might be better still. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:56, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 22:31, 23 September 2018 [3].

Endless Night (The Lion King song) edit

Nominator(s): Aoba47 (talk) 00:31, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone! The above article is about a song created for the musical The Lion King, a stage adaptation of Disney's 1994 animated film of the same name. It was first performed and recorded by American actor and singer Jason Raize, who originated the role of Simba. "Endless Night" is a ballad, in which Simba grieves the death of his father Mufasa. The song includes accompanying vocals from Rafiki and a chorus. Music critics noted "Endless Nights" for its influences from African music, primarily through its use of chants. Critical reception of the track was mainly positive.

This is my second FAC about a song, following the successful promotion of "Shine" (Gwen Stefani song) back in 2017. I believe that it meets the requirements for a featured article, though I would greatly appreciate any feedback. If anyone is interested, this is what the article looked like before I worked on it. I hope that everyone has a wonderful rest of their day and/or night! Aoba47 (talk) 00:31, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tony1 edit

Lead, 1a:

  • "The composition was done by Mark A. Brymer and American theatre director Julie Taymor wrote the lyrics." You do a composition? And the grammar of the two propositions is different. Can they be separated with a comma?
  • And "was done", but "is taken" and "was performed".
  • Revised "is taken" to "was taken". Aoba47 (talk) 15:46, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "originated" is a transitive verb?
  • The verb "originated" is used frequently used in the context of theatre (i.e. an actor originated a role). Aoba47 (talk) 15:46, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Music critics noted "Endless Nights" for its influences from African music,"—Does "music critics" need to be linked? The grammar is not good. noted something for its influencees? "... noted the influence of African music on Endless Nights?
  • I have removed the link. I was advised to link music critics years ago, and it is taking time to slowly break that habit. I do not see the grammar as particularly bad, but I have revised it according to your suggestion. Aoba47 (talk) 15:46, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • then ... "Critical reception of the track was mainly positive; commentators highlighted its contribution to Simba's character and its incorporation of African music"? I can't make it out. Is it grammatical? And what is "its"?
  • Both sentences are grammatically correct. The "its" refers back to "the track" in the previous sentence. I have revised it though. Aoba47 (talk) 15:46, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you do material? "the pop-oriented material done by English singer-songwriter Elton John"
  • Changed to "songs". The word "material" is perfectly valid though in this context. Aoba47 (talk) 15:46, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then in "Background and release": "was one of several new songs composed for the musical production of"—how many?
  • Added the amount through an additional source. It was 10 in total if you are interested. Aoba47 (talk) 15:59, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Discussing the connections between the songs, Taymor and musical theatre scholar Alexis Greene said compositions were selected from Rhythm of the Pride Lands based on their mood rather than the content." This is oblique. So ... the songs are connected by their mood, I suppose you mean? Is this Wikipedia's loose inference or was it spelled out in the source?
  • That is how they describe it in the source. Unfortunately, they do not go into more detail, but it is still important for inclusion. They chose to use the beat from "Lala" without paying attention to the actual lyrics/overall message. Aoba47 (talk) 15:59, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say, on the basis of the top as a sample, my feeling is Withdraw, rework, and resubmit, preferably in collaboration with others. Does any other reviewer think so?

  • Thank you for the comments. I greatly appreciate your help. I will wait for other reviewers' input as I do not believe it needs to be withdrawn immediately. Aoba47 (talk) 15:59, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I know length is not a criterion, but ... it's rather short. Tony (talk) 10:08, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have added additional information about other performances of the song (i.e. Nick Afoa and Adam Jacobs) and some other details. I currently feel more confident about the comprehensiveness of the article after my recent edits. Aoba47 (talk) 03:18, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Withdrawal edit

  • @Ian Rose:@Laser brain:@Sarastro1: Please withdraw and archive this nomination. I feel defeated and disengaged with the FAC process and Wikipedia in general. I doubt that anyone else will comment on this after a withdraw/oppose vote was cast at the start. I understand and respect Tony1's position, but I am not fond of their reviewing style. I do not find the rather quick assessment from only a small portion of the article and lack of engagement with the nominator to be particularly beneficial or helpful. Given the current discourse on possible improvements to the FAC process, I hope there will continue to be encouragement for editors to continue their Wikipedia work to this level. Either way, thank you in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 17:20, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

Pythagoras edit

Nominator(s): Katolophyromai (talk) 19:27, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let me tell you about a man who lived roughly 2,500 years ago. Some say he had a magic golden thigh and that, when he was bitten by a deadly snake, he bit it back and it died. Others say that he was the son of the god Apollo and that a river once greeted him by name. The man of whom I speak is, of course, none other than Pythagoras of Samos, a mystic sage and spiritual guru who founded the school of Pythagoreanism in Kroton in Magna Graecia in the late sixth century BC and who many ancient writers claim was the first person to call himself a "philosopher." Though the historical Pythagoras is a shadowy figure, whose life is largely shrouded in mystery and obfuscation, his ideas and those of the people he influenced—including, most famously, the Athenian philosopher Plato—continue to shape our way of thinking even today.

I have put considerable amount of effort into this article and it is one of my favorite articles that I have worked on during my time here so far at Wikipedia. I rewrote it back in fall of last year and it became a "Good Article" on 2 February of this year. I have revised it significantly since then and it recently underwent a peer review in preparation for this nomination. I have already written twenty-one "Good Articles" and counting, including this one, but this will be my first "Featured Article" nomination. I have, however, already successfully nominated the article List of Mesopotamian deities for "Featured List" status and I imagine the procedures are probably very similar. --Katolophyromai (talk) 19:27, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt edit

Comment Are you listing references in numerical order or some other system? They often seem out of order. I'm planning to review but am somewhat busy at the moment.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:42, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Wehwalt: This came up during the peer review. I have tried to list references in the order of how directly relevant they are to the statement being cited. Some sources talk about specific issues extensively, while other source address those same issues, but devote less attention to them. The source that talks about the subject the most and has the most information on it I have tried to list first and then the remaining citations are in order of decreasing relevance. In a few cases, all or most of the sources are equally relevant, in which case I have tried to list them in numerical order. If there is an official policy that explicitly states that references must always be given in numerical order, then I would be willing to rearrange them, but I am not aware of the existence of any such policy and I think it is much better and more helpful to the reader to arrange the sources based on relevance to the particular statement in question, rather than the mostly arbitrary order in which they happen to first occur in article. --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:31, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds fine, thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:02, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a reason why you do not mention the theorem in the first paragraph? That is probably what most people know him for (whether or not it was his), and if they do not see it, they may assume that this is another Greek of the same name. I'm thinking about how Google summarizes our articles, just a few sentences at most.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:35, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Wehwalt: Read the Pythagoras#In mathematics section. Although Pythagoras is probably best known by non-scholars today for his alleged discovery of the Pythagorean theorem, he did not actually discover it; it was known by the ancient Babylonians in the 1800s BC, over a millennium before Pythagoras was born. The legend claiming that Pythagoras discovered it is not mentioned by any source until nearly 500 years after his death. In fact, we do not even know whether the historical Pythagoras was involved in mathematics at all. All we know in that regard is that, by the time of Aristotle, many Pythagoreans had come to believe that the universe is entirely composed of numbers. Whether they derived that teaching from Pythagoras or not, we do not really know for certain.
Also, the Pythagorean theorem is just one of nearly a half dozen major scientific and mathematical discoveries that have come to be attributed to Pythagoras. Other major discoveries attributed to him include the sphericity of the earth and the idea of mathematical proportionality. In all likelihood, he never really discovered any of these things. Our earliest sources all portray Pythagoras a sort of mystic guru and spiritual teacher, not as what we today would consider a "scientist" or "mathematician." If any of Pythagoras's alleged or actual teachings deserves to go in the first paragraph, it would be metempsychosis, since that is probably the only teaching that we say beyond any shadow of a doubt that Pythagoras really taught. It was also probably his most influential idea in antiquity; although Pherecydes of Syros had apparently taught it before him, Pythagoras seems to have popularized it and the idea of metempsychosis generally permeates most of the later dialogues of Plato. --Katolophyromai (talk) 23:02, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • " He probably prohibited his followers from eating beans, but he may or may not have advocated a strictly vegetarian diet." this seems unrelated to the rest of the paragraph and you might do better deleting it or moving it elsewhere in the lede where you discuss the lifestyle he advocated.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:46, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The part about the Pythagorean diet definitely needs to go in the lead, because it has been a large part of Pythagoras's legacy, mainly thanks to Ovid's portrayal of Pythagoras as a vegetarian in his Metamorphoses. It is unlikely that Pythagoras advocated full-on vegetarianism, but it is probable that he did forbid the consumption of certain kinds of meat. As bizarre as it sounds, the prohibition against beans is actually one of the most widely agreed on upon facts of his life in ancient sources, although even that has been contradicted by a few ancient writers. I have rearranged the lead, per your request, to put the part about the Pythagorean diet in the first paragraph in the part where it talks about the lifestyle he advocated. You may want to read over the first two paragraphs again and see if they flow better now or if you think the new arrangement is problematic. --Katolophyromai (talk) 23:02, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wugapodes edit

  • Comment I hope to review this soon, but my first impression is that there are a large number of images, many of which seem to add very little to the reading experience. I use a fairly large screen and am getting sometimes 3 images per screen page, with the text occasionally sandwiched between two images. I strongly suggest the number of images be reduced. That said only one image ("Cropped image of Pythagoras from Raphael's School of Athens.jpg") lacks alt text, so images generally comply with that policy. I'm also confused why biographical sources is its own section, and why it is first. I think it may be better if the information were distributed throughout the "Life" section rather than on its own, but may well be wrong in that. Wugapodes [thɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 06:04, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Wugapodes: The image you refer ("Cropped image of Pythagoras from Raphael's School of Athens.jpg") to does, in fact, have an alt caption (a very descriptive one, actually), but it appears that it was broken for some reason. I have now fixed it, so the alt text should show up fine. Regarding the number of images, none of them even come close to being sandwiched on my screen and, as I am scrolling through the article, I generally only have one image on my screen at any given time. I suspect this is more a problem of your screen being unusually large than the article having too many images. I think that all the images do add something to the article, but, if you absolutely insist that I must remove some of them, there are a few I would be willing, albeit reluctant, to remove.
The reason why the first section deals with biographical sources is because Pythagoras is an extraordinarily difficult individual to write a biography about and all of our sources on his life are problematic in a number of ways. It is therefore highly necessary to explain the sources that are available and the problems with them before the article can delve into the accounts of his life. In fact, at least two of the main sources used in this article, the books Pythagoras: His Life, Teaching and Influence by Christoph Riedweg (published in 2005 by Cornell University Press) and Measuring Heaven: Pythagoras and His Influence on Thought and Art in Antiquity and the Middle Ages by Christiane Joost-Gaugier (published in 2006, also by Cornell University Press) both devote roughly a whole chapter to an overview of the historical sources available for reconstructing Pythagoras's biography before attempting to reconstruct that biography. --Katolophyromai (talk) 14:47, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe my screen is "unusually large", at 1920 x 1366, it's in fact one of the most common (smaller, in fact, than the 2560x1600 standard on 13 inch MacBook Pros). It represents an estimated 20% of web users. That aside, I strongly disagree that all the images add something to the article:
@Wugapodes: The images look fine on my computer. Perhaps my computer screen is unusually small. I am not much of a techie person, so I probably would not know. --Katolophyromai (talk) 18:41, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are two images that depict a proof of the pythagorean theorem which the article (and you) make clear he may not have even developed; those interested in that information can go to the article pythagorean theorem.
Just because people can click on a link to another article does not mean we should not attempt to explain things in this article. Although Pythagoras probably did not really discover the Pythagorean theorem, it is still what most people immediately associate him with. I would be willing to remove the second image of the proof for the theorem if you really insist, but I still maintain that the first image, at least, should remain, since there is a possibility that someone reading this article may not understand the Pythagorean theorem and the diagram illustrates it quite nicely. --Katolophyromai (talk) 18:41, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just because people can click on a link to another article does not mean we should not attempt to explain things in this article. But this is the point of WP:SUMMARY, this is an article on Pythagoras, who likely didn't even discover this theorem, and further, the article doesn't explain the pythagorean theorem at all. The only content related to the theorem proper is its statement as A^2 + b^2 = c^2, with the rest of the two paragraphs discussing how he probably didn't invent it. The only reason I can make sense of the diagrams is because I already know the proof, they re useless to someone who doesn't because they are not put into context and probably shouldn't be given WP:SUMMARY. If people are coming to this article for information on the theorem they are going to the wrong article. The proper way to direct them to the appropriate article is with {{main}} or {{about}}. Wugapodes [thɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 01:06, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The image caption "Gaffurio Pythagoras.png" mentions pythagorean tuning but this is explained nowhere in the article, there is a {{main}} link to the article, but readers would need to go to that page to understand the image at all; even if greater context were added (though it should be) I doubt the usefulness of a visual image for demonstrating auditory phenomena like musical tuning.
Pythagorean tuning is described in the article; that is what the entire "In music" section is about. The image here is illustrating the legend about how Pythagoras is said to have discovered Pythagorean tuning after passing a blacksmith's shop where they were pounding with different-sized hammers, a legend which is described in the section. This particular woodcut is also used and discussed in one of the sources as part of Pythagoras's legacy. --Katolophyromai (talk) 18:41, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is not described in the article. It is mentioned, but it is not described. The closest it gets to describing pythagorean tuning is "He then realized that the tune played when the hammer struck was directly proportional to the size of the hammer and therefore concluded that music was mathematical." What are the steps or freuency ratios used in pythagorean tuning? How does it relate to typical tunings of bells or other instruments? What does the tuning sound like? None of this is conveyed in the section. That it is an illustration of the legend is not described in the picture caption at all: "Late medieval woodcut from Franchino Gafurio's Theoria musice (1492), showing Pythagoras with bells and other instruments in Pythagorean tuning." And I maintain that this image is not useful for informing readers about an auditory phenomenon. Wugapodes [thɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 01:06, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The usefulness of the Timaeus manuscript pages image is in the caption and text, as I don't see what readers are supposed to get out of an image of an old book they can't read (at any size given that it is in Latin). If they are truly interested they can find the image on the associated article in a more useful context.
The image contains geometric diagrams, which illustrate the Pythagorean influences, since the Pythagoreans, at least in Plato's time, believed in mystical geometry and that is part of how they influenced Plato. --Katolophyromai (talk) 18:41, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The image "Archytas of Tarentum MAN Napoli Inv5607.jpg" is possibly not of Pythagoras (which is not necessarily a bad thing), the suspicion based upon the dress of the bust which doesn't seem to be explained in the caption or text, and regardless represents the third image of a bust in a row, immediately next to another bust (though I would prefer it, with more context, over the Vatican Museum bust given the rather distracting background of that one).
All three of the busts pictured in the article are discussed in the sources, which discuss Pythagoras's iconography and these busts in particular. If we were to omit them, we would be leaving out a vital aspect of how Pythagoras was later portrayed. --Katolophyromai (talk) 18:41, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
They are discussed in the sources, but not in the article. If they show vital aspects of how Pythagoras was later portrayed, why is there no discussion in the article about them? Wugapodes [thɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 01:06, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The image "Decorated pillars of the temple at Karnac, Thebes, Egypt. Co Wellcome V0049316.jpg" is unclear as to its relation to Pythagoras at all, the article says he studied in Thebes, and the caption says the Great Hypostyle Hall was "at that site" but is "that site" Thebes or a place Pythagoras studied? Either way, what does an image of these columns depict about Pythagoras or his studies?
It means "at Thebes." I do not believe Antiphon ever clearly identifies the exact site where Pythagoras is said to have studied and there is doubt about the accuracy of Antiphon's report. The idea in having the image was to give the reader an impression of what some of the ruins at Thebes look like. If Pythagoras really did study in Thebes, then those ruins would have been there when he was there, having been built hundreds of years before. I would be willing to remove this image if you would really like me to. --Katolophyromai (talk) 18:41, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would recommend those as the starting place for reduction in the number of images.
As for the biographical sources section, I think it is worth keeping on its own, but would be better placed as the last subsection of "Life". While I understand that a number of secondary sources lead off with a discussion of biographical sources, Wikipedia is not a secondary source, and the veracity of the primary sources on his life should be of minimal concern because we should (and do) use secondary sources which have already evaluated what is an is not likely to be true. In fact, none of the cited sources are to those primary source authors, and so it doesn't even serve as a disclaimer about the sourcing of the article itself. Further, for readers looking for information on Pythagoras, having the first section be four paragraphs about people who are not Pythagoras is strange. Given that its usefulness is more esoteric, I don't think its current placement is justified. Wugapodes [thɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 17:08, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Placing it at the end of the "Life" section would eliminate much of the point in having it because one of the main reasons why I have the section and why it is placed at the beginning of the body is to explain what the sources are for Pythagoras's life so that, when the article refers to them in the "Life" section, the readers will know which ones it is talking about and hopefully have some impression of the problems those sources present. The earliest sources are obviously the ones that are most important. I am also going to have to strongly disagree with your assessment of the reliability of the primary sources concerned here as a "esoteric" issue that should be of "minimal concern"; the accuracy of the primary sources is not an esoteric concern, but a pressing problem that must be addressed before we can really begin to talk about Pythagoras at all.
Writing about Pythagoras is not the same as writing about say, George Washington, Charles Darwin, Mark Twain, Albert Einstein, or any other recent historical figure whose life details are well-known and uncontroversial. As the "Life" and "Legends" sections already indicate, primary sources disagree widely on many aspects of Pythagoras's life, with many of them giving completely different and contradictory accounts. There are only a handful of facts that are generally agreed upon. Yes, we do rely on secondary sources, but secondary sources rely on primary sources and those are the original sources of information, which makes it highly significant to explain what they are. I like to think that our articles should give readers a thorough understanding of the subject and introduce them to the primary sources so, if they wish to find more information from primary sources, they will know where to look and will have an impression of how accurate those sources are, when they were written, and by whom. --Katolophyromai (talk) 18:41, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Wugapodes: I have gone ahead and removed many (but not all) of the images you have suggested removing with this edit. I hope this solves the problem. I also moved the images of the two busts later in the article to fill in a large gap left by the removal of several images in the same vicinity. That also moves them away from the main image and hopefully resolves your complaint about having the first three images in the article all be busts. --Katolophyromai (talk) 18:46, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have replied inline to those comments you have made above, but I want to summarize them partly here as well as some concerns that your responses have raised as well. In my mind, the number and placement of images has become more of a minor concern. That issues stems from MOS:IMAGES: "Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative." In many cases, the images do not appear to be significant in context because that context is not made clear in the article. For example, the first three images (still) in the article are busts of Pythagoras, and the reason expressed for keeping them is that we would be leaving out a vital aspect of how Pythagoras was later portrayed. Yet despite them being specifically described in the sources, their articulated importance is not discussed anywhere in the article. One would have to already be familiar with the sources to understand the images as important, not decorative. Similarly, the pythagorean tuning image is apparently mentioned in the sources yet the significance of that image is not explained at all in the text of the article, the issue of a still image being used to convey an auditory phenomenon on top of that. In at least two cases, secondary sources articulated the importance of a given image included here yet no mention of that significance is made in the text. And this poses accesibility issues as well; not everyone can see these images and relying on them to make a point that should be described in the text is a significant problem for readers with impaired vision or slow/limited internet connections. Given that I am concerned that the article does not meet criteria 1b and 1c, as what seems to be important contextual information in secondary sources has not been included. I am not well versed enough in the literature to say whether it does or doesn't meet those criteria, but that the reason for including two images is coverage in secondary sources despite this article not covering that discussion is deeply concerning.
My second major concern is with criterion 4 and the use of summary style. The first example is the "Biographical sources" section that begins the article. Criterion 4 states that the article must "stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail" yet the first four paragraphs of the body of the article are devoted to people who are not the subject. Despite your objection I maintain that this information is esoteric and should not be the first section of the article: this is not the most important information on the subject. While you are correct that secondary sources may start with this information wikipedia is not a secondary source and we follow summary style where the most important information goes first and only after is followed by detailed background information like scholarly debates as to the veracity of certain sources. If, for example, the section entitled "alleged travels" is unable to convey the conflict of sources as to where he allegedly traveled to without a 4 paragraph description of all the primary sources then I would be concerned that the section does not satisfy WP:DUE. The article on Plato doesn't begin with a discussion of the veracity of biographical sources, nor does Diogenes of Sinope, nor does Hipparchia of Maroneia or Epicurus both of whom are known almost entirely from secondary sources.
Issues of summary style also extend to sections describing and linking to concepts in other articles. The article on pythagorean tuning is not adequately summarized in this article at all, while it has coverage of the legend of how it was discovered, it makes no actual mention of what the tuning even is or what the mathematical relationship mentioned is. Similarly for the pythagorean theorem; supposedly people coming to this article are interested in that topic, yet it is burried 18(!) sections down with the heading "[Attributed discoveries] In mathematics". If this is so prominent, why is it not prominent in the sectioning? If the "Attributed discoveries" don't describe the discoveries proper but only the legends surrounding the discovery (as seems to be the case), why are they not a subsection of "Legends"?
These are my concerns so far, though I still hope to do a more thorough review. Wugapodes [thɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 01:06, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More on images edit

  • File:The_story_of_the_greatest_nations;_a_comprehensive_history,_extending_from_the_earliest_times_to_the_present,_founded_on_the_most_modern_authorities,_and_including_chronological_summaries_and_(14783288925).jpg should include a more specific copyright tag
  • File:Bronnikov_gimnpifagoreizev.jpg needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:21, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: I have added PD tags to the images "File:The_story_of_the_greatest_nations;_a_comprehensive_history,_extending_from_the_earliest_times_to_the_present,_founded_on_the_most_modern_authorities,_and_including_chronological_summaries_and_(14783288925).jpg" and "File:Bronnikov_gimnpifagoreizev.jpg," both of which are two-dimensional works of art that were originally published over a century ago and are definitely in the public domain. The busts shown in "File:Kapitolinischer Pythagoras adjusted.jpg" and "File:Pythagoras Bust Vatican Museum (cropped).jpg" are of uncertain date, but they are certainly no later than about the third century AD. They are probably much earlier than that, but the third century is the most recent possible date. The one shown in "File:Archytas of Tarentum MAN Napoli Inv5607.jpg" definitely is no later than 79 AD because it was discovered in the House of the Papyri in Herculaneum. It was probably originally cast long before that, but the eruption of Vesuvius ensures a most recent possible date of the 70s AD. All three of these busts are well over 1,700 years old. We do not know who originally created them, but, unless they were all carved by some kind of immortal or time-traveling trickster, I am guessing their authors are long, long dead. Is there a tag that can be added to show that an original three-dimensional work of art is in the public domain? --Katolophyromai (talk) 15:11, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You could use a life+70 or a pre-1923 tag, but I am not sure whether these items would be covered under Italy's cultural heritage provisions. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:24, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: The page you linked to talking about Freedom of Panorama in Italy says this: "Copyright protection expires 70 years after the death of the original author (who is defined as the creator or designer) here. On January 1st of the following year (ie. January 1 of the 71st Year), freely licensed images of the author's 3D works such as sculptures, buildings, bridges or monuments are now free and can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. The lack of Freedom of Panorama is no longer relevant here for states with no formal FOP since the author's works are now copyright free." --Katolophyromai (talk) 16:33, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: I have added tags to the images of the sculptures to show that the original sculptures are in the public domain. --Katolophyromai (talk) 15:13, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing nomination edit

@Wehwalt: @Wugapodes: @Nikkimaria: I have decided to withdraw my nomination of this article for FAC. Clearly this article is nowhere close to being of "Featured Article" quality and, frankly, since "Featured Article" status seems to mean taking out all the information about the sources and removing all or nearly all the images, I do not think I actually want to bring this article to FA status after all. I would rather just leave it the way it is. --Katolophyromai (talk) 01:53, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I heartily sympathize. Good luck with the article and your work here, and if I can advise or help in any way, please let me know.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:02, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sorry to see this. I looked at the article both now and before you removed some images & the number seemed fine to me in the earlier version. Johnbod (talk) 03:39, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Katolophyromai: I don't think this article is "nowhere close to being" FA quality. In my attempts to make my point clear, I was harsh and my point got burried by my jerk-iness for which I am sorry. I do hope you continue, though I understand if I've soured the process for you. I think that getting it there does not require "taking out all the information about the sources and removing all or nearly all the images", and I hope to make my suggestions clear in a more constructive way. I don't think you should remove the biographical sources discussion, you convinced me of the importance of them in your first comment. Rather, I think it would be better placed as a subsection of "Life" for the reasons (rudely) given. I don't think you should remove all the images, I think a number of them are very good, and I should have been more forth coming with that. For the ones you chose not to remove, I should have been more clear that my concern is not that they are there, but that you clearly know so much about them from the sources, and that the context you are aware of isn't apparent from the article. That this was a note for expansion, not necessarily removal. You have put a lot of work into this article, and it shows. I don't think it's so far off that it can't pass. If I haven't ruined it for you, I do hope you reconsider withdrawing. Wugapodes [thɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 04:52, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Wugapodes: No, no. It was not your fault. You actually were not very rude at all and I apologize if I have made you feel bad about yourself. The problem here is me. I should have known people would expect me to make lots of changes, but, after spending so much time on an article, I always get attached to the way things are and do not want to make major changes. That is not a healthy thing to do in general, especially here on Wikipedia, since we do not own articles, but I tend to do it anyway, even though I consciously try to avoid it. Really, I probably ought to stop writing on Wikipedia and start working on my own writings again. I used to write a lot on my own and I am actually still sort of working on a book, but I spend far more time writing on Wikipedia nowadays than I do on that. I will consider withdrawing my withdrawal of this nomination. I may want a day or two to think about it. --Katolophyromai (talk) 05:08, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to have ended with no hard feelings; I hope Katolophyromai is not too disheartened and will continue with the nom. Ceoil (talk) 15:00, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by Ceoil edit

Reading through and first impressions are good. I know Katolophyromai from other articles (including Evil and Satan), and will vouch for his serious-mindedness. I see two red flags, but they are probably unintentional: vegetarianism *was* linked twice in the lead, and I think the Transcendentalism paragraph towards the end is stretching it. Nor do I like the "see also section" - if none of these are worth blue links above, then why do we need them. Its *really* great to see this here, and would love to see the page scrutinised, even if thats hard for Katolophyromai in the short term, it will pay back man. Ceoil (talk) 15:27, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done with this, frustratingly so. Would urge other reviewers to watch for new age tenancies, and language such as "career" and "famous" in ancient contexts. On that basis I think a heavy duty source review may be needed. Ceoil (talk) 16:59, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ceoil: I apologize if I drove you off. That was not what I was trying to do. I kept most of the changes you made, but there were a lot of places where you changed the meaning of what the article was saying so that it no longer aligned with the sources or so that important information was omitted. For instance, there were several times you changed the word "Pythagorean" to say "his" in reference to Pythagoras, but the word "Pythagorean" refers to things associated either with Pythagoras himself or with his later followers. With many of these teachings, we cannot necessarily attribute them to Pythagoras himself, because we only know that these were things his later followers believed.
As for the word "famous," fame was a concept with which the ancient Greeks were intimately familiar. Their word for "fame" or "renown" was κλέος, which refers to a person's reputation and how that person is known and remembered. The Greeks placed a strong emphasis on this idea, as evidenced, for instance, by the fact that names ending in a suffix derived from this word (e.g. Περικλῆς, Σοφοκλῆς, etc.) were nearly ubiquitous in the fifth century BC. It seems to me that the problem with this word is not its actual meaning or definition, but rather that you personally associate it with modern celebrity culture, something which word does not actually denote. Nonetheless, I have not reverted your edit removing this word because I do not have any problem with the new wording and I would prefer to avoid starting an argument for no good reason.
I am also confused by what you say about "New Age tendencies"; I am largely unfamiliar with what "New Age" movements believe and, in this article, I am just trying to report what scholarly sources have written about Pythagoras and Pythagoreanism. Perhaps the problem here is that Pythagoreanism has influenced modern New Age teachings so much that you are mistaking Pythagorean ideas for New Age ones? As for the paragraph about Pythagorean influence on eighteenth-century Transcendendalism, I am curious why you thought that needed to be removed. I have not restored it because I was not particularly attached to it and I really did not want to start another argument, but I fail to see what the problem with it was. As far as I can tell, the paragraph was well-sourced and relevant.
As I have said above, I think I would rather just end this review, because it has been nothing but a pain for me and I have decided that I do not think it is worthwhile to continue. Honestly, I really ought to stop writing for Wikipedia altogether, but I have gotten into such a bad habit of writing articles here that I cannot stop. --Katolophyromai (talk) 17:43, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I find the above extremely tortured, self pitying, and frankly tiresome; its not for me to say if you should retire or not. If you are unwilling to be scrutinised, then maybe FAC the process and your manner are not suited. Ceoil (talk) 17:50, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: - courtesy ping to the FAC co-ords: the nom has requested withdrawal of this - (see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates&diff=860879599&oldid=860775830 w/d comment here). - SchroCat (talk) 19:11, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SchroCat, I think it can be worked out by the delegates. But thanks! Ceoil (talk) 21:17, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 04:39, 18 September 2018 [4].

Apollo 15 postage stamp incident edit

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 16:09, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... a controversy that came up late in the Apollo Project, that profoundly affected the careers of the astronauts involved, and still does affect them, as I saw by watching an interview with one of them last year that almost immediately brought this issue up. There are a lot of variations on what happened, so I've gone to some lengths to make it clear inline where the information is coming from, which I believe is also consistent with our BLP policy.Wehwalt (talk) 16:09, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tony1 edit

Lead, 1a:

  • "When in 1972 it became widely known that some of these envelopes were being sold for over a thousand dollars each, there was a considerable scandal, and none of the three astronauts ever flew in space again." Slightly bumpy, but more importantly, is the last clause a causal spin-off from the preceding propositions? They were embarrassed about the scandal, so they went into retirement? If so, it needs to be clearer. "these envelopes" needs to back-refer more narrowly. The bumps could be tamed thus: "A year later there was considerable scandal when it became widely known that some of the unlisted envelopes were being sold for over a thousand dollars each, ...".
I"ve rewritten a bit but I think it was clear as stood.
  • Up to you, but I'd write "100 of them".
I am stressing that these were the unauthorized covers.
  • "the three astronauts, David Scott, Alfred Worden and James Irwin agreed to a proposal from Horst Eiermann that they carry postal covers to the Moon, in exchange for $7,000 for each of them." Who is Horst Eiermann? We're totally in the dark. Was it a private proposal? Was it secretive? Or was it above-board and the cash was to go to NASA? Maybe it comes out later, but it's confusing not to be told here. It sounds prima facie outrageous—but it's not clear enough for readers. You have to wonder between the lines.
I've added that he was an acquaintance, though it duplicates the term used regarding Herrick. Since the astronauts were consistent on neither point, and there are BLP issues, I don't feel like going any further than that.
  • had ... have.
I've made a slight change, though I don't think it unnecessary duplication.
  • The parenthetical bit is pulled backward to the where, and forward to the when: "and were postmarked again on the recovery carrier, the USS Okinawa on August 7, the date of splashdown."
I've again made a slight change. These things have to be explained.
  • "the remainder was" ... more comfortable for readers as "were". My eyes jerked at it.
I did consider that, but thought the American reader would not like the construction. I've changed "remainder" to "rest"
On reconsideration, I've varied the wording a bit to avoid the question of whether it should be singular or plural.
  • "these were only postmarked on splashdown"—the "only" is ambiguous. If you mean they had to wait till splashdown (not processed in other ways too), put "only" after "postmarked".
I think the way you want it would read oddly, at least to the American reader, so I've cut the phrase entirely to avoid the issue.
  • "When NASA received word about the Herrick covers"—word of, I think. "heard about" is fine.
I've changed to a different wording.
  • "Amid objections that astronauts should not be allowed to reap personal profits from NASA missions, there was considerable publicity,"—weren't the objections part of the publicity?
I rewrote this slightly though I think it could have stood as is unremarkably.
  • "In 1983, they sued for the return of the covers that had been impounded in 1972, and they gained this in an out-of-court settlement." Personal style: I'd not use the comma after a sentence-initial time phrase ending in a year, unless there was a reason in terms of sentence length and overall rhythm (but I do insert a comma between numerals and first-person "I"). I think you could weed out a few commas generally. Do you need the second "they"? Instead, maybe "In 1983 they sued for return of the covers impounded in 1972, which they gained in an out-of-court settlement."
I think if you changed that, you'd have to change the previous sentence "In 1977, ..." which would look odd, so I will plead sentence rhythm.

It's a rocky road. Is the rest of it better? Tony (talk) 02:32, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Try it and see. You may or may not like it there is a lot of material and variations on the story to, er, cover. It to a certain extent comes with the territory as there is no canonical version of these events to fall back on.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:17, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really saying that it's not at FA standard by the look of the lead. I have limited time. I may take samples further down at some stage, but we rely on nominators and their colleagues to take the mantle and apply comments throughout. Thx. Tony (talk) 09:44, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You are entitled to your view of course, but it's had a peer review from two people who seemed to think the prose was up to snuff. Tony, would you mind waiting on the responses if I'm obviously working on the article? I just lost some replies to an edit conflict. If you've waited nine years to say something to me after our last interaction, which I do not recall as pleasant, since we went to AN/I over it, can you at least wait a few minutes?--Wehwalt (talk) 09:48, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I hope I do not come off as grumpy, it is not quite 6 am. I am certainly prepared to work with you in good faith on this. In fact, I regret the earlier incident and would welcome the opportunity.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:59, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. "but it's had a peer review from two people who seemed to think the prose was up to snuff"—That's designed to piss reviewers. Do NOT play reviewers off against each other. And I don't recall this ANI stuff you refer to: it's vaguely threatening, and it's personal in its intent. Nor do I like the tone of "You are entitled to your view". Tony (talk) 23:25, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You were haled there, and you admitted making an oppose not because the article deserved it, but to make a point. Just as here, your stated reason for opposing is not the article, but because you don't like what I said. We have not said a word to each other between the interactions, but it seems very little has changed. It may well be that you do not remember it, but that would come as a surprise in view of our very lack of contact. Sorry, that's how it looks from me. In the real world, if you had a conflict with a co-worker, then chose to have no contact for 9 years, then weighed back with criticism that will see no good, and immediately take offense, your motives would be open to question, and would be questioned. The article was Indian Head eagle, by the way.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:47, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have opposed because the prose is way below standard. Sorry you can't cope with a proper review of it. You keep repeating "nine years" and "lack of contact". I've no idea what you're on about, but I'll leave you to work it out, internally. You seem to think I have a special place for you in my social mind: I don't. I barely remember any interactions. This is not the place to spew personal issues. It's undignified and irrelevant to the process. Tony (talk) 00:15, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your words and actions speak for themselves, then and now. Enough said.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:31, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley edit

I peer reviewed this article and my few quibbles were dealt with then. Well-written, well and widely sourced, comprehensive, and most interesting to boot. Very happy to support. Tim riley talk 15:34, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:50, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clikity edit

Try to send this in to WP:GOCE/REQ next time. If the article fails, work with the editors there then run it for another peer review. That's just a bit of advice from me. I honestly don't know if I should support or oppose this nomination. Lots of the prose is very sluggish. Also this seems to have lots of primary sources. Try to make this article more clear and concise. All else it does a good job against most of my criteria. I guess I have to do a tedious review through this article when I have time. Clikity (talk) 16:18, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your comments would be very welcome.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:01, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

czar edit

  • I'm really surprised to see this article rely so heavily on primary sources: three books/autobiographies from the three astronauts and a handful of letters/NASA docs → 2/3 of the bibliography? Why weren't secondary sources sufficient? It isn't like this primary source stuff is only filling in little holes. czar 18:07, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Because there are few to no secondary sources that make judgments among the varying versions of events. If you have secondary sources that cover this area in detail that I have not used, I would be very glad to know of them. And given BLP concerns here, I felt it best to let the astronauts speak to the facts. I'm not sure how else you might do it.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:14, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Since we cover topics in proportion to their secondary source coverage, a lack of secondary sourcing would indicate that this topic might be better covered in an expanded section of the parent article rather than split out summary style from the parent. I haven't done a full analysis, but if more than half of the prose is sourced to primary sources, that would indicate that not enough has been written about the topic to warrant a dedicated article. Perhaps your research would be publishable elsewhere though. czar 19:03, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That seems somewhat at variance with WP:PRIMARY, which cautions against building the entire article from primary sources. I would note that the NASA letters are more secondary sources than primary, anyway, they are reports based on primary sources such as interviews and documents we do not see. And the use of autobiographies is commonplace.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:15, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is my concern, that the article is potentially built from majority primary/affiliated sources, which we avoid, as a tertiary source. Anyway, that was the only point I wanted to make. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 19:31, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that, and thank you for your comment. I think if you looked into it, you would find that it's within policy, and I did carefully read the policy while writing out of the concern you mention. Among other things, the sources you note are not used for analysis, and there are a fair number of secondary sources used. I'll wait and see how a source review goes. Thank you again.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:37, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment edit

@FAC coordinators: So as not to place reviewers or a coordinator in an awkward position, I am withdrawing this nomination, this time, although I believe it meets the criteria and all relevant policies. All interested are invited to improve this article, if they desire, directly or by comment on the talk page. Thanks especially to the peer reviewers.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:41, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All right, I left this a while to allow for any change of mind but as there's been none I'll honour the request now. I was prepared to comment on the dispute above but I really think it's academic now, so I'll just say that I hope we see the article back here at some stage. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:38, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wehwalt: personally I have concerns about the title of the article, because the Apollo 15 mission stamps are not the subject of the article, which themselves were never the incident per se, but it is about the mail, envelopes, or covers, carried on the mission. I'm sure there has to be better title that is more appropriate to the topic. Something like "Apollo 25 crew-carried mail incident" or "Apollo 25 crew-carried mail controversy" would seems much better. BTW, maybe you should put it up for a GA instead of FA. ww2censor (talk) 15:10, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 15:25, 15 September 2018 [5].

Doctor Who (series 5) edit

Nominator(s): -- AlexTW 15:40, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the fifth series of Doctor Who, and was promoted to GA status in 2012. With the edits that have been contributed to the article in the past six years, I believe it would be an ideal FA candidate. -- AlexTW 15:40, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Bilorv edit

Okay, so this is very much an outsider perspective on the article as I've seen very little of Doctor Who, but hopeful that's useful for prose improvement:

  • The description for episode 3 is a bit short, especially relative to the other episodes – I'd recommend 100 words as a lower bound (and 200 is the MOS upper bound).
  • In the episode list, what is the "AI" heading referring to? A footnote or {{Abbr}} seems necessary here.
  • "and the failure of which" – Not clear grammatically what this refers to. Maybe "... the crack in Amy's wall. Failure to capture the alien ..."
  • The "Star Whale" link doesn't work – the target should be List of Doctor Who universe creatures and aliens (Q–Z)#Star Whale.
  • "but which the Doctor recognises as his arch-enemies the Daleks" – I'm unclear what the "but" means. Is Churchill lying to the Doctor, has Churchill been lied to by Bracewell or is it the case that Bracewell created the Daleks? Then "Bracewell, who is revealed to be an android" is also a bit unclear – did the Daleks create Bracewell? If the audience isn't meant to understand (or to understand yet) that's fine, but otherwise more explanation is needed.
  • "the group finds themselves thirty feet above at the opening of the Byzantium" – Is there an idiom here I'm not understanding? Thirty feet above what? (Also, I think it's "find" and not "finds".)
  • "A crack very similar to the one in Amy's bedroom appears" – I think the episode descriptions should all be standalone, so mention "The Eleventh Hour" (e.g. "A crack very similar to the one that appeared in Amy's bedroom in "The Eleventh Hour appears...").
  • "which the Doctor discovers" – This refers to the crack (right?) but sounds like it could refer to the ship, so rephrase (maybe move "in the interior of the ship" to the start of the sentence).
  • "a projection of an Angel had entered Amy's eye after she had looked" – I think both "had"s can be removed.
  • "fled their planet because of the cracks in the universe" – The scope confuses me here. Were the cracks on their planet? In their solar system? Or if they are widely spread across the universe, how does this lead the aliens to flee?
  • "into her race to become mates of ten thousand of her male children" – I think "into her race to serve as mates for ten thousand of her male children" would be clearer.
  • "she sacrifices herself" – To accomplish what? To stop the storm?
  • "had previously been dragged below the ground, which then happens to Amy" – I know what this means but I'm not sure the grammar is right. Maybe "... below the ground; this then happens to Amy".
  • "up for they and Alaya" – Surely "they" should be "them".
  • "a museum" is an Easter egg link.
  • "back to meet Vincent" – I think referring to him consistently as "von Gogh" is better.
  • "the Krafyis, a lost and blind alien" – Is this a single alien or a species (or type) of alien?
  • "that people will admire him, this gives hope" – This is a comma splice which should be fixed.
  • "learn that he still did, however also learns" – This doesn't quite make sense. Maybe "learn that he still did, though she also learns".
  • "as the deadly cracks in the universe were linked to the TARDIS" – Linked in what way? Caused by? If it's not clear at this point, maybe you could explain the motives of the people e.g. "The Alliance believe the Doctor is causing the cracks with the TARDIS" or whatever their reasoning is.
  • "The trap" – What is this referring to? The Pandorica?
  • "also contains an Auton version of Rory" – "Auton" needs explaining (e.g. "an Auton (artificial life form) version").
  • "will force her ... once her DNA is given ... who places her hand" – There seems to be a tense change happening somewhere in the sentence. Make it clearer which bits are hypothetical and which are happening.
  • "due to something the Doctor told her" – Too informal. Is this a simple phrase that can just be quoted here? If not, maybe "a message the Doctor gave her" or "the Doctor's final words to her" or whatever.

Looking at the Production section, I see there are some similar issues to those above e.g. "and" doesn't make sense in this sentence: "However, Smith, who was only 26 when cast, was the third person to audition and the production team knew "[they] had their man"." I will continue with the review, but I suggest that you first make the changes above to the Plot, and then go through the rest of the article making thorough copyedits for grammar and coherence. By the way, ref #17 and #34 have errors and #168 has a dead link tag. And I noticed that some information from the lead—"the largely new production team led to the series production codes being reset"—isn't mentioned in the body (the prod codes are given but not linked to the new production team). — Bilorv(c)(talk) 19:02, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alex: any word on resolving these issues? — Bilorv(c)(talk) 13:42, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry! Thanks for the reminder! I'll get to work on these issues for you first thing tomorrow. -- AlexTW 14:45, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Bilorv: Your outsider perspective on the article is greatly appreciated, and I've made the recommended updates to the article. The dead link was from a transclusion from List of Doctor Who home video releases, which has been fixed with a new reference. Cheers. -- AlexTW 02:06, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but the prose in the rest of the article is not FA standard. Take the first paragraph of the Costume section, which I picked at random:
  • The first sentence uses "costume" three times, which is repetitive and clunky, so the sentence needs to be rewritten.
  • The second sentence is very confusing in terms of tense—what's the "he would find" about? Should this just be "In the first episode, the Doctor found..."? Or "Initial plans were for the Doctor to find..."?
  • "and would identify" should be "and that would identify"
  • "once he had put it on they decided they had the costume" – Not an encyclopedic tone. An improvement would be "but they changed their minds when he put it on".
  • "the month of April 2010, connected to when the series began airing" – Connected is too vague. Replace with "the month of April 2010, which is when the series began airing".
The article needs a very thorough copyedit. In all honesty, this might be better done outside of the FA process, and the article may benefit from a Guild of Copy Editors request. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 11:26, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why a review was begun, the concerns of which were addressed rather quickly (after the reminder), only to end with "I'm sorry, but...". I've requested a copyedit review of the article from WP:GOCE, but I am certain that it can still be addressed throughout the FA process, especially since it took a week and a half for the FAC to initially be addressed to start off with while other FAC requests filed after this one were addressed even quicker. -- AlexTW 11:54, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but I did say "I suggest that you first make the changes above to the Plot, and then go through the rest of the article making thorough copyedits for grammar and coherence". So no, you didn't address my concerns, and you shouldn't need a reminder because the nominator should be taking a more active role. I expected when I looked at the article that it would just be the Plot section that had prose issues, as this is the section new editors most commonly edit, but it turns out to be a problem throughout. I also expected, as is the standard, that you would have put a lot of work into the article prior to nomination, but I can't really see any edits you made in preparation for an FAC. I can't do anything about other people choosing different articles to review, and I'm sorry for not immediately recognising the issues with the article. I understand that what I'm writing is very negative, but it's not personal.
The article isn't FA quality at the moment. If you can get it up to FA quality, I'll have another look. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 13:43, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, I do have a life to take part in, and I was going to aim for a copyedit soon. I guess I didn't make that immediately clear. And I'm terribly sorry that I forgot to come back to one article; I expect, then, that you've never forgotten anything before, I could only wish to have such a memory! I will copyedit the article, as I've already stated, and also wait for further opinions on the article and its FAC. -- AlexTW 13:59, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay then, if escalation is what you're aiming for then I'll formally oppose promotion to FA on 1(a) grounds. I'm unwatching this page and shall not return. I've done my best to give constructive criticism but if it's being met with deflections and antagonism then this isn't a place I want to volunteer. (Note to FAC co-ordinators: this isn't a pointed oppose because I've detailed many 1(a) issues above. I'm simply walking away from the review because I have no interest in conflict.) — Bilorv(c)(talk) 14:31, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Bilorv: I've taken your constructive criticism and applied it to the article, while also stating I was going to copyedit the article, including a request to GOCE. You were happy to help out with the article, but when met with the slightest attitude in response to your own, you "formally" hindered the nomination due to nothing but your personal dislike to my reply. That is the very definition of WP:POINT. Nevertheless, I thank you for your suggestions, and await the next editors to offer their opinions.

Comments by Cas Liber edit

Looking now....

  • Though it is the fifth series since the show's revival in 2005 and the thirty-first since it began in 1963, the series features the production codes being reset. - umm, not sure what you're trying to get across here...
  • In the series finale it is revealed that the cracks were caused by the TARDIS exploding and the Doctor is forced to reboot the universe to the state which it was in without the cracks. - clunky, needs rewording
  • The seven episodes of the series which were not written by Moffat were penned by guest writers. Mark Gatiss, Toby Whithouse, Simon Nye, Richard Curtis, Gareth Roberts each wrote one episode each, while Chris Chibnall wrote a two-episode story. - can be tightened.
  • The series was meant to be fantastical to stand out among other science fiction and fantasy shows and the production team pushed a fairy-tale quality because Moffat believed media aimed at children was some of the most popular among adults. - the whole first half of this sentence is puffy and should be drastically trimmed or removed.

I think I agree with Bilorv in that this needs a good going-over prose-wise, sorry. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:01, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll definitely cover these come the morning. I agreed that it needed a good copy edit, which I both plan to do and have requested an assisting hand from GOCE. -- AlexTW 14:59, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note edit

Sorry but the comments above indicate that the article was underprepared for FAC. I applaud the plan for a full copyedit with the assistance of the GOCE but this should be undertaken outside the FAC process, so I'm going to archive this. When copyediting is complete, I'd recommend submitting to Peer Review before renominating here. It's fine to ping previous reviewers of the article for both PR and a subsequent run at FAC. Thanks, Ian Rose (talk) 15:25, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Naturally. -- AlexTW 15:28, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 13:32, 10 September 2018 [6].

Morgan le Fay edit

Nominator(s): Atsme 📞 📧 19:21, 9 September 2018 (UTC), and User:SNAAAAKE!![reply]

This article is about the enchantress Morgan le Fay as depicted in the Arthurian legend. Atsme 📞 📧 19:21, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tony1 edit

Lead, cr. 1a: The lead needs tucking, trimming, simplifying, and clarifying.

  • "Early appearances of Morgan do not elaborate her character beyond her role as either a goddess, a fay or a sorceress,"—Isn't "or" enough? Do we need "either"?
  • "She became more important and morally ambivalent in other texts, in particular in cyclical prose such as the Lancelot-Grail and the Post-Vulgate Cycle, wherein she turns into a counter hero in a range of roles, including that of the antagonist in some tales."—First, what is more important than being a goddess? What does "important" mean here? Second, there are a few instances in the lead of starting, becoming, that I wonder about. "She was more important ..."? If she went through an overt process of becoming in these texts, it could be clarified in the wording. "she turns into" ... you mean during each of those texts, do you? And since magic is at issue, it sounds like the waving of a wand. "evolves to be"? I'm unsure. Third, "wherein"? Let's leave that to (klepto-) lawyers; so perhaps dump it while you split into two sentences.
  • "A significant aspect recurring in many of Morgan's medieval and later iterations"—convince me you need "recurring".
  • "with the potential for good as well as evil"—"with potential for both good and evil"
  • "local"—is that clear?
  • "gradually having been associated with"—another becoming phrase. Unsure what it means: in each of the stories? Over time?
  • "following" ... so you're introducing a list? "subsequent"? I don't understand the sentence.
  • "she is usually established as the youngest daughter of Arthur's mother"—why not "she is usually the"?
  • "Arthur, who is the son of Igraine and Uther, is Morgan's half-brother; Mordred's mother Morgause is one of her sisters." Who is Mordred???
  • "Morgan unhappily marries Urien with whom she has a son, Ywain."—Another comma required, probably.
  • "In this tradition"—this goes back to "versions", does it? Which tradition? (You don't write "In one tradition", so what does "this" back-refer to?) I'm confused. *Remove "also".
  • "... of his death; however, she eventually reconciles with her brother, and retains her original role of taking Arthur on his final journey to Avalon.," could be just "but". It's already a long sentence. Logic problem: retains means she had it all along.
  • "as she becomes an immortal queen of Avalon even within otherwise non-Arthurian stories, sometimes alongside Arthur." Unsure what "as" means. There's another "becomes". within -> in. "otherwise" is confusing, and so is "alongside" (in non-Arthurian stories?).
  • "Morgan's character became very prominent during the 20th and 21st centuries"—awkward temporally. "has been prominent since the ?early 20th century"?

Is the rest of the article better than this? Tony (talk) 02:30, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And I should note that the nominator and I have had a number of productive personal exchanges on other issues. Just to emphasise: please treat this on a different planet from the personal! Thanks. Tony (talk) 07:03, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note edit

Aside from the prose issues Tony notes in the lead alone, I can see several unsourced statements in the article -- these concerns, and the fact that the article appears to have had no prior community review, suggest it's been nominated prematurely, although I might wait to see another reviewer's opinion before considering an early close. Cheers, 05:11, 10 September 2018 (UTC

With regret, I agree with the coordinator. The article contains much excellent material, but is not ready for FAC. A basic consideration is what sort of English it is supposed to be in: at present it is a mixture of BrEng and AmEng – in a quick skim-through I spotted BrE "enamours", "symbolises", "rumours", "behaviour" and "favourites" alongside AmE "honor", "marvelous" and "savior". I also noticed, in passing, "Cisterian religious order", which is neither BrEng, AmEng or any kind of Eng. The referencing is haphazard: sometimes locations come before publisher's name, at other times after, and at other times not at all. ISBNs of published books are included or omitted seemingly at random, and I noticed one citation (67 – there may be others) where the book is identified but no page number is given, which is really not much help. After the article has had a thorough copy-editing and the references are dealt with it would be sensible to go to peer review and only then to FAC, in my view. – Tim riley talk 08:42, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thank you for the feedback. I hereby withdraw the nom. Atsme📞📧 13:19, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 22:22, 8 September 2018 [7].

Crown Jewels of the United Kingdom edit

Nominator(s): Firebrace (talk) 16:51, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It all started in 2015, when I stumbled upon a neglected article and remembered that I had a Crown Jewels tourist guide which I could use to improve it. At first, it seemed like an easy enough subject – how wrong I was! There is more to the Jewels than I could have ever thought possible. And so began a 2½-year mission to distill everything there is to know about the Crown Jewels into a Featured Article on Wikipedia. One source led to another, my desk filled up with books, and at times I felt like walking away, but I persevered; slowly but surely, the Jewels gave up their secrets. The end result is a comprehensive, demystifying, and unpretentious article that is both factual and engaging whilst conforming to Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. Discerning use has been made of journals, books, websites, news articles, and podcasts. All images are in the public domain. I will be happy to answer queries and make any amendments as necessary to satisfy the Featured Article criteria. Firebrace (talk) 16:51, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments edit

Having finished the first half of a preliminary read-through I quite expect to be supporting the promotion of this article, but for now there are a few points needing attention. Most of them could have been avoided if the nominator had taken the advice given at the failed FAC two years ago to take the article to peer review. Better to have such nitpicking as follows done and dusted before presenting an article for FAC.

I'll need at least two goes at this with more than 9,000 words to check. These comments cover the text down to the end of the Crowns section.

  • General
    • metric/imperial measures: better to be consistent about which comes first: at present we have, e.g., 79.5 ounces (2.25 kg) but 187 kilograms (412 lb) and so on.
    • Links to main articles: I was surprised not to find "Main article: so-and-so" at the start of e.g. the St Edward's Crown section, but if you feel that a blue-link within the text suffices, I shall not press the point.
      • Yes, a main article template would serve no purpose at all. Firebrace (talk) 17:24, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead
    • "the coronation regalia is" - but "regalia" is (rightly) treated as a plural noun after this point.
    • Capitalisation: unclear why the job title Head of State needs capitals; likewise head of the armed forces.
    • Kings – not sure why Edward the Confessor is just Edward the Confessor and Edward VII is just Edward VII but Charles II is King Charles II.
      • "King" was added by someone else; other featured articles omit 'king' and 'queen' unless there has been only one monarch with that name (e.g., Queen Victoria). Firebrace (talk) 17:24, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Early history
    • We don't want both BCE/CE and BC/AD: the MoS bids us use one or the other but not both. (The first always strikes me as a touch precious: if, as you evidently feel, it needs explaining, why use it rather than sticking to the familiar BC/AD?)
      • I thought it would be fine since they're roughly equivalent to imperial and metric units, but I agree and have deleted BCE and CE. Firebrace (talk) 17:24, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Middle Ages
    • "By the 5th century, the Romans had withdrawn from Britain" – needs a tweak, I think. The date usually given for the end of Roman rule in Britain is 410, and so this probably ought to read "By the early 5th century". Similarly, the Anglo-Saxons had not begun to settle in Britain by the 5th century, but rather during it.
      • OK; again, that was added by someone else. Firebrace (talk) 17:24, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Edward the Confessor
    • "holy communion"– could do with a blue link, and I'm not sure "chalice" couldn't as well. And, particularly in an article so liberally capitalised, it seems a touch disrespectful to deprive Holy Communion of its capitals.
    • "The Abbots were" – probably not right to capitalise the A when referring to more than one specific abbot.
    • "it comprised the monarch's state regalia that was kept separate" – "regalia" has suddenly gone singular again.
  • Late Middle Ages
    • "were moved … due to a series…" – I follow Fowler's dictum that "due to" – unlike "owing to" – has not won a prescriptive right to be treated as though it had become a compound pronoun. That use is acceptable in American English, I believe, but is better avoided in English articles.
  • Tudor and early Stuart periods
    • "they fetched a mere £70,000" – better to avoid editorialising, and leave it to the reader to conclude that £70,000 is mere.
    • "Just two years later, Parliament gave in to temptation" – ditto, twice.
  • Restoration to present day
    • "the Dutch ambassador organised for extant jewels pawned in Holland to be brought back" – this reads rather oddly. Does it mean that he arranged for them to be brought back?
    • "During World War II, as in the First World War" – very strange wording; the American form "World War I/II" or the English form "the First/Second World War" are both acceptable, but banging one next to the other like this looks weird.
      • On reflection I have deleted all mention of the First World War because the source implies (by saying the boxes were damp and mouldy on their return to the Jewel House), but does not expressly state, that they were stored in the basement. Firebrace (talk) 17:24, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Non-coronation crowns
    • "the British constitution prohibits the removal of Crown Jewels from the United Kingdom" – we could do with a citation for this statement; the article on the crown says that such a removal was prohibited by law, which is not at all the same as the constitution.
      • It does have a citation at the end of that paragraph. Firebrace (talk) 17:24, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow. – Tim riley talk 11:21, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Concluding

I seem to be in less carping mood today – perhaps it's the heat – but I found little to complain about in the second half of the article.

  • Ampulla
    • "The same oil was used to anoint all kings and queens" implies recycling. I assume you mean oil from the same batch.
  • Sceptres
    • Unless they have been remade subsequently, I think "two sceptres originally made for Mary of Modena" should ,for clarity, lose the adverb.
  • Banqueting plate
    • The statement and the date don't square with each other in "It was made in 1829 for George IV but completed after his death": as he died in 1830 it cannot have been made the year before and completed in 1830 or later. Perhaps "commissioned" rather than "made"?
  • Ownership, management and value
    • He or she also accompanies… the Crown Jeweller, presumably, but we've had experts from the BM since the last mention of the Crown Jeweller.
  • Duplicate links
Across the whole piece there's a helluva lot of WP:OVERLINKing. There are duplicate links within the main body of the text to:
  • amethyst
  • ampulla
  • Buckingham Palace
  • chalice
  • Commonwealth
  • dalmatic
  • Elizabeth I
  • English Reformation
  • fleur-de-lis
  • foot washing
  • Fred, Prince of Wales
  • garnets
  • George VI
  • globus cruciger
  • Henry IV
  • Herny V
  • Honours of Scotland
  • House of Lords
  • James I
  • James II
  • Keeper of the Jewel House
  • knighthood
  • Koh-i-Noor
  • Mary of Modena
  • Oliver Cromwell
  • paten
  • Richard III
  • Royal Collection
  • St Edward's Crown
  • St George
  • The Queen Mother
  • Tudor rose
  • Windsor Castle
There are three links apiece to
  • Charles II
  • Edward VII
  • Mary II
  • Westminster Hall
  • William III
And Queen Victoria weighs in at four links.
  • Alt text
    • Mostly in place, but missing for the 1631 picture of Charles I and the head of Sovereign's Sceptre with Cross.

These few points conclude my comments. I have enjoyed this article, and I look forward to supporting its promotion. – Tim riley talk 09:56, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tim, I have addressed all your comments, but I think some link repetition is fine; 99.9% of people aren't going to read a 9,500-word article in its entirety, and a person reading the altar plate section may not have seen 'chalice' in the section about Edward the Confessor, for example. Firebrace (talk) 14:55, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support
Just so, and whatever the MoS says, I am with you on providing links where they seem likely to be useful, rather than rigidly rationing them. I do a lot of "Life and Works" biographical articles, and I have so far got away at FAC with having identical links from both the Life and the Works sections.
I much enjoyed this article, which I was surprised to see is 9,000 words long. It didn't seem like it, and is an easy and pleasurable read. I support on prose: clear, to the point, evidently comprehensive, and broadly and fully cited. (I'll be happy to do a source review if nobody else does one in the next week or so.) Just the sort of article people look for in Wikipedia, I think. Bravo! – Tim riley talk 15:40, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

  • File:Coronation_Chair_and_Stone_of_Scone._Anonymous_Engraver._Published_in_A_History_of_England_(1855).jpg: the UK tag used requires that you detail steps taken to try to ascertain authorship
  • File:Queen_Victoria_in_Her_Coronation_Robes.jpg needs a more specific source
  • File:Crowning_of_George_VI.jpg needs a US PD tag. Same with File:Coronation_of_George_V_1911_2_(cropped).jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:26, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done; File:Crowning_of_George_VI.jpg has been replaced with an image published before 1923. Firebrace (talk) 17:24, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cas Liber edit

Taking a look now.... and the collection is the most historically complete of any regalia in the world. - oh yes? I am dubious about this sentence meaning anything much at all. A 2-piece set with the 2 original piences would be ....more complete?? (Actually it probably isn't that complete as almost all teh original pieces were melted down!) I'd remove it as it sounds puffy and vague. Cas Liber (talk) 12:37, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, the originals were melted down in 1649; but they were remade in 1660–61. Firebrace (talk) 16:18, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes, but the point is that the phrase is puffy and doesn't mean anything much and should be removed. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:29, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Most complete" refers to the whole 140-piece collection known as the Crown Jewels. For example, there are 250 years' worth of consort crowns and the sceptres used by English and British queens consort since the Restoration (which are replicas of those lost in the Interregnum). By comparison, the crown and sceptre presented to wives of kings at Scottish coronations are missing from the regalia of Scotland, as are the sovereign's robes and spurs. Firebrace (talk) 22:49, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I still think the phrase adds very little, if anything, but will defer to consensus. If other folks think it's ok I won't view it as a deal-breaker. 06:18, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
  • ....thereby establishing the first known set of hereditary coronation regalia in Europe - a primary source supporting this. Pretty bold claim which needs a better source.
  • At some point in the 14th century, all of the state regalia were moved to the White Tower at the Tower of London owing to a series of successful and attempted thefts in a part of Westminster Abbey that housed state regalia - there are two "state regalia s here. Can we just say "their location in Westminster Abbey" or "the part of Westminster Abbey that housed them"...

I should add that the prose so far is good - all I am saying is that it is good to let the facts speak for themselves (and the reader be duly impressed) without adding puffy (and possibly incorrect) interpretations. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:36, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rose (1992) is a secondary source. Per the book, "The Author of this book alone is responsible for the statements made and the views expressed, which are not necessarily those endorsed by the Historic Royal Palaces or HMSO". Firebrace (talk) 22:49, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I had a look through google scholar - nothing much around so will let it slide. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:18, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Firebrace: I think MOD has some valid points - this can happen when the source material is written in an effusive way. Not insurmountable but you can miss it if you've been staring at it for weeks.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:20, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MOD edit

  • Notable among the 23,578 precious and semi-precious stones are Cullinan I, the largest clear cut diamond in the world... Seems verbose and ungrammatical.
    • It's grammatically correct. Firebrace (talk) 15:43, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's grammatically incorrect. And verbose.
      • MOD is correct - it should be "is" but also "notable" is obvious - let the facts speak for themselves, like this Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:16, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Casliber: Thanks for reading MarchOrDie's mind; it wasn't obvious to me whether he or she meant the comma, "clear cut diamond", or something else. Your edit should be "the regalia contain" since 'regalia' is plural, like 'bacteria' and 'stadia'. Firebrace (talk) 21:50, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Koh-i-Noor diamond, originally from present-day India... Was a time-machine involved?
    • Also correct (unlike the Americanism "from what is now India"). Firebrace (talk) 15:43, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, it isn't a primary school error like the one above. But it certainly isn't prose that is "engaging and of a professional standard".
      • @Firebrace: I have removed "present-day" as redundant as it was India then and India now..it's not like some entity that has completely changed. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:18, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...the monarch is anointed using holy oil... What is holy oil? Who makes it holy? More to come, I don't doubt. --MarchOrDie (talk) 13:35, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I oppose on prose based on this sampling of the article. --MarchOrDie (talk) 17:54, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria edit

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Source for Martin Swift?
  • FN136: link is dead
  • Should provide full citations to chapters/sections in edited works
  • FN123, 127: page formatting, check for others
  • Check for consistency in wikilinking - sometimes Royal Collection Trust is linked, other times not.Nikkimaria (talk) 17:23, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All fixed apart from adding manual links to RCT which I think unnecessary. Firebrace (talk) 18:26, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: This has been open for over a month now. We have one support, an oppose and slight concerns from Casliber. I'm pretty sure the issues could be overcome, but after a month and no clear consensus to promote, I think this article is better worked on away from FAC. Leaving it open is unlikely to bring about a consensus within the timeframe of a normal FAC (even if the oppose were struck, we are still not close) and this would probably just sink down the list. Therefore I will be archiving shortly. It can be renominated after the usual two-week waiting period. Sarastro (talk) 22:21, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 12:36, 7 September 2018 [8].

Aldus Manutius edit

Nominator(s): Gandhi (BYU) (talk) 17:08, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aldus Manutius was the first printer to use a standardized Greek font for publication. Greek type was unheard of before Manutius. Currently, scholars consider his contribution to have saved many rare manuscripts that would not have been published otherwise. He is integral in the preservation of Greek manuscripts and also promoted contemporary humanists authors as well as Latin classics with more accurate translations. Manutius also promoted a smaller, portable book that is the predecessor of the modern paperback. Gandhi (BYU) (talk) 17:08, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Aldus_Manutius.jpg needs a US PD tag. Same with File:Virgil_1501_Aldus_Manutius.jpg
  • File:Bust_of_Aldo_Manuzio._Panteon_Veneto;_Istituto_Veneto_di_Scienze,_Lettere_ed_Arti.jpg needs a tag for the original work
  • File:Aldo_Manuzio_Aristotele.jpg has the wrong tag - under US law reproducing a 2D work garners no new copyright, and this definitely isn't own work

Oppose edit

For now. The subject seems well covered, and the sourcing looks broad and authoritative at first glance, but work is needed on the text, which does not meet FA standards, in my view. It is a great pity the article wasn't taken to peer review before being put up for FAC: such generally minor quibbles as those below should really have been sorted out before an FA nomination.

  • Lead
    • "Aristotle or Aristophanes" – why link one and not the other?
    • The article uses the word "font" where "typeface" is wanted. In an FAC about print-related matters the common confusion of the two terms should not be perpetuated.
    • "Desiderius Erasmus" – not linked (and why ever trot out his full name? It's as pretentious and unhelpful as referring to, say, "Raffaello Sanzio da Urbino".)
    • "Giovanni Pico" – not linked: if he's not worth linking from the lead, why mention him there?
    • "Manutius published two works for his pupils and their mother, but in his late thirties or early forties he settled in Venice" – why "but"? There is no obvious contrast or contradiction between the two halves of the sentence.
  • Early life
    • Rome is linked, which it shouldn't be – see MoS on major geographical features, although Venice hasn't been earlier.
    • "Manutius studied Greek in Ferrara from Guarino da Verona" – does one study something from somebody? "with" would be the normal preposition.
    • "Most of Manutius's early life is relatively unknown" – relative to what? A pity to misuse "relative" as a mere synonym for "rather".
    • "The 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica … asserts" – does it indeed? The OED defines "assert" in this sense as "To declare formally and distinctly, to state positively, aver, affirm" – a bit over the top for an uncontentious statement in Britannica. There is nothing wrong with plain words: "Britannica says" or "according to Britannica".
    • "Caterina Pico, both works" – stronger stop than a comma required here.
    • "location for his work settling there – needs a comma.
  • Aldine Press
    • "a five volume folio edition" – could do with a hyphen after "five"
    • "a Greek Plato" – link wanted
    • "On December 1507" – wrong preposition.
    • "Iphigenia in Audlis" – where?
    • "octavo" – a link wanted here, I think.
    • "an edition of Plato" – duplicate link to be removed once link is in place at first mention.
  • Greek classics
    • "Only four Italian towns were authorized" – it is not made clear whose authorisation was required. Also, Milan has already been linked.
    • "Cardinal Bessarion" – link needed.
    • "Desiderius Erasmus, Pietro Bembo" – already linked: redundant links here.
    • "a lecturer of history at the University of Warwick" – strange choice of preposition: your cited source calls him "lecturer in history", which is what one would expect.
    • "a different view regarding" – comma wanted before "regarding"
    • "as many as thirty" – WP:EDITORIAL – better just to say "thirty" and leave it to the reader to do the ooh-ahhing.
    • "Under Manutius' supervision" – a rogue outbreak of "ess-apostrophe" rather than the "ess-apostrophe-ess" used throughout the rest of the article.
  • Latin and Italian classics
    • "Dante" – link needed at this first mention.
    • ""to provide anaccurate – "an accurate", one assumes.
    • "Manutius didn't" – see MOS:CONTRACTION. This should be "did not".
    • "started 30 years" – but "seventy-five texts" in the previous section: consistent form of numbering wanted.
    • "Dante Alighieri's Divine Comedy". Oh, that Dante! We don't need a link and his full name at this fourth mention.
  • Imprint and motto
    • to my mind, "dolphin" and "anchor" are common terms that need no link, but it's borderline and I do not press the point.
    • "The symbol and phrase were … was given to Manutius by Pietro Bembo" – trouble with grammar here. If you change "was" to "which" it will make grammatical sense.
    • "London" – remove otiose link.
    • "The international honor society … uses the dolphin and the anchor as the society’s insignia – the repetition could be avoided by using a pronoun instead of the second "society".
  • Typefaces
    • "Cursive" is probably a term unfamiliar to many readers nowadays, I think, and perhaps a link would be helpful.
    • "By creating a cursive typeface, Aldine Press publications felt more personal" – dangling participle: the publications did not create the typeface.
    • "Despite the uncertainty, the Aldine Press commissioned…" – a strange sentence. There seems no connexion between the first and second parts of it. The uncertainty is that of modern scholars rather than of the Press.
    • "and as such many of the Aldine Press publications" – the OED says of "as such": "The sense ‘in that capacity’ passes contextually into: Accordingly, consequently, thereupon. colloq. or vulgar." To avoid being colloq. or vulgar I suggest "consequently".
  • Counterfeits and piracy
    • "Pope Alexander VI in 1502 and later Pope Julius II in 1514" – the "later" is unnecessary: your readers can do the sums.
    • "attempted to dissuade piracy" – I don't think one can either persuade or dissuade piracy. I think you may mean "discourage".
    • "In the Bibliothèque nationale de France" – was there really something called the Bibliothèque nationale de France in 1503? According to the linked article it seems to have been the Bibliothèque du Roi at the time, if I correctly read the text.
    • "the 16th of March 1503" – our prescribed date format is "16 March 1503", omitting the "the" the "th" and the "of"
    • "tried to warn off those who plagiarize his content" – should plagiarize be plagiarized?
    • "He goes on" – unexpected switch to present tense.
    • "decipher a real Aldine" – strange verb, suggesting decoding rather than distinguishing between.
  • Illumination manuscripts and Aldine prefaces
    • "re-used" – not hyphenated in any of the dictionaries I use.
    • "Ovid" – link at first mention.
    • "Sabinus" – ditto.
  • Marriage and personal life
    • "Torresani's house now his father-in-law" – most unusual to have a house rather than a man as one's father in law.
    • "a house now covered by a bank building in Venice named Campo Manin" – Campo Manin is not a bank building: it is the name of the entire square.
    • "Manutius knew the Marquis of Mantua, Francesco Gonzaga and wrote letters to the Marquis" – another example of unnecessary repetition of a noun where using a pronoun the second time would flow more naturally.
    • "spent five days in jail … and another night in a real prison" – not clear what was unreal about the earlier jail.
    • "Horace" – link at first mention.
    • "Horation" – not in any dictionary I know. The OED and Chambers prescribe "Horatian".
    • "He died the next month, 6 February, and "with his death the importance of Italy as a seminal and dynamic force in printing came to an end."" – this is one of many cases in the article where a phrase is put in quotes with no inline attribution. Unless it is worth saying who said them, such phrases are better paraphrased, or the quotations are without context in your text.
  • Legacy
    • "The quality of Manutius's work, as well as his popularity, make his works" – singular verb needed. "As well as" does not = "and".
    • Last para – titles not italicised: is that intentional?

I hope these points help the nominator improve the article to bring it nearer to FA standard. Happy to enlarge on any points if wanted. – Tim riley talk 10:31, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Johnbod edit

I see the group above are being worked through.

  • "Everyday handwriting in Venice was in cursive, but at the time, published works contained only block lettering" - "published works" means "printed books" presumably. Indeed cursive should be linked, but what does "block lettering" mean? Certainly not "block capitals". Nor is Manutius's new font actually "cursive" in terms of the letters being joined up (mostly). Precision is needed here, and probably expansion. We have many articles on the types of writing and typefaces used at the time.
  • Does the article really still "incorporate text from a publication now in the public domain: Symonds, John Addington (1911). "Manutius". In Chisholm, Hugh. Encyclopædia Britannica. 17 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. pp. 624–626." At FA it shouldn't really, or certainly not enough for the overall template in this form. Remove, or if there's any left, treat like a normal ref, as you do with one rather long quote.
  • I would have thought that "Fletcher III, Harry George (1995)" would be "Fletcher, Harry George III (1995)", but I'm not too familiar with this American style.
  • No link to Aldine Press in first line.
  • "Manutius devoted his later part of life to publishing and disseminating rare texts" - "the later part of his life" reads more naturally, at least in British English.
  • Bassano is "located about 60 kilometres (37 mi) southeast of Rome", which isn't that close - at least a day's travel at the time I expect.
  • Carpi link at 2nd mention.
  • The prose is generally rather jerky: "Printing work halted again while the League of Cambrai tried to lessen Venice's influence". How did that work exactly? "Only four Italian towns were authorized to produce Greek publications: Milan, Venice, Vicenza, and Florence and only published works by Theocritus, Isocrates, and Homer.[22] Venice printer John Speyer produced Greek passages but required the minimal Greek letters to be left blank and later filled in by hand.[23]"
  • Really needs a careful copy and style edit - there are all sorts of little MOS points, many of which Tim has picked up above. But for example Campo Manin (whether a building or square) is not italicised.
  • More later. Johnbod (talk) 02:46, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note edit

Reading through the comments above, it looks to me that the article, despite some strengths, has been nominated prematurely. I'd like the improvements suggested to be worked on outside the FAC process, after which, per Tim, I'd suggest PR, or perhaps consider the FAC mentoring scheme. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:35, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 11:44, 7 September 2018 [9].

Iveta Mukuchyan edit

Iveta Mukuchyan is a German-Armenian singer-songwriter, model, and actress. Any comments on the article will be greatly appreciated. Harut111 (talk) 08:44, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Comments from Vami_IV


Early life and Career
I've put both of these together because I don't think there's enough material in "Early life" to justify its own full section. I suggest combining the two and having "Early life" just be the first paragraph in this new section.

  • [...], where she started kindergarten.[2] Her family moved to Germany in 1992.[3] Combine these into one sentence and link Kindergarten.
  • She was educated in Germany [...] Redundant.
  • despite reported difficulties. Elaborate?
  • Her sister, Marianna, is a stylist. Irrelevant.
  • "L'amour n'a pas de loi" Delete the quote marks and italicize the text per WP:MOS, "Titles of works." Apply this to all songs in the article.
  • El Style Who?
  • She released the single, "Simple like a Flower", and a music video in October 2015. Consider: Mukuchyan released the single Simple Like a Flower, with music video, in October 2015.
  • Lilith Navasardyan and Levon Navasardyan
  • Mukuchyan premiered the song and a music video in March 2016. In March 2016 she appeared again on the cover of El Style. Combine.
  • In addition to her musical career, she starred with Mkrtich Arzumanyan in the adventure-comedy film Run Away or Get Married (2016) and recorded the soundtrack of the movie. This is out of place for this section and reads like that would better be in the lead. Perhaps move it to the bottom of "2015–2016: Eurovision Song Contest."
  • "To all the broken hearts out there. I got you on my mind. Love should be the only thing that ever crosses our borders. My prayers go to Artsakh". Delete.
  • "Any further breach of the rules of the 2016 Eurovision Song Contest could lead to disqualification from this year's event or any successive editions." Redundant, delete.
  • "Amena", which Mukuchyan said is a song about women and their transformation, inner struggles and values, [...] Save this for the article for the song.

Comments from Aoba47 edit

  • In the first sentence of the lead, I do not believe that “Armenian” and “singer-songwriter” need wikilinks. I also do not think that “Germany” needs a wikilink either.
  • The “currently based in Germany" part is rather awkwardly placed at the end of the lead’s first sentence. I am not sure if it entirely necessary, so I think you can remove it.
  • I would wikilink Armenian Soviet Socialist Republic in the lead, like you did in the infobox.
  • I would revise this part (and auditioned for season four of the talent competition Hay Superstar finishing fifth) to this suggestion (and placed fifth in the fourth season of the talent competition Hay Superstar.) for more concise language.
  • For this sentence (She represented Armenia at the May 2016 Eurovision Song Contest 2016 with the song "LoveWave", finishing seventh in the final.), I would remove “May 2016”. It is not entirely necessary, as the date is provided in the link. It is also rather awkward to have “2016” repeated twice in such close succession.
  • I would revise this sentence (Mukuchyan made her acting debut in the film Run Away Or Get Married (with Armenian actor Mkrtich Arzumanyan) that year, and her debut extended play, IvaVerse, was released.) to the following suggestion (Mukuchyan made her acting debut in the film Run Away Or Get Married (with Armenian actor Mkrtich Arzumanyan) that year, and released her debut extended play, IvaVerse.)
  • I have two suggestions for this sentence (In autumn 2016 Mukuchyan was a jury member on the first season of Depi Evratesil, a television series selecting the Armenian entrant for the 2017 Eurovision Song Contest.). A comma should be added after “2016”, and I would wikilink 2017 Eurovision Song Contest.
  • For the first sentence of the “Early life” section, use her full name as it is the first time you mention her in the body of the article.
  • In the same section, I do not believe the wikilink for “Germany” is necessary. I would add a wikilink for Hamburg though.
  • I think you can paraphrase this quote "parents' advice”.
  • Can you clarify what you mean by this “reported difficulties”? I do not understand what you mean.
  • Is there any information on her parents (i.e. her jobs)?
  • There is a jump from 2012 to 2015. Is there any information about her in 2013 and 2014? I understand if there isn’t anything, but I just want to make sure.
  • I would add paragraph breaks to the “Eurovision Song Contest” section to make it more readable.
  • For this sentence (In September she performed a solo concert for), add a comma after “September”.
  • The open-air concert image is very low-quality so I am not sure what it adds to the article. Also, it says that it was taken in 2018 so I am not sure what it is doing in the section on the singer’s activity between 2016 and 2017.
  • For this sentence (Mukuchyan released her debut extended play, IvaVerse (a mix of styles, including funk and R&B))), please link the music genres.
  • I do not think that the reference to the genre in the infobox is needed as that should be supported in the article itself.
  • For this sentence (Mukuchyan was a special guest on The Voice on 13 October, when she sang Naughty Boy's "Running".), specify in the prose that it is “The Voice of Armenia”.
  • For this sentence (On 11 November, Mukuchyan and her sister launched their Mukuchyan brand at the MADE shopping center.), remove the wikilink for the sister as you have already linked her in a previous section.
  • For this sentence (Next day, she gave a concert with her band at the KAMI Music Club, where she sang songs by the Dashterov project and her latest singles.), I would avoid using “Next day” as this subsection should not be a blow-by-blow account of this person’s life. It should be more of a overview. I would use the date instead.
  • Add a wikilink for Europe Day.
  • I would condense these two sentence (The singer announced an upcoming film with Mher Mkrchyan and Arka Manukyan in August 2017. The Path of Our Dream was released on 19 December.) to (She appeared in the 2017 film The Path of Our Dream) as it is not necessary to say that she was announced to be in the role. I would also add more infomration about the role and critical response if you could find anything.
  • Was there any critical response to her acting in  Run Away or Get Married?
  • For this sentence (She was educated in Germany and attended the Catholic Sankt-Ansgar-Schule in Hamburg from 1998 to 2006), I think you can remove “was educated in Germany” and just say “She attended…) to be more concise.
  • For this sentence ( In March 2016 she appeared again on the cover of El Style.), please add a comma after 2016.
  • I am not sure about the use of the quote in this sentence (She said of her acting career, "I fell in love with acting and playing different characters. My first experience was with the amazing Mkrtich Arzumanyan and now I was allowed to work with Mher Mkrtchyan and Arka Manukyan for a new movie project that will be in the theaters this year. It is a very different character than I played before. I'm sure you gonna [sic] be just as much surprised as I was.”). It is very long, and would need to be either a block quote or something else. I am also not sure if the entire quote is really necessary. Maybe there can be a better way of incorporating it in the prose?
  • For this sentence (Mukuchyan performed her new single, "Depi Nor Irakanutyun", at the Miss Armenia beauty pageant on 24 September.), remove “new” as it is not longer “new”.
  • Avoid putting titles in all caps in the references. I noticed this in multiple places.

I can tell that a lot of work has been put into this article, but I have noticed several issues with prose on a first read-through. There are spots on awkward sentence construction that need to be addressed. I am leaning towards oppose as I do not believe the prose is strong enough for an FA. Aoba47 (talk) 05:41, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note edit

This has been open several weeks without approaching consensus for promotion, nor does there appear to have been much if any engagement by the nominator with reviewers, so I'm going to archive it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:44, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 12:14, 7 September 2018 [10].

Mississippi's 4th congressional district special election, 1981 edit

Nominator(s): Nomader (talk) 15:50, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article about a somewhat bizarre U.S. Congressional special election back in 1981 in Mississippi before the Republican shift had fully finished in the South. It involves a sex scandal, an upset victory, Ronald Reagan, and the Voting Rights Act (the perfect U.S. 1980's election). The format is heavily inspired by both New York's 20th congressional district special election, 2009 and California's 12th congressional district election, 1946, but it's slightly different due to the format of the campaign.

This is my first FAC, and I'm indebted to the incredibly thorough comments from Spirit of Eagle both before this FAC and at GAN. I solicited advice from a couple of FAC mentors but didn't receive anything back, and I've decided to ahead with this nomination. Looking forward to your comments and questions. Nomader (talk) 15:50, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've only read the "Background" section and skimmed some of the rest so far, but will probably review a little more. In that section, the details on Hinson's homosexuality and resignation seem excessive to me and, given the subject matter, maybe even a little voyeuristic. I think the last paragraph in particular is completely irrelevant, but I'd suggest condensing the rest of the section. I was curious how vote-splitting could help Hinson win the election in a run-off system. There are a number of questions I would have expected to see answered in the "Background" that aren't addressed. What was the geographic, social, demographic, and political composition of the district? What was the political climate at the local, state or national level like at the time? What were the hot-button political issues in recent elections?--Carabinieri (talk) 11:03, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fair points-- thinking about how to redo the formatting here, I'll move the background into different sections with "Districts and campaigns" and then "Hinson resignation", similar to the CA-12 election article. Should be a good place to describe all of those answers which are kind of spread out through the rest of the article otherwise. I'll ping you once the section has been redone.
The normal even year mid-term elections are not conducted in a runoff format, only the special election is (making the vote-splitting work). Will make sure that the different special election format is clear here as well in the rewrite of this portion. Nomader (talk) 23:33, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Associated Press is an agency, not an author, and be consistent in whether you include a leading "The"
  • Be consistent in whether you use or don't use |via= for Newspapers.com
  • Use |pp= for sfn refs to multiple pages, and use ndashes for page ranges
  • Be consistent in whether you include the leading "The" in newspaper names
  • Trim GBooks links - in a Sources list you really only need the id
  • Be consistent in whether you include locations in Sources. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:36, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've fixed all of these problems except for two. Does the style guide really say I should remove the 'The's from newspapers that have them in their official names? The only ones that have them there are "The Washington Post" and "The New York Times" -- the other's official names are the ones listed. With the locations in sources-- what are you referring to there? Otherwise all others fixed. Nomader (talk) 23:49, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, the issue is consistency - for example in footnote 17 you have The Clarion-Ledger, but then footnote 20 has simply Clarion-Ledger. Similarly with the books, the Barone source has a location but the Nash source does not - it doesn't matter whether you choose to include the location or not, but whichever choice you make should be consistently applied. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:48, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Understood, that makes complete sense-- thanks. I made those edits per your comment here. Nomader (talk) 05:02, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note edit

Sorry but this nom has been a bit of a non-starter, attracting little commentary after several weeks, so I'm going to achieve it. I realise it must be a bit disheartening soliciting reviews and getting few if any takers, but you are eligible to try the FAC mentoring scheme, which might help kick-start things. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:13, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 22:43, 6 September 2018 [11].

Tetricus I edit

Nominator(s): Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:21, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the last emperor of the Gallic Empire, which split off from the Roman Empire in 260 and lasted until 274; when Tetricus was defeated by Aurelian, and the Gallic Empire was reintegrated into the Roman Empire. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:21, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Argento Surfer edit

I looked at this for a GA review in January of this year. All of my concerns were addressed at the time, and the edits since then have mostly been minor grammatical updates. I have no additional concerns. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:42, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Katolophyromai edit

The article is quite short, but its subject is a fairly obscure emperor who only ruled in Gaul for around just over three years, so I think the length is reasonable. The coverage seems to be comprehensive and the article is well-cited. I think this article is up to Featured Article standards. --Katolophyromai (talk) 17:37, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Woebegone edit


  • Image review - sources and licenses generally look good, a few issues below. FunkMonk (talk) 13:56, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This coin[12] needs a PD tag for the artwork itself, like you have in the infobox coin image.
  • Borders around images are discouraged, so should be removed from the map.[13]
    @FunkMonk: the border comes from the image itself, and I do not have the level of knowledge required to remove it from the image. Is there a relevant map-group on Wiki for such a task? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 21:28, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you have a Commons account, go to preferences, gadgets, and under th e headline "Interface: Editing and uploads", enable CropTool, then a button will emerge under the tools field at the left when you look at a picture on Commons. When you click the croptool button, it should be easy to crop any image from there. FunkMonk (talk) 21:34, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@FunkMonk: For some reason it is not allowing me to crop it because it is an SVG. A related PNG allows me to crop; but the tool does not show up for the SVG image, nor will the site itself allow me to crop it. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 21:47, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, ok, certainly not a show-stopper in any case (as source problems would be). But now you know how to crop other files... FunkMonk (talk) 22:41, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from KAVEBEAR edit

  • "He elevated his son, Tetricus II, to caesar in 273 to increase his support" - How exactly does that increase his support?
    having a named heir helped to establish himself as legitimate.
  • "One penetrated so far into Gallic territory that it reached the Loire" - Do we have a year for this?
    None provided unfortunately. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:05, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There are two accounts of what happened;" - You mention only one account following this and then went into "Modern scholars".
  • "Catalaunian catastrophe" - Why was it call that? What does Catalaunian actually refer to? An old Roman name for the region? Maybe that should be included.
  • "The leaders of the two breakaway states he had conquered, Tetricus of the Gallic Empire and Zenobia of the Palmyrene Empire were paraded" - Wasn't Tetricus II also paraded through the triumph?
    Source doesn't indicate such; I don't think there was significant propaganda in parading a child. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:05, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any details on the triumph?
    None in particular unfortunately. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:05, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "of Lucania et Bruttii" - Can you locate this geographically for the regular reader?
  • "depiction of Victoria" ... "Victoria standing with her foot" - you need to differentiate the goddess from Victoria (Gallic Empire) in the prose.
  • Also can you establish a consistency with the usage of Roman titles when they appear in the middle of sentences? Either capitalized or uncapitalized. It just needs to be consistent.
  • Please mention the Crisis of the Third Century which this period was part of.
  • Finally, I love if you can put publisher location in the sources. Although it is not a deal breaker if not added.

KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:40, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment - Iazyges, please remove the "done" templates per the FAC instructions above. --Laser brain (talk) 20:37, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Sarastro1 edit

Oppose: I'm recusing as coordinator to review this. There are various issues here, mainly with prose, which make me think this isn't quite ready for FA. These are examples only, and a few general points. Sarastro (talk) 21:16, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • A general copy-edit is probably in order, to catch simple errors like "Ancient Roman historian Aurelius Victor said he was from noble family", which shouldn't be here at this stage, particularly in such a short article.
  • There are numerous examples of fused participles (noun plus -ing)"with 26 different Emperors ruling during the 49 year period" and "with both sides meeting at Châlons". There are others too, and this construction is best avoided.
  • I would oppose on 1b because we do not place this in context. There is a paragraph which partly explains the Gallic Empire, but not in enough detail. The article is hardly long, so we have time to go into detail here about how it came about, and maybe what happened to it. For example, note the longer background section in this article.
  • "When Emperor Valerian was captured by the Sassanids in 260, Postumus was elected by the legions in the Gallic provinces, who did not believe Emperor Gallienus was able to defend the west while fighting in the east, in c. 260." Why does this sentence end "in c. 260" when we have already given a date?
  • "The other account, which is supported by modern scholars, contends that the Battle of Châlons did occur, with Tetricus surrendering either directly after the battle or later." Aside from the meaning of this sentence, which I will address below, ancient accounts aren't "supported" by scholars. And I'm not sure "contends" is the correct word as the source is unlikely to be arguing with another source. (And another fused participle)
  • We should name the source which the article describes as "one, which is believed to have been created by Roman imperial propaganda some time later". Who wrote it? When? Why? If we are going into the sourcing here (and we should) we need to give some more context.
  • And we need more detail here: did the source deny a battle took place? Or was this merely a contrivance of the author?
  • "This battle was recorded as being exceptionally bloody, so much so that for generations it was referred to as the "Catalaunian catastrophe", named after the nearby Catalaunian plains" All this based on one source? Recorded by who? Who referred to it as the "Catalaunian catastrophe"? It's very unclear how certain we are the battle even took place (and being sure of events like this, during this period, is notoriously difficult), but then we jump into details like this.
  • It might be worth setting out how we know about this chap. I'm not an expert on the period, but it's quite common for even relatively important people to be identified only from one main source. I don't quite get the sense of how much we know, and how we know. For example, how do we know "Multiple regnal titles were added to Tetricus' name on his ascension, as was custom for Roman emperors, changing it to Imperator Caesar Esuvius Tetricus Pius Felix Invictus Augustus Pontifex Maximus". In such a short article, we don't need to worry about over-detailing, so can we show how the evidence leads historians to this conclusion? (For example, we do this perfectly later on when we say "The latest possible date for his surrender is March 274, when the Gallic mints switched from minting coins of Tetricus I and II to those of Aurelian." That's the kind of thing we need more of.)
  • Jumping to the sourcing, I've grave doubts about Handbook to Life in Ancient Rome as a source for this article. It's from a series of encyclopaedias aimed at the general reader, and if I'm honest, look to be at about high school level. We should be using much better sources in FAs.
    Have removed. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 05:05, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm stopping there, but I could doubtless find more examples so I've no intention of leaving a long list. I think someone needs to look at this one very closely and have a think about the whole structure of it and give the prose a considerable polish. Sarastro (talk) 21:16, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Sarastro1: I've begun a re-write in draft space; I'll see what I can do. I should be able to finish within a week. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:10, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sarastro1: I've finished my re-write. I'll search for more to add, but I believe I have addressed many of your concerns. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 05:05, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    FAC is not supposed to be the place for rewriting articles, partly because of the time involved, partly because it tends to invalidate earlier prose reviews as the article has changed significantly since those reviews. This quick re-write may have dealt with the first concern but the second remains. If these changes give Sarastro1 reason to withdraw his oppose, it might be worth leaving this open, but if not I think we'll need to archive, finish the job outside the FAC process, and return at a later stage with a fresh nom. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:40, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ian Rose: Not meant to be a challenge but a genuine question: Would not simply pinging the previous reviewers resolve this? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:33, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this rewrite is a step in the right direction, but if I'm honest this is practically a different article now and we should not be doing rewrites like this in the middle of FAC. I think we have placed him in context more effectively, but I think there are still a few issues on discussing the sources (and I'd like to dig into the sourcing of the article a little more too). My advice would be to withdraw this and work on it more outside of FAC; I'd be happy to help out a bit more away from FAC as well, where time is less of an issue. Sarastro (talk) 21:47, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm going to archive based on the above and recommend you take up Sarastro's offer to assist in improvements outside the FAC process. When that's done (and after at least two weeks have passed) you can re-nominate and ping the previous reviewers to come and take a look at the latest version. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:37, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Gog the Mild edit

Images:,

  • The article seems a little low on images. Is there any reason why this, File:Coin of Tetricus I.jpg, cannot be used? Possibly under Numismatics.
    Ended up finding two new images of much higher quality. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:26, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lead:

  • "and potentially co-emperor in 274, although this is debated" I think that you mean 'possibly', not "potentially.

Background:

  • "around the same time he assassinated Saloninus". Possibly 'at about' rather than "around"?
  • "forcing him to acquiesce with the secession". Acquiescein is a more normal usage.
  • "to allow them to sack the city". Wikilink sack.
  • "While some ancient sources hold". Good to see this usage rather than the usually inaccurate 'primary sources'.
     
  • "(Commander of the Praetorian Guard)" should not be capitalised.

Life:

  • "her power allowed her to appoint Tetricus as Gallic Empire". Do you mean 'as ruler of...', or 'as emperor of the...' or 'as Gallic emperor'?
  • "although Tetricus was not physically present". Delete "physically"> (Could he have been non=physically present?)
  • "appointing themselves as consul, with Tetricus appointing himself as consul in 271". Why is the second mention of "consul" A. in italics? B. red-linked?
    Linked to Gallic Consul; an article I intend to write at some point. Italics removed Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:26, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "elevated his son at an unspecified date in the biography of Emperor Aurelian". That's a (very) odd use of "biography; suggest 'during the reign of'.
    It is meant to speak of the source itself; the biography of Aurelian is a part of the book. I've reworded it. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:26, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but largely was forced to withdraw troops". Suggestion: 'but was forced to largely withdraw troops'.
  • "however neither Aurelius Victor nor Eutropius mention such an event". If a reader were to guess that these might be ancient historians, would they be correct?
  • " During 273/274, Faustinus rebelled against Tetricus". Suggest ' During 273/274, Faustinus, provincial governor of Gallia Belgica, rebelled against Tetricus'.
  • " Aurelian began to march into Northern Gaul". "Northern" should not be capitalised.
  • "with last possible date for his surrender being in March 274". 'with the last possible date for his surrender being in March 274'.
  • "the Gallic Empire rejoined the Roman Empire, once more whole". once more whole reads, to my eye, oddly and out of context. Could you rephrase and/or elaborate?

Numismatics:

  • "Seven featured his bust on the obverse". 'Seven surviving coins feature his bust on the obverse'.
  • "a depiction of the Roman Goddess Victoria"< "Goddess" is not capitalised.
  • Use of "bust". This refers to sculpture. The word you want is 'image'. (Or, permissibly, 'profile'; if it is.)
  • "granted to soldiers upon the emperor's accession or consulship." Should "consulship" be plaural? (Genuine query.)
    If not for wikt: consulships I would not have known.

Historiography:

  • "While the lives of the Gallic emperors are covered within the Historia Augusta, this information is unreliable due to the interweaving of facts and invention within the Historia Augusta." Two uses of "within the Historia Augusta" in one sentence. Please rephrase one.
  • " Tetricus is listed one of the "Thirty Tyrants" in the Historia Augusta" '... as one of the...'.
  • "however the usage of epigraphs was in decline in the period". IMO '... during the period.' would read better.

Notes:

  • " associates Tetricus II with Tetricus' second Tribunician period". "Tribunician", lower case t.

Gog the Mild (talk) 18:28, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Inscriptions bearing Tetricus' name are very common throughout Gaul, although these are broken into two regions by a vertical line of inscriptions bearing Aurelian's name, which were made after the surrender of Tetricus; no Tetrican inscriptions overlap with Aurelianic inscriptions" A long and possibly over-complicated sentence. Consider splitting it and/or otherwise rephrasing it. Also the use of the word "regions" is not good. I thought that you were referring to regions of Gaul. I assume you are referring to Tetrican inscriptions being defaced (or 'amended' if you prefer) by having a further inscription engraved across them? If so, could this be made clearer?
  • Given the comments above by Ian Rose and Sarastro1 the following is probably moot. I am very aware of other reviewers comments, especially Sarastro1's, and of my relative inexperience in reviewing FACs. Nevertheless, to me the article seems well written, well placed in context (although it is probable that my personal balance of comprehensive to focused leans towards the terser end of the spectrum), uses good sources from which as much has been extracted as could reasonably be expected and with their limitations reasonably flagged up. More, obviously, could be said about various aspects of the article; but it always can, and to me the article stops at a reasonable point. So I am supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:03, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 22:32, 6 September 2018 [14].

Angrej edit

Nominator(s): VedantTalk 20:45, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a Punjabi film. This is my fifth attempt at a film FAC. Looking forward to constructive criticism. VedantTalk 20:45, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Kailash edit

  • Link romantic comedy. The lead says "conceived as a romantic comedy set in the British Punjab", referring to Angrej and not Goreyan Nu Daffa Karo. However, the development section does the opposite. Please clear up the confusion after reading the source. If Angrej is really a rom-com, add it to Indian romantic comedy films.
  • Please try and comply with WP:FILMCAST, by ensuring all starring actors are sourced. Besides, what is Varun Sharma's role? He isn't even sourced.
  • You might want to replace director of photography with cinematographer for preciseness, and because the article's name is the latter.
  • De-link any term you find too common. This gadget will help in such cases.
  • I'm pretty sure you mean to link Drishyam to this.
  • The "publisher=" field in many refs will need to be replaced with "website=". The ProveIt gadget will help ease the process.

Optional comment: For a movie released as recently as 2015, is this how far you could expand the article? If that is so, never mind if that's how much the Punjabi media covered. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:26, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've (hopefully) fixed everything. And yes Kailash, this really covers everything that is out there. VedantTalk 16:08, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Just one last comment: the lead says "Conceived as a romantic comedy set in the pre-partitioned Punjab", while the body says "Gill, who also starred in the film described it as a love story set in rural Punjab of 1945". It may be consistent in the sense of Angrej being a romance film, but you may have to mention somewhere in the article that it is a romantic comedy (although Tribune's Jasmine Singh calls it "cheerful reminder of love in the old times", we need a statement from the cast/crew about the genre). This source, which you have already added, quotes Ammy Virk as saying, "I feel that “Angrez” will be able to break the cliché of romantic-comedy formula films in Punjabi and give more exposure to artistes". See how you can use it. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:17, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the bit about the comic element of the film Kailash from the same source that describes Gill view of the film. Do you think that the new version solves the problem? VedantTalk 13:17, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it does. I later reviewed the article and saw the awards section mentions the PTC Punjabi Film Awards' year but no date. According to this source, the event took place on 14 April 2016. Please mention that. But nonetheless, this article already has my support. --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:08, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the date and the ref Kailash, thank you so much for taking out time to review this. VedantTalk 11:27, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47 edit

  • Please add ALT text for the infobox image.
  • For this part (the film chronicles the love story of a young man from the province of Punjab) of the lead, I would clarify both parties involved in the love story. Is it a love story between a young man and a young woman? A love story between family? Friends?
  • I think for this part (which featured vocals from Gill, Virk and Sunidhi Chauhan.) of the lead, it should be “features” instead of “featured”.
  • For this part (The performances of the cast, the film's production design, and the humour), I do not think you need “the film’s” as it is clear from the context.
  • For this part (grossed a total of around ₹125 million in its entire theatrical run), I do not think you need the word “entire”.
  • I am confused by this part (he said that idea of an Indian wedding in the period Punjab). In the Wikipedia article, Punjab is referenced as a province, so I am not sure what you mean by “period”. I am not familiar with Indian history to be honest so apologies if I am missing something.
  • For this part (The album consisted of seven songs), I believe that it should be “consists” instead of “consisted”.
  • For this part (The sets, the props, the dresses and dialect,), I am not sure the links for “sets” and dialect” are necessary.

Great work with the article. Once my comments are addressed, I will support this for promotion. Have a wonderful rest of your day! Aoba47 (talk) 03:45, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've hopefully fixed everything Aoba47. Thanks for taking out time despite your wiki-break. I'll try and make sure I read that section before posting at the talk next. VedantTalk 06:48, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for addressing everything. I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 16:56, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

All the references look fine to me, save the BookMyShow one. I know that it is a ticket booking website, having booked there for a few films myself, but you can try and find information somewhere else, say here at BBFC, Moviefone and TOI.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 11:45, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've replaced the BMS source with new the refs Ssven2, thank you for the review. VedantTalk 13:12, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support My concerns were addressed when it was a GAN. The article has also improved since then. Good luck! Yashthepunisher (talk) 13:35, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Yash. I appreciate it. VedantTalk 08:26, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Well detailed, researched and has proper referencing. After a thorough read, i found no notable issues to point out. To the best of my knowledge, i can confidently say that this article meets the criteria for a FA. Regards, Pavanjandhyala 17:56, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Pavan. I appreciate it. VedantTalk 08:26, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

It passes the image review. Aoba47 (talk) 22:09, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the image review Aoba47, I appreciate it. Let me know if you need help with any article. :) VedantTalk 08:27, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: This has four supports, but I think I'd like a little more commentary, and a little more reference to the FA criteria, particularly with reference to sourcing and prose. If no-one has done this soon, I will approach a few people myself and ask for a little further review. Sarastro (talk) 20:06, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if Mike Christie would be able to take a look at this? And maybe Tony1 if he's around? Sarastro (talk) 20:43, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'll have time, probably tomorrow, but if not then this weekend. Feel free to ping me again if I haven't posted anything by Monday. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:11, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tony1 edit

Prose sample: lead.

  • "it stars Amrinder Gill, Sargun Mehta, and Aditi Sharma in lead roles." As opposed to starring in minor roles.
  • "the film chronicles the love story of a young man and a woman belonging to different social strata" — so the woman isn't young? The "a" woman increases the probability of that meaning. Maybe: "the film chronicles the love story of a young man and woman from different social strata". "Chronicles" stresses the temporality of the account ... over time. All films must do that, but here you emphasise it. It would be appropriate if it were over a considerable period, or featured flash-backs and flash-forwards, etc. Otherwise "centres on" or "concerns"?
  • "Angrej has Ammy Virk, Binnu Dhillon, Anita Devgan, Sardar Sohi, and Nirmal Rishi in supporting roles; it marked the feature film debut for Mehta and Virk." In another language the "has" might be idiomatic. But here, an awkward metaphorical agency (the film does the having). Sometimes tranferred agency works in English, sometimes not. "features"? Or x, y, and z play supporting roles? Try to join with a comma, without the "it" back-ref.
  • "The film was shot in the rural parts of Rajasthan and Punjab over the course of 40 days, with Navneet Misser serving as the cinematographer." Thorough audit for grammatical simplification is required. English wants simple, plain, unlike just about every other language. Ironically, it makes English more elegant, not less.
  • "Production designer Raashid Rangrez paid particular attention to the film's sets and costumes as he wanted them to accurately represent the Punjab of the 1940s.—"film's" is understood ... it's a contextual redundancy. So is "as he wanted them" (unless he tried and failed). You'll need a comma before it.
  • "it received positive response from film critics and audience alike."—probably plural "responses", I think. And which word should be dumped?
  • Could we have a rough euro or US$ equivalent in parentheses?
  • Highest grossing: it's a double adjective, right? Hyphen.
  • Probably remove "the" from the start of the list of awards.
  • "chiefly" is ambiguous.
  • "Commercially," ... isn't it redundant?

I don't know what the rest is like, and the lead is hard to write. But this is definitely not FA standard. The system is failing (failing you, the nominator) by leaving it here on the list for months and months. I'm afraid it's an Oppose. Tony (talk) 03:09, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CHECKLIST

  • Quality of prose throughout (1a): Insufficient. Needs auditing throughout.
  • High-quality, reliable sources used appropriately (1c):
  • Citations consistently formatted (2c):
  • Images/media copyright and policy compliance (3):
  • Comprehensive, appropriate length, neutral (1b, 4, 1d):
  • Follows style guidelines (2):

Comments from Mike Christie edit

After reading Tony's comments I just picked one section to look at: Filming and post-production. Here are some points from that section.

  • Principal photography for Angrej took place in the rural parts of Punjab and Rajasthan; Navneet Misser served as the film's cinematographer. I'd suggest "rural areas" rather than "the rural parts"; the "the" implies it took place in all of the rural areas of those states. Without any comment on Misser's abilities or performance it seems pointless to mention him here -- he's in the infobox. That's a minor point, but if you keep him, I'd cut "served" in favour of something more invisible, such as "was".
  • The scenes of the village locale were shot at -> "The village scenes were shot at".
  • Missing a comma before "as the production team" -- parenthetical commas have to be in pairs.
  • He paid particular attention to landscaping, with the production team constructing their own sets on the various shooting locations. This is not what the source says. The source has "Professional team working under Raashid worked initially on the set design. The houses, landscapes, few number of trees, streets were all created as per the story’s requirement. Raashid said, 'The love scenes are setup in the background of the village so a plain piece of land wouldn’t have served the purpose. We chose to create our own houses and other infrastructure which involved a much of hard work.' " There's nothing about giving particular attention to landscaping. Production teams construct sets, so saying they did that seems a bit pointless; it's like saying the filming was done by the camera team. Raashid's point is that the village backdrop was a set, though presumably some scenes were shot using Suratgarh as the location rather than the set, given the statement earlier in the section.
  • The cast and crew had also collected such property as period utensils prior to commencement of filming: The source says "the entire team looked for utensils that represented the old Punjab. 'We managed to collect a truck full of it' ". The paraphrase is inaccurate: the source only says "utensils", not "such property as utensils", which implies other things too. The source doesn't say this was completed prior to the start of filming, and given how shooting schedules often work this seems unlikely. A prose point: you're missing "the" before "commencement". Finally, I'm not even sure I would include this -- "utensils" is frustratingly unspecific so it's hard to know how to use this without giving the original wording. Perhaps the key point here is not the utensils, but the fact that the everyone involved in the film helped; phrasing that focused on that might be better. By the way, the archive link for that source seems to be damaged: when I try it I get the html source of the archive.
  • Costumes, which included Punjabi wedding attire, were made of khadi handloom fabric: All the costumes? Some of the costumes?
  • The cloth was brought Banaras, Bikaner, and Jalandhar: a word appears to be missing here.
  • Rangrez and his team of designers, which included Manmeet Bindra used white cloth for...: another missing parenthetical comma.
  • Filming for the production was done in a single schedule that lasted for around 40 days: "schedule" is not the right word here; I take it you mean there were no breaks in the schedule, so something like "in about 40 days, with no breaks in the schedule" would be better.

Oppose. This is more work to do in a single short section than I would expect at FAC. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:32, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note edit

I'll be archiving this shortly so that the points above can be dealt with outside the FAC process, with a view to a possible re-nomination later. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:32, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:32, 5 September 2018 [15].

Saving Light edit

Nominator(s): Micro (Talk) 02:06, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 2017 trance song "Saving Light" by English electronic music producers Gareth Emery and Standerwick. I believe that the article meets the Featured Article criteria when compared to featured articles of around the same length such as "All You Need Is Love". The article was previously nominated for featured article status, but it failed only because it only had one vote, which was to support the promotion. I had addressed and fixed all comments and concerns the one voter had addressed, which, they eventually chose to support the promotion. The following statement written below was originally from the first featured article nomination, though I have edited it to keep it up to date.

  1. Well written. During the articles good article review and first featured article review, it was almost completely rewritten to make sure that the article is the best it could possibly be, making sure that everything has been supported by reliable and third-party reference and that the article was completely unbiased. The article had undergone a copy edit that I had requested from the Guild of Copy Editors where it is now very well written in my own opinion.
  2. Factually accurate, neutral and verifiable. The article has around 30 references, all of which being proven to be reliable in the articles good article review. The article did contain some unreliable sources, though all of which had been removed during the good article review. The number of references may be considered quite low for a featured article or even a good article, though this is because it isn't a very well known song, being released by a relatively small indie record label.
  3. Stable. The article had received only a few edits since it's first article nomination, as there is really nothing more to add or fix. My last edit (as of writing this) was on the 22nd of July, though there have only been 4 minor edits since my last contribution to the article, the last of which was on the 29th of July.
  4. Appropriate length. The article is of adequate length, being around 26,300 bytes in size and having 1,233 words (according to XTools). The article is not too long, containing only how much the article should have without it dragging on.

The article had previously undergone a peer review, with it being reviewed as a B-class article before it had passed it's first good article review shortly after. The article was then nominated for a featured article promotion, though it failed because of the lack of voters and because of so, I was allowed by a FAC Coordinator to re-nominate it only a few days after the first nomination was archived. The article contains only one fair use image, being the official cover art for the song. Micro (Talk) 02:06, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support for FA nomination, completed article fits all mentioned criteria for FA status while its MOS looks fine overall. aNode (discuss) 14:58, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support nomination, no major problems that oppose the criteria for a featured article Lazz_R 14:31, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support as all my comments were already resolved in the previous FAC attempt (here). Aoba47 (talk) 17:53, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

The lead image, File:Saving Light Gareth Emery Standerwick Cover.jpeg, is a single cover with appropriate ALT text. However the "Media data and Non-free use rationale" box for it is incomplete; please fill in the n.a. areas. I would look to how other song FAs do it. Aoba47 (talk) 17:56, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fixed, replaced with a Non-free use rationale template for album covers. Micro (Talk) 20:12, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks good to me; it passes the image review. Good luck with the review. Aoba47 (talk) 20:19, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Based just on the critical reception section, which is the only section I have read. It's just a list of quotes, attributed to critics. It should be a coherent narrative of the critical commentary, with quotes used to illustrate. See WP:RECEPTION for some relevant advice. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:58, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: The critical reception section is based off of Habits (Stay High) and S&M (song), both of which have similar sections to Saving Light. The section could be edited into two review parts, one for the emotional parts of the song and the other for composition, though it might need further improvements:


Micro (Talk) 02:36, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This version of the critical reception has been scrapped. The main page's section has been replaced with a better one, which might be satisfactory to the opposer's standards. Micro (Talk) 06:04, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: Just a passing note that, of the three supports, only Aoba47 seems to have provided a full review. Even if the oppose is struck, we need much more commentary, based on the FA criteria before we even consider promotion. Sarastro (talk) 20:23, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sarastro1: Although not on this page, both ANode and Lazz_R have submitted a ‘full review’ on Saving Light’s talk page, under “FA recommendations”, only posting a summary for support here. Micro (Talk) 22:05, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: Looking at the review on the talk page (which I don't think really addresses WP:WIAFA) and Mike's concerns, I think this FAC is best archived. It's been open for over a month, and there is no consensus to promote, and with the oppose, little likelihood of reaching that consensus in the timeframe of a FAC. I will be archiving shortly. It can be renominated after the usual 2 week waiting period, but I would recommend working on this away from FAC and maybe getting some eyes on it at WP:PR first. I would also suggest looking at what Mike said in his oppose, and maybe see if he is willing to give a little help away from FAC. Sarastro (talk) 21:31, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:06, 5 September 2018 [16].

Algorithmic bias edit

Nominator(s): Owlsmcgee (talk) 19:23, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about bias in computer systems, extremely relevant to topics such as artificial intelligence, machine learning, and big data. There has been an enormous amount of interest in this topic in the media and in academia, so having a good, reliable reference on Wikipedia seems valuable. The article has gone through two *very thorough* GA reviews (see here and here) so I wanted to try to take it all the way to FA status. Owlsmcgee (talk) 19:23, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the lead image
  • File:02-Sandvig-Seeing-the-Sort-2014-WEB.png: do you have a link to support the CC0 designation?
  • File:A_computer_program_for_evaluating_forestry_opportunities_under_three_investment_criteria_(1969)_(20385500690).jpg: per the Flickr tag, is a more specific tag available? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:31, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I just have a few observations following a read-through:

  • "The term algorithmic bias describes systematic and repeatable errors that create unfair outcomes"; what is the targeted meaning of "unfair" in this context? Is it legal, cultural, societal, economic, perceived, or all of these? There's a couple of examples given but it isn't specifically defined.
  • The History section jumps from "early example of algorithmic bias" (1986) to "cases of still occur" (2018). What happened in between?
  • Other than a mention of machine learning in the Complexity section, I see almost no mention of AI, of which there have been some notable recent instances.
  • Shouldn't there be a section on testing and remediation of algorithmic bias, particularly in the context of AI?

Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 19:23, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Owlsmcgee: Will you be able to answer our questions? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:37, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Nikkimaria, this is User:Owlsmcgee. Somehow I’ve just seen this response, as I have been traveling for the past few weeks. I assure you I will give your questionable my full attention as soon as I can return to editing in the next week. Sorry for the delay! —-174.199.19.195 (talk) 17:50, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm here with more time to take in your questions. Thank you for taking the time, @Nikkimaria: and @Praemonitus:! First, all of your image questions will be tackled soon, right now I want to focus on the text.
  • "Unfair outcomes" should be understood to be unfair outcomes in any domain, be it as you list, "legal, cultural, societal, economic..." etc. Would there be a better way for me to make this clearer in the text?
    • It looks like you've just defined unfair in terms of itself. The term itself often depends on the context. I think it needs tightening down. Praemonitus (talk)
  • The History section lists the earliest known example, but the history is not intended to be a complete history of examples of bias (which could be it's own article). A sizeable amount of examples exist in the article now. What if I added a transition sentence such as, "bias in algorithms has become a more prevalent area of research after increases in processing power allowed more complex algorithms to integrate into a wider range of uses." Would that explain the gap?
    • I'm not sure. I was just noting what appears to be an obvious gap. Praemonitus (talk)
  • AI makes use of algorithms; the algorithms that create AI biases are the same algorithms described in the article. The terms are essentially exchangeable. I chose "algorithms" as the language because it is more precise, with "Artificial Intelligence" being basically a more buzz-wordy version of "collections of computer algorithms."
    • What I'm remembering is the situation where an AI is trained via some means, and thereby acquires biases.[17] That's different than an algorithm with an encoded bias. The complexity of AI is reaching a point where a simple coding fix might not be possible because we don't fully understand how it works. Thanks. Praemonitus (talk)
  • As for Praemonitus' suggestion on testing and remediation, I agree this is a useful section to include, and I've looked for pieces that might describe it but have come up empty handed. There is certainly a way to test to see if an algorithm is making mistakes, which doesn't quite belong in this article as mistakes are not the same as biased. But there is not a wide, scaleable means of determining whether an algorithm is fair. Such techniques are determined on an individual basis, in ways that are extremely subjective to the people responsible for the algorithms. Right now the articles does have a very small nod to the creation of the FAT-ML consortium to tackle these problems, would it be enough to find a few more examples?
Thanks for all the feedback, everyone. --Owlsmcgee (talk) 04:33, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: Given that this has been open for over a month, and collected minimal review and no support, I think the best course for the article is to archive this FAC now. It can be renominated after the usual two-week waiting period, but I would recommend trying to get some eyes on it beforehand, either by approaching a few reviewers or placing it at WP:PR. Sarastro (talk) 21:06, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 20:27, 5 September 2018 [18].

Mullum Malarum edit

Nominator(s): Kailash29792 (talk) 03:59, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an artistic milestone in the career of Rajinikanth, who most people see as a mere star. The last FAC failed because two dominantly used books were found to be a case of WP:MIRROR; in removing them the article was extensively reworked, and I think it is more FAC worthy now. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:59, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Pavanjandhyala edit

Welcome back, sir. Good to see you take up this; better late than never.

Lead
  • I don't know Tamil language at all. However, being familiar with its cinema's poster designs, i do believe that the poster being used here isn't a Theatrical release poster. Correct me if i am wrong, or else, change the caption please.
Done: Since it doesn't show the release date, one should not assume it is the theatrical release poster. But it is still an official poster, as it is from the NFAI archives. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:04, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The title has two translations. But please opt for that one which suits the story really. Agreed Kali is a thorn and his sister is blossoming into a flower i.e. she is coming of age. That is what the film wants to convey. But, the way Kali's character graph changes towards the end, i think the second translation would be optimal.
It is Baradwaj Rangan who pointed out these two translations. But I'll ask anyone else how to include two translations, since I considered the first one accurate for years. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:04, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What Mr. Rangan had stated was more of a thematic analysis and needs to be mentioned in the Themes section (where it was already written). When you are using the {{lit|}} template, it is better to use the literal translation. So, yes, i take my previous comment back. The first translation is a better choice. Pavanjandhyala 14:45, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The film, starring Rajinikanth, Sarath Babu, Fatafat Jayalaxmi and Shoba, was Mahendran's directorial debut and is loosely based on Umachandran's novel of the same name." -- In the previous line, you have mentioned that it was Mahendran's directorial debut. Why again?
Done. Maybe it's a mistake by the GOCE editor. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:04, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "capitulated" sounds too GRE-ish. Why not something like "yielded into" or "reluctantly agreed"?
Done: Put "reluctantly agreed". Kailash29792 (talk) 09:04, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Since Mahendran had no previous directing experience, cinematographer Balu Mahendra (also a director) assisted Mahendran with the screenplay, dialogue, camera angles, casting and editing." -- Mahendran repeated twice in the same line.
Done. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:04, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Rajinikanth's performance as Kali received unanimous praise, and it is widely considered the best performance of his career." -- Correct me if i am wrong (poor English language skills) but, i don't think we use "it" there. And why not simply career best performance?
  • "Mullum Malarum, a breakthrough for Rajinikanth and a milestone of Tamil cinema..." -- breakthrough as? a supporting actor? a lead actor? a supporting actor playing positive roles? Please be clear.
Done. I've written it as a milestone for him as an actor (as opposed to being a star). Kailash29792 (talk) 09:04, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "dereliction of duty" -- i think negligence alone suffices. i say it because, abandoned the winch is wikilinked to desertion.
  • Murugesa (a philandering grocer) -- Why the brackets?
Done: Replaced with a comma. Blame it on the GOCE editor's penchant for adding brackets. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:15, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last line of the plot is somewhat abrupt. There is no hint about Kali's change of heart and why. You wrote it better in the Themes section, but people would not go there to know the plot, will they?
Done: I've written that he is relieved that Valli still respects him before letting her marry Kumaran. Do you find it consistent with the line in "Themes"? Kailash29792 (talk) 10:44, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is. Pavanjandhyala 04:52, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "novel of the same name by Umachandran" -- "written by" or "authored by"
  • "...for the magazine's 1966 silver jubilee" -- Sounds as if the magazine celebrated its silver jubilee annually. Rephrase it as "silver jubilee in 1966".
Done as asked. The magazine was founded in 1941, and silver jubilee means 25th anniversary. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:15, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why always mention Kamal Haasan's name fully? Is there any other actor or technician working for the film with the same last name?
Done: I've simply described him as "Haasan" in subsequent mentions. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:28, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "typecasting as a villain" -- is that about typecasting in his previous films like Gayathri and Moondru Mudichu?
I guess so; he was primarily known for his villainous roles at that time. Apoorva Raagangal, 16 Vayathinile, Aadu Puli Attam, Katha Sangama, Avargal, Anthuleni Katha... all these came before MM. But I'm not saying Rajinikanth only played villains before this film, just that he was best known for such roles, an exception being Bhuvana Oru Kelvi Kuri (1977). So nothing should be confusing.
  • Reluctant agreement implies still being unhappy. Why mention it again in the next line? Any reason behind it?
The source says, "Ridiculous! Preposterous! You say there is no romantic lead for the hero and you also say a villain plays the main role," mumbled Chettiar audibly whenever he went to the location. This was after Chettiar conceded to Mahendran's wish to cast Rajini. Part of the quote is incorrect (blame it on the editor) since Rajinikanth did have a romantic lead: Jayalakshmi. But I think it answers your question. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:15, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Understandable. Pavanjandhyala 09:53, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Themes section, up to this point, is perhaps the best written section of this article.
  • Soundtrack is also fine, given there is nothing much to write really there.
  • Is a film passed or cleared for viewing by the censor board?
I think it is the latter, so I've gone with it. Either way, the censor certificate is dated 4 August. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:28, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chettiar, who despaired of its success and thought he was "doomed", refused to underwrite any more publicity -- underwrite? i think it is not the right word in the given context.
The source says he refused to "give" more publicity to the film. I've written accordingly. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:15, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mahendran's quote, does it add any real value? All what he said has been detailed above in the appropriate sections. Would you like to explain? If there is a justifiable reason, i shall be very happy.
On second thoughts, yes it adds little value; also, Mahendran says the producer "never turned up on the sets", while the "development" section says he did. I'll try merging tomorrow. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:28, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done: Removed the quote altogether as it adds nothing new. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:15, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After he saw the film Rajinikanth's mentor, director K. Balachander, wrote a letter of appreciation" -- a comma is missing.
Done: Replaced the colon (:) with a comma. --Kailash29792 (talk) 06:15, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Praised for his performance in what was seen as an experimental film, during the 1990s he stopped acting in similar films because he had become a "larger-than-life" hero" -- a comma is missing.
Done: I've put the comma after 1990s. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:15, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see any real comment on Rajinikanth's performance in the retrospective reviews, like the one this offers. (I personally tried and didn't find much. So i take back my comment.)

Support -- I have no further issues to be answered at the moment and i do support the article's promotion to FA. Regards, Pavanjandhyala 04:52, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Pavan. Nevertheless, I've added the IE article where the writer praises his "vulnerability and rawness". Kailash29792 (talk) 06:32, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Vedant edit

Reading through. Sorry that it took me a while to get here. VedantTalk 17:41, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Is music an integral part of the film? The mention of the composer in the opening line is a little odd.
Done: transferred to second paragraph. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:20, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Production was tumultuous" - The problem with such a claim is that it is too vague in itself. Maybe, connect with an "as".
Done: I put an "as". Kailash29792 (talk) 05:17, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Without context, this: "Chettiar was surprised that the finished film had less dialogue than visuals, which he did not expect from Mahendran." makes little sense in the lead.
Done: Removed as it didn't seem to fit there. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:20, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • ""during India's Independence Day"" - during?
Would this be better? MM was released on 15 August 1978, the same day as India's Independence Day.? The word "co-inciding" is often discouraged as it implies unintentionality. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:20, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That would be an improvement.
  • It was also dubbed in...
Done as asked. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:20, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a milestone of Tamil cinema" - is that a direct quote? VedantTalk 17:58, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd go with "milestone in Tamil cinema" as I consider that grammatically correct. I don't know why the GOCE editor did that. Are you fine with my suggestion? Kailash29792 (talk) 04:20, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, i think that should do it.

I apologize again Kailash, I haven't really had any time on wiki whatsoever. I'll jump to the release and reception section as that takes the longest to review (will get to the rest too).

Here are the comments:

  • "there were problems with its release" - do we know what they were?
It appears it was this incident, listed under filming: "Chettiar held up production by not financing a scene set before the song "Senthazham Poovil", but Haasan funded the scene". Kailash29792 (talk) 10:56, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Chettiar, who despaired of its success and thought he was "doomed", refused to give any more publicity" - the entire bit is a little problematic. One and too many; give any more publicity isn't proper either.
  • "Chettiar apologised to Mahendran and offered him a blank cheque, which he politely refused." - Interesting, but not really​ encyclopediac. It's a little, idk, melodramatic?
Perhaps it is important to mention that they reconciled, isn't it? --Kailash29792 (talk) 10:56, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The director isn't the best choice.
  • "After he saw the film, Rajinikanth's mentor, director K. Balachander, wrote in a letter of appreciation: "I'm proud".
Done. --Kailash29792 (talk) 10:56, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mullum Malarum received positive reviews when it was released. The Name is Rajinikanth (2008) by Gayathri Sreekanth says that critics said, "Finally" - Again, one attribution too many. In fact, why not remove them altogether. and rephrase as "Mullum Malarum was well received at the times of its initial release, with commentators describing it as the coming of age of Tamil cinema."
Done as asked. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:56, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Hindu's quote is huge, you might have paraphrase it.
Yes, it has to be paraphrased. But I wasn't the one who added it. I'll find a way to paraphrase it in a day or two. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:56, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The retrospective reviews could use a little variety, with two sentences beginning in the same manner.
  • "The fact that Mahendran and Balachander entered the world of cinema as writers shows in the strong storylines and dialogues of their films such as Mahendran's Mullum Malarum (1978) and Balachander's Apoorva Raagangal (1975) and Thanneer Thanneer (1981)." - the entire quote can be paraphrased very easily.
  • Is the TOI review only a rating?
Yes it is. --Kailash29792 (talk) 10:56, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • A lot of the section is focussed on Rajnikanth so why don't give a brief statement at the beginning of the second paragraph, one similar to the one in the lead?
  • Also shift all non-Rajnikanth buts to the first paragraph and all Rajnikanth bits to the second and third.
  • "The actor won the Arima Sangam" - again, The actor.
I've written, "He also won the Arima Sangam Award for Best Actor". --Kailash29792 (talk) 10:56, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reading through the rest. VedantTalk 16:00, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vedant, please see if your comments have been resolved. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:35, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Give me another day or two Kailash. VedantTalk 20:52, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Second look

The reception could still use some reorganising. Here are some comments:

  • Aoba47's comment about the attribution to the review hasn't been fully addressed ("A 25 August 1978 review in The Hindu stated that the film", "The review further noted that " for instance.)
  • There are still some stray reviews about Rajnikanth's performance in the first paragraph of the Retrospective reviews section. It should be moved to the other paragraph which should exclusively talk about Rajnikanth's performance.

Kailash I was in Kerala this past month and it wasn't the most favorable environment. I really haven't been editing wiki at all, but I do plan on finishing this review. Let me know if you have any queries. VedantTalk 11:53, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you made it back safely. I moved the Rediff review to the third para of "Retrospective reviews", please see if it is fine. Kailash29792 (talk) 13:40, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Kailash29792 I'm back home, thanks. VedantTalk 16:37, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Continued
  • "Mullum Malarum is based on a novel of the same name written by Umachandran, which was published in the Tamil magazine, Kalki." - was the novel episodic?
No, I don't think it was serialised. Short stories don't appear long enough to be serialised, and the source reads, "He also gave away prizes to winners in the Novel Short Story Competitions held in connection with the Jubilee celebrations." I guess I should get the whole page via WP:RESOURCE REQUESTS. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:51, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As long as the information concurs with the source it should be fine, it was just a little odd: an entire novel being published in a magazine. VedantTalk 06:14, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "won the first prize in Kalki's Novel"
Done. --Kailash29792 (talk) 06:39, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "visually-focused film" - is there a more appropriate term for this?
This was the term I used to replace "visually-rich", which I agreed sounded POV-ish. Would "focused on visuals" sound better? Kailash29792 (talk) 06:39, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mohan appeared in the opening credits" - appeared? does that mean his name was mentioned as producer?
Done: Although Chettiar and Mohan were the producers, only Mohan's name is listed in the credits. I have written as such. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:59, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you also fix the review attribution bit on the music section?
Done as asked. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:59, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll read the article one more time, once the comments are addressed. VedantTalk 16:37, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Kailash29792, I've been through the article again (barring the Themes section) and see considerable improvements. That said, I think that the article can still use some polishing in prose: for instance, the Legacy section might also read as a series of unconnected sentences in parts. At this point, I'm neither against nor for the promotion. Great work on the article, it's not easy to get a 1978 Indian film here! I just think that the prose can still use some polishing, good luck. VedantTalk 06:14, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think the "Themes" section had uneven paragraphs. I've somewhat levelled it now. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:39, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Vedant, now I've discovered sources which state it was a serialised story (not a short story) and that it won in a novel competition, not a short story competition. Both competitions were held at the same ceremony is what I realise. I've rewritten the development section accordingly, please see if the wording is fine. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:19, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47 edit

  • For the ALT text for the infobox image, I would specify the type of musical instrument that the character is holding.
Done: I've written it as a hand drum. Anyone with better knowledge of Indian percussion instruments can write what exactly it is. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:37, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the infobox image caption, I would specify what type of poster it is. Is it a theatrical release poster?
Earlier, that is what I wrote. But Pavan (now Veera Narayana) thought it might not be so. Since it lacks the release date and a billing block, I too thought it might not a theatrical release poster, so I played safe and simply wrote "poster". --Kailash29792 (talk) 03:37, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part (the dispute costs him his left arm and his job), I am not sure if “dispute” is the right word choice here as it sounds rather tame. After reading through the plot summary, it sounds like he lost his arm after getting drunk so I am not sure about the connection between the dispute and the loss of his left arm.
  • Yes I agree with you, it was his own drunkedness that cost him the arm. I earlier wanted the lead to be comprehensive, but now I prefer conciseness, hence I removed. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:04, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the edit and clarification. Aoba47 (talk) 05:09, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part “(also a director) assisted him with the screenplay, dialogue, camera angles, casting and editing.), I would do think that the “(also a director)” part is necessary.
I think Balu Mahendra assisted J. Mahendran since the former was already an established director. That is why (also a director) was written. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:04, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the clarification. Aoba47 (talk) 05:09, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe it is because I am an American, but I have never heard the word “lorry” before. I would wikilink it in this sentence (a lorry runs over his left arm, which is later amputated.).
I think lorry is British for truck. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:41, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Makes sense; do you think a wikilink there would be helpful? Aoba47 (talk) 05:09, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Since the term may not be familiar to American readers, I've wikilinked it. Otherwise, I'd have written it as "truck" with no wikilink. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:37, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that the wording of the sentence (His relationship with Kali is difficult, worsening after he sees Kali's negative side in a series of incidents (including allowing people to ride the winch, in violation of power-plant rules).) can be improved, specifically the phrase “Kali’s negative side” to be quite vague. I would revise that part. I have never seen this film, but from my understanding from this article, Kumaran does not like Kali as he does not follow the rules.
Now I have replaced "negative" with "unruly". Kailash29792 (talk) 05:41, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that is a better word choice. Aoba47 (talk) 20:57, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a comment about this part (because of his strict application of the rules.). I think that (because of his strict adherence to the rules) would be better as it sounds like the character is trying to follow the rules that have already been set out rather creating his own rules.
Done: Written exactly as you suggested. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:37, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would revise this sentence (Although Manga becomes fond of Kali, he is repelled by her fondness for food.) to avoid the repetition of the word “fond”.
  • I am probably missing something really obvious, but I am not sure what this part (her fondness for food) means? Could you specify this point further?
Page 80 of this book says, "Manga takes a shine to Kaali but he is disgusted with her gluttonous ways as her main focus in life is food." Can I write that, although she develops a liking for Kaali, he is disgusted with her gluttonous nature? Kailash29792 (talk) 04:04, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the clarification. I think that the current word is fine then. Aoba47 (talk) 05:09, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part (In his absence, an emergency arises at the plant.), could you clarify what kind of emergency occurred at the power plant as it is pretty vague right now?
Page 81 does not mention what the emergency was. I too don't remember what it was, but the important point is, he took off from duty when he was not supposed to, hence he was suspended. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:04, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Understandable. It is not really necessary to know the exact nature of the accident to understand the basic plot of the film. Aoba47 (talk) 05:09, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this sentence (When a poor wanderer, Manga, and her aged mother arrive in the village with no assets and no one to assist them, Valli helps them set up a home in the village.), I am not sure that the (with no assets and no one to assist them) part is really necessary.
Now I have written "When a poor wanderer, Manga, and her aged mother arrive in the village, Valli helps them set up a home. Although Manga develops a liking for Kali, he is repelled by her fondness for food." Kailash29792 (talk) 05:41, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the revision. Aoba47 (talk) 20:57, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this sentence (Unemployed, Kali directs his anger and frustration at Kumaran and Manga feels guilty because she is responsible for Kali's plight.), I would add a comma after “Kumaran” to fully separate the two ideas in the sentence.
Done as suggested. Or would splitting the sentence using a full stop be a better option? Kailash29792 (talk) 03:37, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would avoid the repetition of the word “impressed” in these two sentences (Screenplay and dialogue writer J. Mahendran read only part of Umachandran's novel, but was particularly impressed by the winch operator Kali's affection for his sister and the loss of his arm.[5] He outlined Mullum Malarum to producer Venu Chettiar, who was also impressed.[6]).
  • I would revise this part (and did not expect such a visually-rich film) to (and did not expect a film focused on visuals). Something about “visually-rich” sounds too much like praise for a section that should be objective.
Done. "visually-rich" has long been replaced with a new wording. --Kailash29792 (talk) 06:39, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part (metaphorically liken the sibling relationship to flowers), I am assuming you mean “the siblings’ relationship).
Yes, the relationship between siblings, in that Kali is the thorn and Valli is the flower. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:04, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is currently missing the "s'" at the end of the word. Aoba47 (talk) 05:09, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Now I've written, "the relationship between siblings". --Kailash29792 (talk) 03:37, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a lot of great information in the “Themes” section, but I am confused the overall structure of the section. It seems to bounce around between ideas without a cohesive narrative. For instance, the first paragraph goes from a comparison between the siblings and flowers to a discussion on the film’s treatment of poverty. I would work on the flow/transitions between the ideas within the paragraphs.
All info here is sorted according to writers. I hope that clarifies. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:41, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • As in this part (The 2012 book Grand Brand Rajini by P. C. Balasubramanian and Ram N. Ramakrishnan describes), I would avoid saying that a book making an analysis on the film as it is really the author doing that.
Now I've written, In their 2012 book Grand Brand Rajini, P. C. Balasubramanian and Ram N. Ramakrishnan describe Kali as "the loving brother, the angry worker and despondent physically challenged person rolled into one." Is it fine? Kailash29792 (talk) 03:41, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a reason that this is not added to the main FAC page? I would imagine it would get more commentary if put up there.
Am I the only one who can put it there? If so, how? Kailash29792 (talk) 04:04, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will put it up there for you. Aoba47 (talk) 05:09, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Great work with this article. Hopefully, my comments will help you. I will look through the article again once my comments are addressed. Have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 21:59, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just wondering if you will resolve the rest of my comments? Aoba47 (talk) 20:22, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, sorry for the delay. I thought Ssven2 solved them. Please see if they are solved. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:41, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you go point-by-point to address which comments were resolved? I still see a few of suggestions were not addressed. Aoba47 (talk) 18:03, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Aoba47, I'd strike out any comment I consider resolved. But I think only you are at liberty to strike out your own comments (if I'm wrong, I'll strike 'em out myself). Also, do you consider the lit. template to be used properly in the lead section? The second translation must not be removed since it is also literal. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:29, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was not suggesting that you strike out my comments. Rather, I would appreciate it if you put "done" or something along those lines under each one, as I still some comments that were not fully addressed. And the template in the lead seems to be fine to me. Aoba47 (talk) 04:59, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Aoba47, now I've solved your comments after carefully going through each. Anything else? Meanwhile, at the soundtrack section, I have cited this as the source for the soundtrack. Is it correctly formatted, or am I missing something? I was confused whether to add Columbia (the label), The Gramophone Company Of India (manufacturer and distributor) or EMI (the Record Company) to the publisher field, but went with Columbia. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:39, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing everything. I just have one small issue before I can support it for promotion. Discogs is not a reliable source for Wikipedia, and I would recommend just citing the album directly. Aoba47 (talk) 17:21, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm rather shocked by your comment because I thought Discogs, due to having its own Wiki page and legitimately showing album information straight from the horse's mouth without distorting details, was a RS. Alright, I'll remove the link, but what should be in the publisher field? Kailash29792 (talk) 03:42, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Media review edit

I did not try too hard, but you could add photos such as the director File:J Mahendran at Veena S Balachander Felicitation.jpg, or the cast.

Let me know what you think. Kees08 (Talk) 06:19, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kees08, thank you for the suggestions, but I don't know what the instrument in the poster is called. It is certainly a hand drum (not sure if it is a kanjira or a damaaram), hence I've rewritten the alt text. --Kailash29792 (talk) 06:41, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I edited it a teeny bit, but I recommend you add what they are wearing (I see a saree for example). You should also say that the text is written in..Hindi?..in blue and purple. I write alt text as if I am describing the image to a visually impaired individual. That is the point of alt text after all! Kees08 (Talk) 06:59, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note: This has been open for two months now. Although we are still getting comments, this is approaching the point where we will be archiving shortly. I've added it to the urgent list, but if nothing happens in the next week, this will be archived. Sarastro (talk) 19:38, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: This has been open since the end of June but has only attracted one support. Even if Aoba47 switches to support, I don't think we have a clear consensus to promote and it is better to archive this FAC. It can be renominated after the usual two-week waiting period. Those who have commented here can be informed when the new FAC starts, and it might be worth asking for a few reviewers to take a look informally before renomination. That might prevent another long wait in the queue next time. Sarastro (talk) 20:27, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 13:27, 5 September 2018 [19].

Lonsdale Belt edit

Nominator(s): Okeeffemarc (talk) 16:16, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article explains the origins of the oldest boxing championship belt in the UK and arguably the world. It also details the rules for holding the belt and how they have changed, the inaugural winners at each weight, and lists every single outright winner. Information about thefts and sales are also featured. I have enjoyed expanding and improving this article over the past few months. i believe it is now in a good state and would love for more people to learn about this prestigious prize, and it's winners. Okeeffemarc (talk) 16:16, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support, a beautiful article which is detailed in the long history of the belt - you should be proud! Coventryy (talk) 20:51, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Now this is a topic that is completely new to me. The article looks fascinating at first glance, but I do have a question about whether FAC is the right place for it. Looking at the article, it appears that most of the content consists of various tables that list the champions over time. With that in mind, I'm wondering whether this page should be at featured list candidates instead of here. Most of the time, we consider articles that are mostly tables to be lists, and there are only a handful or so of paragraphs in the body. If those paragraphs were converted into a History section above the tables, and some formatting improvements were made to the tables themselves, you'd have quite a nice FLC candidate in my view. I don't want to stand in the way if others think this belongs at FAC, but I would consider it a list personally. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:14, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Evening Giants2008, thanks for your comments. I would prefer that it remain a FAC. Whilst i see your point, i think there is enough prose to sufficiently and succinctly cover the main aspects of the belts history, rules and controversies to warrant it remaining an article rather than a list. If there is wider consensus that this should be a list however, then i'll be a team player and do as you suggest. Kind regards, Okeeffemarc (talk) 00:36, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Mmm, looking at the page for the first time I thought it looked more like a list than an article and I came here to see if anyone shared that opinion -- obviously so, and since the FLC director and a FAC coordinator are of similar mind, I think it's reasonable to close this down and look at re-nominating at FLC... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:21, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
N.B. While we often just TNT noms that we're closing over procedural issues, I'll archive this to preserve what commentary we've had as it may still aid a future FLC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:26, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

  • The image sourcing is inadequate for all the images. Who created them, when/where were they first published, and where were the images found? I see no proof that the author of the images were "anonymous"; because no source is given at all. FunkMonk (talk) 04:38, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Evening FunkMonk, sorry for the late reply, i am at sea at the moment so the internet connection is reminiscent of my parents desktop circa 1999! I have removed The Henry Cooper image and re-tagged the belt images. Completely forgot about the image information. kind regards Okeeffemarc (talk) 00:27, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
ALright, so if I udnerstand correctly, you took those photos yourself? In that case, you also have to add a public domain tag for the artworks. Do we know who the artist was and when he died? And the photo you removed should be nominated for deletion on Commons if it is not actually free. FunkMonk (talk) 02:05, 29 August 2018 (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/September_2018&oldid=861439055"