Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/April 2019

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates | Featured log
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 promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 27 April 2019 [1].

RSPB Dearne Valley Old Moor

edit
Nominator(s): Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:56, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another in my occasional series about English bird reserves. Quite a short one this time, since its emergence from an industrial wasteland means that it lacks the archaeology and military history that occur in coastal sites Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:56, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a great story! I've started reviewing and will comment soon. Cheers, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:37, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Lovely article. A pleasure to read, well illustrated, and thoroughly referenced from what seem authoritative sources. I might hyphenate the attributive "high quality" in the first para of History, and use a dash rather than a hyphen for "9.30 am-5.00 pm" but that's all I can find to be pernickety about. – Tim riley talk 19:01, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tim, tweaked as suggested Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:46, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support I can't get enough of rewilding stories, and this one is beautifully told. I do see a few issues, however:

  1. “There is a potential threat to the reserve from climate change and flooding, although it may also benefit from new habitat creation beyond the reserve and improved accessibility.” - This sentence could be read as implying that climate change would be the cause of these benefits.
  2. "a large "Mere" for wintering wildfowl" - I don't know what a Mere is or why it is in quotations. This term could use some explanation.
  3. "100 kw biomass converter" should be kW, not kw.
  4. "fish biomass" - should link to biomass (ecology) not biomass
  5. "35% said that nature" - Per MOS:NUMNOTES, avoid starting a sentence with a figure.
  6. "Consider adding this to article to Category:Constructed wetlands.
Best wishes, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 06:06, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Clayoquot thanks for your comments and support. I've tweaked the last sentence of the lead, replaced "Mere" with the simpler "lake", and made the other tweaks as suggested, thanks again Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:35, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:53, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria, thanks as always for your diligence Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:45, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk

edit
  • Will have a look soon, first there appears to be a bunch of duplinks, which cna be highlighted with this script:[2]
The new one makes a distinction between the intro, article body, and captions as well, so it is a big improvement. FunkMonk (talk) 14:59, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder why the etymology of "ings" is relevant here, as it's not the subject of the article, and the info is not even found in the actual Denaby Ings article? Not that it's not interesting (the Danish equivalent is "eng", so I found it amusing), it just doesn't seem to be the right place for it.
  • "with villages developing on the drier sandstone ridges above the flood plain" Any idea when?
  • The visitor centre looks like an old industrial building. Is it original, or something built later?
  • "Royal Society for the Protection of Birds" Could be spelled out and linked at first mention in the article body too.
  • "waders by grazing by cattle" Through grazing? The by by sounds a bit clunky.
  • This is a really cool sign post[3] I think, I wonder if it adds more than the last photo of the door, but up to you.
  • "although there also a potential" Missing "is"?
FunkMonk, many thanks, all done I think Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:04, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

edit
  • Spotchecks not carried out
  • All external links are working
  • Formats: just one small issue. For ref 15 the source is a 119-page report, but the ref. has no pagination.
  • Quality and reliability: the sources all appear to be of the appropriate standards of quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 18:49, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

edit
Just a few things:
  • "and the wetlands at Old Moor were made possible by the removal of soil to cover an adjacent polluted site." I'm not sure if I like "were made possible". Many things are possible. Could it be "and the removal of soil to cover an adjacent polluted site generated (or similar verb) the wetlands at Old Moor"?
  • "A calling male" (lede and body). Could the lay reader be helped with a link for "calling"?
  • "Over the next two centuries, especially following the arrival of the railway in 1840, the whole area became dominated by its heavy industries.[2][3]" I might cut "whole" as surplus.
  • "enclosed". A link might be helpful for American readers.
  • "The visitor centre and its café are open daily from 9.30 am–5.00 pm, except for 25 and 26 December, with the reserve itself staying open until 8 pm from April to October." I'm going to be really picky and suggest you haven't addressed whether the reserve is open beyond the visitor centre in winter.
  • "waders" is not linked on first use.::
  • Can anything be said about the mileage of the trails?
Interesting, as always. I particularly liked the post-industrial use.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:41, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JM

edit

I've not been, but it's only an hour's drive away and I'm an RSPB member, so no doubt I'll end up there eventually!

  • "The "moor" part of "Old Moor" may refer to the old meaning of a marshy area, possibly less fertile than the alluvium of the flood plain." This threw me; first, it's words-as-words, so should use italics; second, I thought you meant an old meaning of the phrase "a marshy area"; third, I don't really know what is meant to be "less fertile", given that the first part of the sentence is about words. Can I recommend something like "The moor of Old Moor may derive from the Middle English moor, meaning a marshy area. When given the name, the area was possibly less fertile than it is today." or "The name Old Moor may derive from an archaic meaning of moor, referring to a marshy area. When given the name, the area was possibly less fertile than it is today."
  • The picture of the visitor centre doesn't really have anything to do with the landscape section, and it clashes with the infobox. Perhaps you could add it as a second image to the infobox?
  • "rendered the River Dearne lifeless" This is rhetorical- it won't have been literally lifeless, surely?
  • Changed to "biologically dead", which is exactly what the source says. This river was massively polluted with a colour reflecting what was currently being dumped in it, so I'm reluctant to say something that contradicts the source. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:02, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the history section, I'd like to perhaps hear a little more about why the RSPB did eventually take it on, and especially about what the Dearne Valley Land Partnerships is. Also, you introduce an abbreviation for the DVLP at the second mention. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:01, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Final paragraph of "management": would it be worth wikilinking those various other reserves? Don't be scared of redlinks - if they're notable, a link would be a good addition!
  • I'm surprised at the choice of a picture of a great tit, given that they're not even mentioned in the article?
  • "A number of rare flies have been recorded, including three species otherwise known in the UK only from a few sites in the East Anglian fenland" Species names with links, please? Again, nothing wrong with a redlink, and if it's a bluelink, it'll probably be one of the few to the species in question! In all honesty, these are exactly the kind of links I'd be clicking. (I was clicking links to the moth species, for example!)
  • Any interesting fungi recorded?
  • "RSPB Saltholme" Worth a link?
  • If the Moore et al. soure is proceedings of a conference, surely you should be citing the particular paper/chapter rather than the volume as a whole? I've changed this in the article, but please double-check what I've done.

An enjoyable read! Josh Milburn (talk) 16:18, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Milburn, it's a nice, fairly compact reserve, so could be worth the trip. Thanks for reviewing. Family are descending on us for Easter so it may be a couple of days before I get time to respond, I'll ping you when I do. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:32, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Josh Milburn, I think it's all done now, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:00, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning support. The images still look a little cluttered on my screen. Template:Multiple images can be useful to neaten things up, as can shifting some to the left. I'll leave that up to you, though. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:33, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Josh Milburn I've tried and failed to integrate the multiple images template with the infobox, and I don't like left-aligned, so I've removed the visitor centre image. Does that help? If that doesn't work on your display, please feel free to reposition or remove as you see fit. I'm struggling a bit to fix this because I'm obviously not seeing what you are on your screen Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:31, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, sorry - I was meaning in the article proper, not in the infobox. I've added an example, but feel free to remove it if you don't like it. We decided to go down to Old Moor today; I just got back. We heard the bitterns, but didn't see them. A grass snake was another highlight. I'm sure we'll be back! Josh Milburn (talk) 13:27, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Josh Milburn Apologies for my lack of comprehension, that looks great. Always a lot easier to hear bitterns than see them, despite their size. I once had a close but stationary bittern in my scope and invited others to take a look; so well camouflaged some people still couldn't pick it out from the reeds! Grass snake is good though, and there should be some waders going through soon Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:17, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Just two points for you to consider, but I'll leave them entirely up to you, as it's each to their own on IB contents:
  • It's each to their own for IBs, but I've always though co-ordinates a particular waste of time, given they are positioned directly above the IB itself (ie. They stand alone as a factoid already). I'd advise you take it out, but leave it entirely to you to ignore me.
  • On the flip side, I would think that the area and elevation should be in there. Again, feel free to ignore – these two points are just suggestions
  • As a huge aside, our cats are named after British former Prime Ministers: the Marquess of Rockingham is the youngest of our batch (Rocky for short), alongside Dizzy (Disraeli) and Gladstone.

A very enjoyable read and eminently supportable. - SchroCat (talk) 21:05, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • SchroCat, many thanks for review and support. I've added area and elevation now as suggested. It looks as if the coordinates automatically repeat, and they are needed for the pushpin map, so I think we're stuck with that (ps I love the cat names. My daughter's are Woody and Archie, after jazz musicians Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:18, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 27 April 2019 [4].

German torpedo boat Albatros

edit
Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and L293D (talk 20:27, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One of six Type 23 torpedo boats built during the 1920s. The ship participated in the Spanish Civil War and briefly in World War II, firing the first shot of the German invasion of Norway in 1940. The ship ran aground and was wrecked a few days later while trying to avoid Norwegian coastal artillery. It passed a MILHIST A-class review a few months ago, but was archived when I was remiss in responding to reviewer's comments. We've addressed all of the earlier comments and believe that it meets the FAC comments. The article passed its source and image reviews in the previous nomination and, since nothing's changed there, we believe that it doesn't need them to be reviewed again, but we'll abide by the decision of the delegates.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:27, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support (as the reviewer noted in the nomination statement) - the only point I'd make with regard to my review on the first FAC is on the depth charges. You might just include a line stating something like "Albatros carried an unspecified number of depth charges for use against submarines." But it's not a deal-breaker for me. Nice work. Parsecboy (talk) 20:46, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Added a line about depth charges.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:05, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

edit

Let's try to make it an FA-class this time.

  • The book from Hildebrand, Hans H.; Röhr, Albert & Steinmetz, Hans-Otto has a German title could someone be so kindly to add a translated title.
  • mean draft of 3.65 meters (12 ft 0 in). Same in the infobox, personally I don't think it is necessary to use the "in".
  • by 533-millimeter (21.0 in) tubes The nought isn't necessary.

That's everything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 17:46, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Damn, you've got a hell of an eye, my friend!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:53, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from PM

edit

I reviewed this at Milhist ACR and at its first run at FAC, and all my comments were addressed. I consider it meets the FA criteria. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:22, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Support by Gog the Mild

edit
  • Note 1: why is "His Majesty's Ship" in title case?
    • Every place I've seen these sorts of prefixes specifically discussed, they're in title case. Even without being attached to a ship's name.
  • This seems inconsistent with the MoS to me, but here isn't the place for me to make an issue of it.
  • Do we know why the range was only half[!] that intended?
    • Not specifically, no; sources don't actually say, but I suspect that the amount of steam consumed by the auxiliary machinery was excessive.
  • "Their crew consisted of". 'crews'?
  • "At least some of the ships were fitted with depth charges, but details are lacking." Why the vague generic statement when we know that Albatros carried them, as she used them against Triton?
    • None of my technical sources even address the issue of depth charges that were probably carried by this class of ships; only an operational history provided any clue that they did so at all. Since I have no idea if any ships other than Albatros carried any and absolutely no idea how even Albatros carried, I figured I had to be vague and generic.
  • "Albatros was laid down at the Reichsmarinewerft Wilhelmshaven (Navy Yard)". My German is poor, but shouldn't that be '(Wilhelmshaven Navy Yard)'? (Or, possibly, ' Reichsmarinewerft (Navy Yard) Wilhelmshaven.
    • Yes, I think that I was subconsciously expecting every reader to know where Wilhelmshaven is.
  • "Albatros became the flagship of the 4th Torpedo Boat Half-Flotilla, consisting of her sister ship …". "consisting" -> 'which also consisted' or similar.
    • "which consisted", I think is best.
  • Only if Albatros was not a member of the half-flotilla; was that the case?
  • OK, I see your point now
  • "At the start of World War II, Albatros was used in the defensive mining operations in the North Sea that began on 3 September 1939 that were intended to prevent the Royal Navy from entering the German Bight. Together with three destroyers and her sisters Greif and Falke, Albatros was tasked with anti-shipping patrols in the Kattegat and Skaggerak from 3 to 5 October that captured four ships." Optional: it would read more easily if "from 3 to 5 October" were moved to the start of the second sentence.
    • Had to rework the sentence a bit more than that, see how it reads now.
  • "that captured four ships." Do we know anything about them? Merchant ships? Nationality? Total tonnage?
    • Annoyingly, no.
  • "During Operation Weserübung, Albatros was assigned to …" I realise that Operation Weserübung has been introduced in the lead, but you should do so again here.
    • Really? This isn't a long-enough article, I'd think, to need another link
  • I was possibly unclear. You state "Operation Weserübung, the German invasion of Norway in April 1940" in the lead, and in the article "During Operation Weserübung". Ie, you have information in the lead which is not in the main article.
  • You are correct, but all I did was provide a definition which I don't think that readers will have forgotten by the time that they come to it again.
  • "About 140 soldiers were transferred to the small motor minesweepers R17 and R21 and the former ship was in the lead" Optional: delete "ship".
  • Note 4: who are O'Hara and Haare and how is a reader supposed to evaluate their conflicting accounts?
    • They can't any more than I can. O'Hara doesn't list Norwegian-language sources, but Haarr does and they both list German-language sources. And since neither footnoted that specific fact, I can't weigh one against the other.
  • Fair enough on the latter part of my query, but taking a guess that O'Hara and Haare are historians, possibly naval historians, could that information be conveyed to the readers? If my guess is incorrect, could they be introduced as who/what ever they are.
  • OK
  • "Albatros was escorting the merchant ship SS Curityba while landing men on the island of Rauøy". Was Albatros landing troops, or Curityba?
    • The former, though I suspect neither task was done very well.
  • "and was later assigned to Olav Tryggvason after the Norwegian surrender". If it is the crew who were assigned, then "was" -> 'were'.
    • Collective nouns in AmEng are singular.
How strange. Live and learn.

Nice, as usual.

For information, I respond more rapidly if you ping me when addressing my comments.
Looking good. Three queries clarified above. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:37, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: See how it reads now.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:41, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 19:49, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sturmvogel 66 and L293D: - remember to address Gog's comments, let's not have this archived another time ;) Parsecboy (talk) 18:04, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it would be truly embarassing to forget it twice in a row, n'est-ce pas?
Thanks for the thorough review, Gog, see if my changes are satisfactory.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:53, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It reads well. Fine work. Supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:09, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

edit

Gog the Mild (talk) 21:12, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Does a one-word wave-through really constitute a "review"? I'd be interested to hear whether any attempt was made to test verifiability, and with what result. Even a sentence along the lines "I was unable to test for verifiability in view of the inaccessibility of the source books and the absence of google previews" would let us know where we stand. Were the boring format checks carried out? If so, say so. The single unadorned "pass" tells us nothing. Brianboulton (talk) 19:48, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is FAC, with its own criteria, and we don't, or shouldn't, simply import reviews from other forums. In any event, the sources review in the A class review doesn't look like a clear endorsement. I think the point raised about the multiple pagings of the Haarr references is a valid one that should be addressed. In all other respects the sources appear to meet the FAC criteria as to quality and reliability and there are no other format issues. Brianboulton (talk) 19:06, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: Just saw the comment from Brianboulton so I thought I'd chime in. We'd like to see a few bullet points so the leg-work is evident. It's not about trust—it's about documentation. I'd like our reviews to be well-documented for the sake of any interested party. See the comment I just made in the Cardiff FAC at the bottom of the page, for example. --Laser brain (talk) 17:03, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Laser brain: The sources are all of high quality and reliable, exactly what you would expect on a German navy vessel of this vintage. No formatting errors I could see. Spot checks AGF'd as Sturm has a long history at FAC. I note that the sources have not changed since they passed a source review during this article's abortive FAC two months ago, nor since it passed an ACR source review, which did include spot checks, six months ago. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:15, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Dank

edit
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 promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 27 April 2019 [5].

Solrad 1

edit
Nominator(s): Neopeius (talk) 21:17, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article is about SOLRAD 1, the world's first surveillance satellite and the first satellite to make observations of the sun in X-ray and ultraviolet light. I created the article, improved it to B class, then to G.A. Since then, I have further improved the article, exhausting all sources I could find. I thus humbly submit it for the F.A. review process. --Neopeius (talk) 21:17, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I will be helping Neopeius with this nomination and will start to address comments as I find time. Kees08 (Talk) 21:28, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Squeamish Ossifrage

edit

No examination of prose, no survey for comprehensiveness of sourcing at this time.

There are a bundle of problems with source formatting, completeness of bibliographic information, and at least a few (rebuttable) RS concerns:

  • Date formats! I see MDY, DMY, and ISO.
    Done Kees08 (Talk) 06:41, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Review and Redaction guide really needs more verbose bibliographic information. As it stands, this is basically just an external link. And I think you cite it differently, twice.
    Combined and done Kees08 (Talk) 06:52, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know Google Books says that Space Exploration and Humanityis authored by "America Astronautical Society". Google Books can be a trap. It's actually edited by Stephen B. Johnson. Individual topics (which should be cited with |chapter) have unique authorship. The "SolRad Program" section you are citing, for example, is by Matt Billie.
    That's particularly ironic since I'm on the American Astronautical Society's history committee and should probably email Matt about his article :) We had our semi-annual meeting last Friday. How is this citation?
    [1] --Neopeius (talk) 01:50, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I sense a colon missing in the title of Day, Logsdon, and Latell (1998).
    Interestingly, there is none on the cover or the frontispiece, but there is in the ISBN info. So... in goes the colon! --Neopeius (talk) 01:52, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Periodicals (such as Aviation Week and Space Technology) don't require publication locations or publishers barring exceptional circumstances (you don't need them here). On the other hand, page numbers... YMMV regarding the archive link. Technically, the web link is a convenience link, because the real source is print media. Some people like the double-archiving, some hate it. Regardless, that's not actionable.
    Then I shall note it but take no action!  :) --Neopeius (talk) 01:54, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • You don't fully cite "Navy's Needs in Space for Providing Future Capabilities". Which should probably be italicized, because it's essentially a book published online. Actually, I'd cite it as such. And it has a doi, for fun: 10.17226/11299
    How is this reference? [2] (the placement of the chapter field seems odd) --Neopeius (talk) 02:11, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ matt billie (August 23, 2010). "sun". In Stephen b. Johnson (ed.). Space Exploration and Humanity: A Historical Encyclopedia. Santa Barbara, Calif: ABC-CLIO. pp. 300–303. ISBN 978-1-85109-519-3.
  2. ^ Committee on the Navy’s Needs in Space for Providing Future Capabilities, Naval Studies Board, Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences, National Research Council of the National Academies (2005). "Chapter 8". Navy's Needs in Space for Providing Future Capabilities. Washington D.C.: The National Academies Press. p. 157. doi:10.17226/11299. ISBN 978-0-309-18120-4. Archived from the original on January 7, 2019. Retrieved January 6, 2019.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Most of this is fairly easily correctable. So I'm just in "comment" territory at the moment, although I may revisit that if I get more time to dig deeper. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:56, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all of your help! I hope we're zeroing in on completion. :) --Neopeius (talk) 02:33, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Squeamish Osifrage: All corrections made. Ready and standing by for the next round! :) --Neopeius (talk) 17:11, 13 March 2019 (UTC) @Squeamish Ossifrage: Neopeius whiffed a little on his ping, pinging so you see his comment. Kees08 (Talk) 15:04, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Drive by comment by Nick-D

edit

In addition to the referencing issues noted by Squeamish Ossifrage above, I'd also note that the references for several of the online sources do not identify who published them, or the broader website/publication the page is part of. This can be quickly fixed though. Nick-D (talk) 22:37, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

@Nick-D: @Nikkimaria: Ready to resume when you are! :) --Neopeius (talk) 17:12, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: Hey, just seeing if you have time to sign off on the image review. Let me know if you would like additional changes. Kees08 (Talk) 23:41, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Images should be good to go. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:46, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator notes

edit

This has been open a month and not attracted any support for promotion thus far. I've added it to the FAC Urgents list, but if we don't pick up some momentum within the next few days this will have to be archived. --Laser brain (talk) 16:18, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Argento Surfer

edit

I made a few copyedits. Please review them for accuracy. Is there a reliable estimate on how long the satellite will remain in orbit? Argento Surfer (talk) 16:10, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! The first one I might quibble with since it makes it unclear what the NRL established itself as, only when it did so. The other two are fine. As for a reliable estimate, given its altitude, I'd guess 100-200 years, but that's just comparing it to Vanguard 1, whose perigee is a little higher. --Neopeius (talk) 17:10, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And you can't include OR of course. Any RSs suggesting the same? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:25, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not a one. --Neopeius (talk) 19:43, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking. I can support the prose. I have not reviewed the images or sources. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:36, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that's wonderful, thank you! Sadly, SP100 is not available online for your perusal. --Neopeius (talk) 22:02, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

edit
  • "It shared satellite space with and provided cover for the first in the GRAB (Galactic Radiation and Background) series, a secret electronic surveillance program." This is clumsy - I had to read it several times to understand it.
  • "Solrad/GRAB 1 was launched into orbit with Transit 2A via Thor DM-21 Ablestar rocket". This is also unclearly worded. Do you need to mention the navigation system in the lead? I would say "Solrad and GRAB 1 were launched into orbit on a Thor DM-21 Ablestar rocket". (See also query below on whether there were one or two satellites.)
Yeah, this paragraph has evolved a lot largely because when I originally wrote it, I did so from the perspective of SOLRAD being the main satellite and GRAB being the parasite. It's an outdated way to think about it since the two packages co-flew, and the GRAB mission was the more important one, even if the SOLRAD mission returned some excellent data. I've fixed it, and if you like it, that'll be my model for the other satellites in the series.
  • "SOLRAD/GRAB 1 was launched into orbit (along with Transit 2A) via Thor DM-21 Ablestar rocket on June 22, 1960, marking the first time two instrumented satellites (SOLRAD/GRAB 1 and Transit 2A) had been orbited at once." I think I understand now - Transit 2A was a separate project? Maybe "SOLRAD/GRAB 1 was launched into orbit together with another satellite called Transit 2A on a Thor DM-21 Ablestar rocket on June 22, 1960, marking the first time two instrumented satellites were launched on the same rocket." Dudley Miles (talk) 10:55, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Modified -- let me know if you like my solution. :)
  • The first paragraph of 'Background' is unreferenced.
Good catch. I'd only recently split those paragraphs.
  • It would be helpful to give the dates of Vanguard.
Done, with reference.
  • " which in turn, inhibits stellar astronomy" I do not think you need the comma.
but I *like*, my superfluous, commas! :)
  • "solar flares and other outbursts directly affected the Earth's thermosphere" What "other outbursts"? This is vague.
I guess solar flares is good enough for any irregular outburst.
  • "chart the Sun's radiation, determine its effects on the Earth, and correlate it with activities observed in other wavelengths of light" Correlating the sun's radiation with other wavelengths does not make sense.
Thanks. Measurements replacing activities.
  • "was required to properly chart the Sun's radiation, determine its effects on the Earth, and correlate it with activities observed in other wavelengths of light" Correlating the sun's radiation with other wavelengths still does not make sense. Presumably you mean correlating X-rays and ultraviolet with other wavelengths, but you need to say so.Dudley Miles (talk) 10:55, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Fixed. Also, made consistent the capitalization of "sun"
  • "to cheaply and efficiently produce a satellite for the GRAB surveillance mission." This is unreferenced and I am not sure it makes sense. Do you mean that production of SOLRAD reduced costs for GRAB?
Fixed both issues.
  • "The satellite's GRAB surveillance equipment detected Soviet air defense radars using the S band (1,550-3,900 MHz)." You imply here that GRAB equipment was on the SOLRAD satellite, but in the lead and below you refer to "two instrumented satellites". Then you say "SOLRAD/GRAB 1 was the world's first operational surveillance satellite." You are inconsistent whether there were one or two satellites.
Fixed above.
  • " thus scanned the whole sky with no source in particular." Again clumsy. Maybe " thus scanned the whole sky without focussing on a particular source."
Thank you. Fixed.
  • "as much for the orbiting of SOLRAD as the simultaneous orbiting of Transit 2A" I am not clear what this means. The article on Transit 2A describes it as a navigation system, not a satellite. You imply that Transit 2A was the satellite which carried GRAB, but if so this should be made clear. Then you describe Transit 2A as the parent of SOLRAD 1 - "SOLRAD 1 separated automatically from its parent, Transit 2A". I am confused.
Removed parent issues.
  • "whip-style". This should be explained or linked.
fixed
  • "ionized thermospheric layes" layers?
yes!
  • "The SOLRAD/GRAB series flew four more times" Presumably the GRAB article is wrong to say that only two of its five satellites made it into orbit?
fixed.
All excellent suggestions. Thanks so much! --Neopeius (talk) @Dudley Miles:
A ping only works if you include the ping and your signature in the same edit. @Dudley Miles: Gog the Mild (talk) 23:00, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Goodness, I'll never get this right. @Gog the Mild: --Neopeius (talk) 23:16, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This process has actually had quintuple benefit since all the improvements end up on the others in the series. With luck, they can all be FAs! :) --Neopeius (talk) 00:32, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mike Christie

edit

I'll copyedit as I read through; please revert if I make a mess of anything.

Copyedits were great, thank you!
  • the satellite was in many ways a direct successor to Project Vanguard: as far as I can tell from the body, it would be OK to shorten this to "the satellite was a successor to Project Vanguard"; the qualifications don't seem to add any information.
Well, here's the thing. Vanguard was a civilian program. SOLRAD was not. GRAB absolutely was not. So, though it used the same satellite bus and many of the same people were involved, it was not a direct successor. That said, I really wanted to draw that line for context.
Fair enough, but what you currently have doesn't say that -- and in any case the lead should be a summary of what's in the body, and this isn't mentioned in the body. Do you have any sources, perhaps that discuss the overall SOLRAD program rather than this specific satellite, that talk about the relationship between SOLRAD and Vanguard?
I understand your concerns, but I do say in the article that SOLRAD used the Vanguard bus, that it was created by NRL, and many of the same engineers were involved. Moreover, several Vanguard experiments made it into the SOLRAD package. I think it's fair to say that SOLRAD was "in many ways a direct successor" -- the ways being what I've listed above.
Struck; I'd prefer something more direct, but I see your point. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:13, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • the GRAB ... package, whose mission was to...: this might be a British/American English difference, but I typically would only see "whose" for a person. Not a big deal if you're OK with it as it is, but how about "...package, which was intended to map..." or "designed to"?
I'm not quite sure I agree, but I've changed it anyway! :)
That link goes to VHF radars, whereas SOLRAD was looking in the S Band (between UHF and SHF).
OK. How about a redlink, then? Or Maury, do you know if there's a suitable target article? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:54, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If it was working in the s-band, I suspect it was looking for the Fan Song, not the P-12. Most Soviet EW radars of that era were VHF, and I don't think the antennas on the sat would be big enough to get a good signal above UHF. I'll ask someone that knows though, but I wouldn't hold it up on this, I'll add it when I know for sure. HOWEVER, there's no description of how the sats recorded and or played back the signals, and I think that is pretty imporant. Maury Markowitz (talk) 23:43, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do you recommend a source for that?
  • It was also desired that the intended targets of this electronic surveillance not know that they were being spied upon. Therefore, as American space launches were not classified until late 1961, a co-flying cover mission sharing satellite space with GRAB was necessary to enable this concealment. The source doesn't really say it was necessary, it says it provided cover (and saved money), so I think this needs a tweak. How about: "American space launches were not classified until late 1961, so a co-flying cover mission sharing satellite space would help conceal GRAB's electronic surveillance mission from its intended targets."
Done, thank you. :)
  • Is it possible to identify the features visible on the equator of the infobox picture and reference them in the text? E.g. if the small feature on the left is one of the photometers, say so when describing the instrumentation in the "Spacecraft" section. I see the drewexmachina.com page has an image identifying some of the details; is that image available for us to use?
Good idea. Uploaded to Wikicommons and included.
  • The drewexmachina.com page has quite a few details you don't mention. If you think it's a reliable source, I'd go ahead and add the extra details -- the mention of GREB, for example, the fact that GRAB was declassified in 1998, the fact that the lower orbit was intended to avoid the radiation problem, or the reason why the orbit varied from the plan (problems with the rocket's second stage).
  • You mention a deviation from the planned orbit, but as far as I can say you never say what the planned orbit was.
I've been loathe to open the can of worms which is the zillion ways the satellite has been referred to in the literature. Similarly, I haven't wanted to clutter the text with too much info. That said, you're probably right. I'd like to not bring up GREB/SR1/SOLRAD 1/Solrad 1/GRAB/Tattletale/Dyno if I don't have to, though. :) I'm also not going to mention the lower orbit because Explorer 7 HAD a lower orbit, and this didn't keep it from getting saturated. Drew's stuff is generally reliable, but I try to verify what I see there in more than one place.
  • The event was front page news, though as much for the orbiting of SOLRAD as the simultaneous orbiting of Transit 2A – the launch marked the first time two instrumented satellites had been carried to orbit on the same booster. The clipping accessible via the citation doesn't support this; is the clipping incomplete? I don't have "Publishers Extra" access to newspapers.com so I can't see the whole article. Assuming it does support this, I'd suggest rephrasing as "The event was front page news, though as much because the launch marked the first time two instrumented satellites had been carried to orbit on the same booster as for the individual satellites."
rephrased.
  • These thermospheric disturbances were not just caused by solar flares, but also by active solar prominence regions as well as bright surges and subflares at the edge (or limb) of the sun. Was this understood at the time? Or is this a modern assessment? It would have required correlation with ground-based observational data, and I don't know to what extent e.g. the prominences could be monitored from the ground in 1960. If it's not something that could have been deduced at the time I think we should add something like "It was later determined that".
SP100 came out in 1965. It was a contemporary assessment.
  • "Lyman Alpha" or "Lyman-alpha"? You have both.
With hyphen. :) Fixed.
  • I can't see the source to confirm that it supports this, but assuming it does, I'd suggest saying in the "Ultraviolet" section that the Lyman Alpha detectors were dropped because it had been determined that solar ultraviolet output was not linked to flares.
Wouldn't that be nice? I had this discussion with Kees. AvWeek says it was deleted from SOLRAD 3 because of the negative findings. BUT it was left on SOLRAD 2. Why? Well, I can guess -- probably because SOLRAD 2 had already been built (and maybe even launched) before the finding was made. The sentence was deliberately phrased that way to avoid people asking why it wasn't deleted from SOLRAD 2. I agree, it's not perfect.
I tweaked the wording slightly to make it flow a little better without actually asserting the connection; see if that looks OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:54, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's just fine, thank you. :) --Neopeius (talk) 14:45, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • SOLRAD 1 was also assayed for its ability to detect Soviet above-ground atomic tests: I'm not sure what you mean by "assayed" here. Do you mean that the data was examined later, or that SOLRAD 1's ability to detect these tests was discussed during development?
The latter.
Then I'd suggest rewording to make that clearer. How about: "It had been hoped during design and development that SOLRAD would be able to identify above-ground atomic tests, which produced strong emissions of X-rays in the bands that SOLRAD could detect. If a nuclear test ban treaty between the United States and the Soviet Union were to go into effect, SOLRAD or its successors might then be able to detect unauthorized tests by the Soviets." Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:54, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ooo! That's quite nice, thank you.
  • Nevertheless, even this first limited surveillance endeavor yielded valuable insight into the disposition of Soviet air defense radars; in fact, Soviet air defense activity was found to be more extensive than expected. If the only information gained was that it was "more extensive than expected" then it's a bit wordy and we could probably cut down most of the first half. If it found more than that, are any details available?
Nothing that would be meaningful to the lay reader, but you're right that it was too wordy. Fixed!
  • The "Status" section is too short; I'd combine it with "Legacy", either as "Status and legacy" or just "Status".
Done!

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:55, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: --Neopeius (talk) 15:24, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(further changes answered --Neopeius (talk) 03:55, 22 March 2019 (UTC))[reply]

I've struck everything except the point Maury responded to. I'm ready to support, but since Maury indicates above that he feels significant information might be added, I'm going to hold off to see if he can suggest sources. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:13, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I had not heard of this very interesting project and I'm glad it's come up here. However, there is definitely a missing section about how the ELINT worked.

One of the sources has some details, and reading between the lines I see how it worked. Basically it did not record anything, instead it simply took the output of its receiver's IF stage and mixed it with a VHF source and back out it went to be picked up on the ground stations. So it could only be used when it had line-of-site both ways. Judging by the size of the ground station antennas, it looks like the downlink was around 1-200&mnsp;MHz, so that's why the Soviets didn't see the signal on their own receivers. Very clever!

Having been through FAs in the past, I feel bad about holding up any FA, especially because I don't have a good source that fully describes the system. I'm perfectly happy passing as-is as long as we don't have to re-FA when I do find the info and add it. I have no idea when that might be, I'm still in the midst of working my way though the UK sets. Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:18, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, Maury! Thanks very much for looking at this issue. When I started SOLRAD, it was kind of as an aside, but then I kept finding more and more information to add. I agree that this kind of information is valuable, but I also worry about inundating the reader with too much information. For the average encyclopedic reader, that GRAB listened for air defense radars (I don't even mention that these are the radars that coordinated AA missiles) is probably sufficient, just as I don't go into detail how an ion tube works.
Which is not to say this information should not be added -- I'm all for making the articles as complete as possible (and defense stuff gets neglected since it was classified and rather arcane). It's just important that the information be presented in a concise and accessible manner so as not to detract from the context of the whole piece.
Anyway, if you think it's FA-worthy now, and you want to improve it later, I'm obliged to you on both counts. I'm certainly game for reviewing whatever you add.  :) --Neopeius (talk) 19:30, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's operation is easy to explain. Unless anyone objects, I'll add a section based on the NRO document. Maury Markowitz (talk) 23:23, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Here is what I propose adding:

During World War II the RAF Coastal Command began deploying a series of radar systems to detect German U-boats on the surface. As the technique improved, the Germans found themselves under constant attack and deployed a series of radar detectors to give the boats time to dive.[1]

In the post-war era, the use of radar in the anti-submarine role became widespread, and the need for better radar detectors became pressing. One such system was worked on by Reid D. Mayo of the Naval Research Laboratory (NRL). This solution used a spiral antenna connected to a crystal detector tuned to microwave frequencies. The system was small enough that it could be placed inside the submarine's periscope, which allowed the submarine to check for nearby aircraft while remaining safely submerged.[2]

In 1957 the Soviet Union began deploying the S-75 Dvina surface-to-air missile. Details of its "Fan Song" radars were measured by electronic reconnaissance aircraft flying off the borders of the Soviet Union, revealing their rough location and individual operating frequencies. This allowed the US Air Force to plan its entrance routes across the border by keeping their distance from the sites, but information on the sites further inland was lacking. Some experiments were carried out using radio telescopes looking for reflections off the Moon, but the information collected was not particularly detailed.[3]

At the time, the NRL was heavily involved in Project Vanguard, the US Navy's effort to launch a satellite. When a snowstorm trapped Mayo at a Pennsylvania Howard Johnson's with his family, he began to consider using the periscope receiver system on a Vanguard fuselage to map Soviet missile sites. While his wife and children slept, he began carrying out calculations on the restaurant's placemat, and determined that the detector should be able to measure the signals as altitudes just over 600 miles (970 km).[2]

The concept was very simple. A receiver in the satellite was turned to the approximate frequency of the radars, and its output was used to trigger a separate VHF transmitter in the spacecraft. As it travelled over the Soviet Union, the satellite would be hit by the pulses from the missile radars and immediately re-broadcast them on the 108 MHz telemetry frequency out a turnstile antenna. Ground stations around the world would record the signals and send them to the NRL for analysis. Although the receiver was omnidirectional, by looking for the same signals on multiple passes and comparing that to the known location of the satellite, the rough location of the radars could be determined, along with their exact pulse repetition frequency.[4]

When he returned to Washington, Mayo presented the idea to Howard Lorenzen, head of the NRL's countermeasures branch. Lorenzen promoted the idea within the Department of Defense, and six months later the concept was given an official go-ahead under the name "Tattletale".[2]

That's absolutely beautiful. Here's is my suggestion:
I propose that this NOT be added to SOLRAD 1 as it is quite long, comparatively, and goes into more detail than needed for the article. Where this would be absolutely FANTASTIC is the GRAB article, where I've wanted to put this information, which you have presented perhaps more cogently than I ever could. I think that would tie things together nicely, and in fact, set up the whole GRAB/SOLRAD 1-4B sequence for Good Topic status. --Neopeius (talk) 02:57, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: I think a condensed version of Paragraph 5 (second to last) of what you wrote would go wonderfully right after where I currently have (under Spacecraft) "The satellite's GRAB surveillance equipment detected Soviet air defense radars using the S band (1,550–3,900 MHz).[13]" But the full definition would best go on the GRAB page.
How about:

A receiver in the satellite was turned to the approximate frequency of the radars, and its output was used to trigger a separate VHF transmitter in the spacecraft. As it traveled over the Soviet Union, the satellite would be hit by the pulses from the missile radars and immediately re-broadcast them to ground stations below, which would record the signals and send them to the NRL for analysis. Although GRAB's receiver was omnidirectional, by looking for the same signals on multiple passes and comparing that to the known location of the satellite, the rough location of the radars could be determined, along with their exact pulse repetition frequency.[4]

(and we'd need the complete citation)--Neopeius (talk) 03:32, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Maury Markowitz: I have added the above and also the frequency transmission for GRAB (139MHz). I think the article is ready to go. Can you please sign off, and also provide the complete Bamford reference? Thanks very much for your help! :) --Neopeius (talk) 15:15, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the changes made address the completeness problem I see. The article glosses over the history of this system, and I'm not sure why. I suggested adding a total of four paragraphs, which hardly seems long for an article of this relatively short size. Additionally, unless I'm reading it wrong, according to the NRO sources the elint was broadcast on 108 and the 139 was used for commands and status. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:41, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Maury. As this article is about the spacecraft, which was a dual mission, I made a deliberate decision not to overly emphasize one aspect over the other. Again, I think this information is great and best included on the general GRAB article.
Also, while I am not disinclined to briefly add some more of the information you want to include, I cannot do so without the Bamford source, which I've now asked for three times (not to sound snippy! :) That's just what's holding me up...) Thank you again! :) --Neopeius (talk) 13:51, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. You are correct re: 139MHz. Fixed! :) --Neopeius (talk) 13:55, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Maury Markowitz: Again, I am amenable to including material from the Bamford, but I'll need the full citation and, if possible, a URL for direct access, to do so. Thank you! :) --Neopeius (talk) 02:36, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Finally, I will note that, on my SOLRAD 3 review, I am being told that I'm spending too MUCH time on the GRAB mission there... So perhaps it's best to leave things as they are? (but I'd still like the citation, please). --Neopeius (talk) 03:50, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bamford is here. Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:34, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: Maury indicated elsewhere on this page that they believe the page is much better and are supporting, in case you would like to cast your support/oppose. Kees08 (Talk) 16:24, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Watts 2018.
  2. ^ a b c Bamford 2007, p. 364.
  3. ^ Bamford 2007, p. 362.
  4. ^ a b McDonald & Moreno 2015, p. 7.

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

edit

I'll do this one tomorrow. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 22:07, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looking forward to it! Things should be pretty close to done. --Neopeius (talk) 22:25, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • the development and management of Project Vanguard (1956–59), --> "the development and management of Project Vanguard (1956–1959)" because MOS:DOB
  • composed of the Project Vanguard engineers unlink "Project Vanguard".
  • Like Vanguard 3, the spacecraft was roughly spherical unlink "Vanguard 3".
  • massing 19.05 kg (as opposed to Vanguard's 23.7 kg) No U.S. customary measurement system?
  • via four whip-style 63.5 cm long antennas mounted No inches.
  • varying from 611 to 1,046 km in altitude No miles.
  • the planned 930 km circular orbit Same as above.
  • less than 6x10−4 ergs/cm²/sec How much is cm² in U.S. customary measurement system?
  • over a circular area 3500 nautical miles in diameter --> "over a circular area 3,500 nautical miles in diameter" and link nautical miles
  • intelligence successor, Poppy, 1963–65. The final five SOLRAD satellites were stand-alone scientific satellites, three of which were also given NASA Explorer program numbers. These flew from 1965–76. --> "intelligence successor, Poppy, 1963–1965. The final five SOLRAD satellites were stand-alone scientific satellites, three of which were also given NASA Explorer program numbers. These flew from 1965–1976."

More comments

  • "19.05 kg" no lbs in the infobox.
  • "(42.0 lb)" the "0" isn't necessary (in the lead and the infobox).
  • By WP:UNIT the U.S. customary measurement system should be primary and then metric units.
  • Just let you know that cm and km in the article are written in British English (centimetres and kilometres instead of centimeters and kilometers).
  • Lbs were in the infobox...
  • Fixed.
  • Also per WP:UNIT, in scientific articles, SI comes first. Also, mass in pounds is meaningless. :)
  • I'm using the Wikipedia {convert} template. Is there one that works in Murican?
Thanks again! Are we close? Could someone support this article for FA? @CPA-5: --Neopeius (talk) 14:37, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's everything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:44, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All changes made, though I loathe the need for conversions. The scientific community exclusively uses metric. We might as well start putting in furlongs, rods, and fathoms conversions. :)
The only change I could not make is 6x10−4 ergs/cm²/sec -- there is no English conversion, and turning cm² to English while keeping the other components metric would produce a meaningless chimera unit. That said, I did find that, although the erg is still commonly used in astrophysics (the province in which SOLRAD's findings clearly reside)m nevertheless, I converted ergs to Joules for universal application.:* @Neopeius: This looks great. Here are my last comments
Thank you very much for your help! --Neopeius (talk) 02:31, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done?

edit

Hello all. I have done my best to accommodate all revision requests. I believe this article is ready to go. I am pinging all those who commented; please make a final review and let me know if you support/oppose/are neutral. And thank you all so very much for the time you've put into making this article excellent. Please do not hesitate to ping me if you ever need similar assistance from me.

Thus far, I have support from CPA-5, Argento Surfer, and Dudley Miles, as well as conditional support from Mike Christie (I've incorporated Maury's suggestions as far as I feel is appopriate for this article).

@Squeamish Ossifrage: @Mike Christie: @Nikkimaria: @Kees08: @Gog the Mild: @Maury Markowitz: --Neopeius (talk) 22:15, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: It seems to have an image review, and I am assuming that Squeamish Ossifrage's effort was the source review? I have been stalking the page, and if there is any type of review that an editor who knows nothing whatsoever about spaceflight could do, let me know. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:06, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how FARs are split up -- I didn't see anything about it on the page. What are the other categories that need to be checked off, and do they all require one reviewer apiece? Thanks for dropping by! --Neopeius (talk) 22:53, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To chime in on sources, since this is a first-time nominator there will have to be a spot check. Also, I have gone through them all with a fine-toothed comb and have nitpicked as much as I possibly can. There theoretically should be few issues remaining, if anyone can pick this up. I have also been spotchecking throughout. I presume my edits to the article disqualify me from source reviewing, but if that is incorrect please let me know and I will finish it up. Kees08 (Talk) 00:38, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I remain concerned about coverage and completeness. If you want to FA it in its current form I'll vote Neutral. Maury Markowitz (talk) 10:59, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Maury Markowitz: Thanks for reviewing—would you have time soon to enumerate some of your concerns? --Laser brain (talk) 11:51, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Laser_brain! Maury has articulated his concerns in our exchange above pretty thoroughly, and I've documented what I've done in response to his concerns. In short, I feel I have adequately incorporated his suggestions in such a way as to not focus the article too narrowly. Given that another reviewer has already told me that I included too MUCH information on GRAB in SOLRAD 3, which is structurally an identical article, I think it's best exactly as it is. Maury's more detailed information is best suited to the overall GRAB article rather than an individual mission article. Given that every encyclopedic source on this topic does not go into the detail Maury is suggesting, I think my approach is the better one (which is not to discount Maury's efforts or understate my appreciation for his assistance!) @Laser brain: --Neopeius (talk)
Thanks. @Kees08: If you have the bandwidth for a source spot-check, I'd appreciate it. Otherwise, I will request one at WT:FAC. --Laser brain (talk) 13:41, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review and spotcheck

edit
  • Where is SOLRAD 1's mass in this? Should we add the SOLRAD 1 NSSDC link to the end of SOLRAD 1 was slightly lighter, however, massing 19.05 kilograms (42 lb) (as opposed to Vanguard's 23.7 kilograms (52 lb)).
  • For the Aviation Weekly citations, can you add the page number? I know the url links to it, but it would be good for those with a paper copy.

That's all I see right now. Sources seem to line up with the information in the article. Kees08 (Talk) 02:02, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Both issues addressed. Thank you for the check! --Neopeius (talk) 03:01, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should be all good to go on sources then (and spotchecking). Kees08 (Talk) 04:47, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Laser brain: --Neopeius (talk) 13:05, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned about the lack of support for promotion by those who have dug into the comprehensiveness and content, acknowledging that we do have support from a prose quality standpoint. I have this on the Urgents list because I'm hoping for some more feedback. If you can sift through relevant wikiprojects for any other SMEs who might be interested in posting a review here, that would be a more proactive way to move this forward if so desired. --Laser brain (talk) 19:16, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @Laser brain:. I will see who I can get to help. We're so close... --Neopeius (talk) 19:40, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Squeamish Ossifrage and Mike Christie: Seeing if you all have any more comments for this? Kees08 (Talk) 20:04, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Laser brain, I'm not opposed to promotion, but have refrained from supporting since Maury has indicated he feels some content is missing. He hasn't opposed, but he's more of a subject matter expert than I am and I would be uncomfortable supporting while he still thinks that. Maury, do you still feel the article is incomplete? I know Neopeius has added some material in response to your comments. Other than that I have no reservations about promotion. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:40, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think this article is incomplete. The history is simply not an accurate description of how this came about, and I personally don't think the solution is to read some other article. But that's being said by something who writes 125,000 chars on a single radar. It does not seem anyone else has commented on this, so I'm unconfortable holding up the FA on my opinion only. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:40, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Maury Markowitz. A theme that comes up a lot during criticism of the FAC process is that we don't have enough SMEs to really dig into comprehensiveness questions. For things that I'm personally qualified about, I could walk into an FAC that's enjoying lots of support but notice that a key source or piece of the narrative was missed (in good faith). Usually the nominator just didn't know, and it's a process to work through the issue. @Neopeius: I'm hoping we can resolve this issue as I feel this is actionable feedback and I'm uncomfortable considering promotion with this pending. --Laser brain (talk) 14:36, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've shortened the Background even further per Balon Greyjoy's request. Tattletale and SOLRAD each now just get a short paragraph apiece. I've carefully considered Maury's objections (which I value!) and responded to them. The technical details he desired are included under Spacecraft. The developmental details are subsumed under "After Vanguard, the Navy's next major goal was to use the observational high ground of Earth's orbit to survey the locations and frequencies of the Soviet air defense radar network." Does the article really need four paragraphs describing the provenance of the Tattletale system? Does the reader really need to know Mayo came up with the idea in a Howard Johnson's? Or that it was based on crystal video technique developed for submarine periscopes? That information is completely superfluous in the context of this article.
SOLRAD 1 is about SOLRAD 1. The focus is on the satellite, its design, and its results. I think adding all that verbiage regarding Tattletale's provenance does not improve the article. --Neopeius (talk) 16:46, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The entire concept of FA is to be comprehensive and engaging. This article is neither. Quite the opposite, the edits that have been carried out have removed everything interesting and reduced it to a boring collection of factoids. It gets further from what I think of as FA with every edit. I realize this is ultimately simply a difference of opinions over how to write wiki articles. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:33, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've got a plan for a revision of Background which I'll implement on Monday. I'll ping you when it's up, thanks. --Neopeius (talk) 19:23, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(the article has been substantially revised per the latest comments -- please review and let me know if the current form adequately satisfies the need to balance breadth with brevity.) --Neopeius (talk) 17:09, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for this tardy reply, been busy IRL. I think the article is much better now. I'll support. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:59, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Maury Markowitz:, your help has been invaluable. Thank you for all the time you've put into this FAC. --Neopeius (talk) 15:16, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proper review by Nick-D

edit

This article is in good shape. I have the following comments:

  • The lead should note the period this satellite was active. It would also be preferable to note earlier (preferably in the first sentence) when it was launched, given that it's main claim to fame is that it was the first to do a bunch of things.
Substantially revamped the lead for the better. Thank you.
  • What was the Naval Research Laboratory's role in Project Vanguard?
"the development and management"
  • "in history's first remote satellite deactivation" - bit clunky
Fixed.
  • "The satellite communicated results in real-time, each pass providing just one to ten minutes of data," - this is confusing. What's meant by a "pass" (is this an orbit?), and why did it only provide data for about 10% of each orbit?

Fixed.

This is still unclear - why did it collect data for only 10% or so of the time? Nick-D (talk) 10:37, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed it by putting things in a better order. It only communicated in real-time, so a station had to be in range, which wasn't most of the time.
That looks good Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "about half the time the sun was in the sky" - this seems a bit confusing in the context of an orbiting satellite.
Better?
  • S band is linked twice
Fixed.
  • Reference 5 needs a page number
Fixed
Fixed. I also added a reference under Background to the dummy SOLRAD launched before SOLRAD 1.
Thank you so much for your attention to this article! :) @Nick-D: --Neopeius (talk) 16:32, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support My comments are now addressed, and I'm pleased to support this article's promotion. Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Balon Greyjoy comments

edit

Background

  • "established itself as a player early in" I would change that to "was involved in" to flow more smoothly, and I feel like "player" is a bit of a colloquialism
Agreed.
  • even though it's a backronym, I would start shorten the naming sentence for GRAB with "was called the Galactic Radiation and Background (GRAB) program"
I've now put in the entire messy lineage of acronyms, from Tattletale, to Dyno, to Grab/Greb, to Solrad. :)
  • since "such cover" references the end of the previous paragraph, I would expand a bit more to say that "the study of the sun's electromagnetic spectrum was the official cover used for the GRAB program"
You got it.
  • I would shorten the sentences about the reason for solar astronomy, and just state that flying above the atmosphere was required to study the sun's spectrum
  • Remove "on a more practical level" as that is subjective; just state that the solar flares affected the thermosphere
  • Remove "in other words, a satellite" as that sounds conversational. The reader will know what a satellite is, or can go to its Wikipedia page. "A long-duration satellite was required..."
  • Instead of using a list, why not make it a paragraph to explain the NRL goals? Some of the goals are redundant with what you explain earlier in the paragraph.

Spacecraft

Boy -- condensing all of that down to two paragraphs while preserving the information was difficult, but I think I got it. What do you think?
  • I would split the first sentence, as a lot happens in it. "The NRL science satellite team, lead by Martin Votaw, was composed of Project Vanguard engineers and scientists who had not migrated to NASA upon its creation. The team adapted the Vanguard 3 design for SOLRAD/GRAB 1."
Done
  • Take Explorer 7 out of the parentheses, and state "Vanguard 3 and Explorer 7 had also..."
I took out Explorer 7 altogether.
  • Since this section is about the design of the spacecraft, I would change the lead for the third paragraph to state that the surveillance equipment was designed to detect Soviet air defense radars
Good call
  • Shouldn't "turned" be "tuned?"
Yeah. Probably. :)
  • Change "would be hit by" to "detect" to indicate that it is interpreting this information
Got it.
  • It's a little confusing that it discusses how the spacecraft is over Soviet territory while it rebroadcasts to ground stations below, which the sentence makes it seem as if the ground stations are in Soviet territory
Agreed. I moved the range info from results to spacecraft.
  • Was it a single antenna listening on 139 MHz? If so, it should be "via a smaller antenna" If not, the plural for antenna (either "antennae" or the commonly accepted "antennas") should be used
Fixed.

Launch and orbiting

  • Thoughts on changing this section name to "Mission timeline?" "Launch and orbiting" comes across as a strange title, since this paragraph covers the entire mission
The paragraph just covers the launch and orbiting. The rest is in the science results.
  • Shorten the first sentence and just state the SOLRAD/GRAB 1 launched on June 22, 1960 at 05:54 UTC"
Shortened
  • Rephrase front-page news, as that is a figure of speech (and it probably wasn't front page on all papers), and would be better served by saying that it was extensively covered in the news
Ok.
  • Remove the sentence of "once in orbit" and just jump straight to the orbital parameters, as the rest of the information about its staging isn't included in details of the launch
  • Referencing the previous comment, if you keep the sentence, make the tense consistent
Ok
  • States what glitches occurred in the second stage booster.
Don't know em. :) They're probably buried somewhere in Drew's references, only some of which I have direct access to.

Scientific results

  • Remove "Nevertheless" from the beginning of the sentence, and I agree with previous comments about rephrasing the satellite deactivation
Fixed the clunky. I want to keep nevertheless. Otherwise, it appears the reader is getting two contradictory pieces of information (the satellite stopped sending useful data; the satellite continued to send data).
  • Make the tense consistent in the sentence about communicating the results
You're referring to the -ed followed by -ing? That's proper English. :)
  • Do you have the location of the "few other isolated receivers?" I would include that
I don't, sorry.
  • Combine the "1.2%" comment with the previous sentence, as that connects with the information that it could only relay info when in range of a tracking station
I understand what you're saying, but it makes the prior sentence unwieldy. I'm open to suggestions.
  • Remove "(wobble around its axis) like a spinning top" as that is explained in the precess page
I understand there's a link to precession, but most people won't click it. I think the reader is better served with the explanatory parenthetical.
  • It isn't clear what the sentence with "only 20% of the data" is about. Would the satellite's only data be in the ranges it could detect? This requires some more explaining, as it's not clear what that means.
Fixed
  • Remove "nevertheless"
Fixed
  • I would change "deleted" to "removed," as deleted tends to imply something virtual, rather than hardware not being included on future missions. Granted, this removal was probably still during the blueprint phase, so there was no actual hardware removed, but I still think the word choice could be better.
How about "excluded"? Removed suggests it was in SOLRAD 3 and then taken out.
  • It should state what organization/groups hoped that the satellite could detect above-ground tests
I don't have that information. The source just says "NRL was requested to scrup its year-long Solrad data..."

GRAB results

  • It's redundant to say "Nevertheless, even;" pick one word to indicate that it still had valuable information despite its limited usage
Done

Legacy and status

  • Can you elaborate further on the future SOLRAD/GRAB flights. Did the failures explode during launch, fail to make orbit, not broadcast information, etc.?
Yep.
  • Remove the "and its position can be tracked online" as that's not a legacy of the satellite itself
I really want it to be easy for a reader to click the link to track the satellite's position. How do you recommend this be accomplished?

Done with my comments. Nice job on this page, it has grown a lot since I first reviewed it for a B-class in January. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 13:26, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for all of your help! @Balon Greyjoy: --Neopeius (talk) 16:32, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

19 April additional comments

  • I understand the rationale for wanting to explain what precess is, but I think "like a spinning top" is too conversation, and the parenthesis can say "(wobble around its rotational axis)"
  • "in the wavelengths the satellite could see" reads awkwardly. I would make in "in the detectable wavelengths"
  • I would cite the online satellite tracker as a reference for the sentence, but remove "position can be tracked online" I know that you want the reader to be able to track it, but I think that would be more appropriate under and external links section.
Welcome back! Fine on #s 2 and 3. I'd like to keep the top metaphor for number one, but I did put the explanation into the parenthetical, where it reads better. :) --Neopeius (talk) 04:08, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Balon Greyjoy: Did you have any additional comments, and did you intend to support/oppose or just provide comments? Kees08 (Talk) 16:23, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kees08: Well, I feel dumb for not following up. Whoops! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:32, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Nice job with the article! You addressed all points that I brought up, and while I disagree with you on some style choices, you have done an excellent job of bringing this article up from its beginning. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:32, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much, Captain! Your help was invaluable. :) --Neopeius (talk) 13:40, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Kees08

edit

Coming soon. Kees08 (Talk) 23:18, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Maybe rephrase: It was the first satellite to successfully observe solar X-rays, the first to conduct surveillance from orbit, and SOLRAD/GRAB 1 the first to be launched with another instrumented satellite (the unrelated navigation satellite, Transit 2A). to It was the first satellite to successfully observe solar X-rays, the first to conduct surveillance from orbit, and the first to be launched with another instrumented satellite (the unrelated navigation satellite, Transit 2A).
Fixed.
  • I thought I noted this elsewhere, but it would be good to list the page number for this in case anyone has the hard copy or is looking at the digital copy that is paginated. Green, Constance; Lomask, Milton (1970). Vanguard – a History. The NASA Historical Series. Washington D.C.: National Aeronautics and Space Administration. ISBN 978-1-97353-209-5. NASA SP-4202.
fixed.
sure
  • Extra period here: had not migrated to NASA.[9].
Fixed.
  • Was this because the NYT leak? On page 2 of the black vault source. Might be worth mentioning if that is the case, more interesting than a simple rebranding. Also, wasn't the project renamed to Walnut, and the satellite called DYNO? This first space surveillance project was initially called "TATTLETALE" and later renamed "DYNO".
All right. I think I've fully upended the naming can of worms. I think the resulting story is pretty good. Thanks.
  • I think there is some sort of 'deactivation' parameter for the infobox
Added.
  • You should talk about the batteries, and how they changed after the first satellite (page 10 of Black Vault)
I talked about the batteries. I'll describe changes in the appropriate articles.
  • NSSDCA site has some interesting information on how the magnets affected the mission, and some other details that could be included
Already discussed further on (I talk about how the magnets caused precession)
Very good. The other details that could be added would be the range of the Lyman-alpha sensors (like you have for the X-ray), the nitric oxide/argon chambers. You only have one sentence on them in the spacecraft section, seems like more detail exists that could be useful to the reader. Kees08 (Talk)
Added.
  • Did you read the information here or in the journal referenced?
That's recapitulation of what I have from SP-100
Done.
  • From McDonald, Robert A.; Moreno, Sharon K. "GRAB and POPPY: America's Early ELINT Satellites" (PDF). Retrieved February 11, 2019., it seems important to include when/why Grab was authorized. President Eisenhower approved full development of Grab on 24 August 1959; four days after the U-2 shootdown, he approved the first Grab launch. On 22 June 1960, a Thor AbleStar rocket roared off the launch pad at Cape Canaveral, Florida, carrying Grab 1 into orbit. The U.S. now had a space reconnaissance program.
Done.
Well, the U-2 shootdown bit is not in there, do you think that's not important? Seems like the GRAB mission was authorized to cover the gap left from U-2. Kees08 (Talk)
Added.
  • I forget, is the intention of this article to cover both SOLRAD 1 and GRAB 1?
Yes, hence the consistent usage of SOLRAD/GRAB 1 when referring to the satellite as a whole. It's awkward, but the fact is, they were essentially two different missions on the same satellite. The public knew about one, the military knew about both.
sure.
Are you going to add it or should I? Kees08 (Talk)
Could you? You have a better idea where you think it should go. Thank you! :) --Neopeius (talk) 14:53, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems like useful information on how the data was handled
  • Needs an endash: the SOLRAD designation.[5]:301-302
I think you fixed that.

More to come later. Kees08 (Talk) 00:37, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay that's it for now, I will go at it again after these comments are addressed. Kees08 (Talk) 02:56, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you {{ping}Kees08}} I will address these tomorrow. {{ping}Maury Markowitz}}, {{ping}Laser_brain}}, I think I've come up with an elegant way to satisfy all concerns. Will draft tomorrow. Thank you. :) --Neopeius (talk) 15:10, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Never mind. I fixed it today. Take a gander? @Maury Markowitz:, @Laser brain: --Neopeius (talk) 23:05, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think overall the background section is much better now. I will take another read-through of it and see if I spot anything egregious (although would like to know your thoughts on the U-2 incident). Kees08 (Talk) 03:05, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This looks much better now. There's a narrative! I made two minor edits, a WS to separate two paras, and changed one word for GR (spell checker I bet). My only remaining issue: currently the instruments and results are in their own sections. I think it would be easier to read if the GRAB equipment were in the same section as its results. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:30, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much, Maury. I'm concerned about overloading the results section, especially since I describe the scientific equipment under spacecraft. If I move the GRAB equipment out of there, the SOLRAD equipment sits oddly alone. I think I'd like to leave things as is. Will that be all right? --Neopeius (talk) 16:46, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Maury Markowitz: :) --Neopeius (talk) 21:17, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Another reason for leaving the equipment description in spacecraft is that, after this article passes FA, I am going to update the other five articles in the series, using the same format. Several of the satellites in the series won't have results sections. Now that breadth and comprehensiveness have been addressed, are you good with the article? Thanks again for your help! @Maury Markowitz: --Neopeius (talk) 21:12, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do you have quotation marks around fadeouts in the lead?
I've seen it that way in several sources, but I guess they're unnecessary.
  • Same question for Fan Song
Artifact of cut and paste from Maury.
  • Is there a succinct way to describe how it was a dummy SOLRAD? I don't want to make the background too excessively long, but it made me curious A test dummy SOLRAD was successfully launched on April 13, 1960 along with Transit 1B.
Rephrased for clarity, but all I know about it is that it's a dummy. Probably a hollow shell.
Why don't we call it a mass simulator then? That is a real term, and you could wikilink it. I have personally used mass simulators before, so that would make sense. Kees08 (Talk)
Fixed.
  • Should sun be capitalized? MoS says when used in scientific context, which I suppose we are?
Fixed.
  • Used single quotes on this one, should at least be consistent: radio 'fade-outs' occurred
Fixed.
  • I think the GRAB results section could specify the reasons for only 22 transmissions, that they were afraid of another international incident because of the Gary Powers incident (Drew Ex Machina specifies as such)
Already in there: "For fear that the Soviets would discover the satellite's espionage mission, President Eisenhower insisted that every GRAB transmission be personally approved by him.[1]: 32  Thus, though the satellite's surveillance equipment functioned from launch until their failure on September 22, 1960, GRAB 1 only returned 22 batches of data,"
  • It should also include when the ELINT mission ended
Already there: "Thus, though the satellite's surveillance equipment functioned from launch until their failure on September 22, 1960,"
  • Should be an endash after Vanguard, per the title, also id= can be used to add SP-4202. Constance Green and Milton Lomask (1970). Vanguard a History. Washington D.C.: National Aeronautics and Space Administration. ISBN 978-1-97353-209-5.
Done

That should be all. Kees08 (Talk) 23:03, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I also incorporated https://www.usni.org/magazines/naval-history-magazine/2008/april/navys-spy-missions-space per your request. There isn't much new stuff for SOLRAD 1, but some great color for SOLRAD 2, which I'll update that article with.
@Kees08: --Neopeius (talk) 15:00, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is a hard habit to break, but logical quotation (comma goes outside). "NSA Data Reduction," indicating the intelligence to be derived by processing the satellite downlink
APA and MLA and every other place I've worked says comma goes inside. Is there a reference for this?
Yup, our MOS, specifically WP:TQ. I used to not like it, but honestly I am just happy Wikipedia standardized something so I can copy/paste stuff between articles and only have to memorize one style. Wish more stuff was. Kees08 (Talk)
I am being told inconsistent information regarding caption alignment.
  • Ref goes after comma from the U-2 incident[25],
Fixed.

And then that should be all (though you have heard that before from me!) Kees08 (Talk) 03:26, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! --Neopeius (talk) 14:43, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support - the background section is a complete story, detailing what the Soviet Union was doing and what the U.S. response was (U-2 flights, shot down U-2, needed replacement for U-2). The pre-SOLRAD 1 story of the mass simulator launched is included as well. Spacecraft wise, all publicly available information is included so far as I can tell, I read through all the declassified documents. The launch section is complete, containing information on the launch and the only publicly available information on the 'glitch' in it. Results show the good, the bad, and the ugly; magnets helped get better data but caused problems in pointing the satellite, the only information on UV is included, the bonus nuclear test monitoring application is included as well. The GRAB results contains all publicly available information. Legacy and status includes all information after SOLRAD 1, including what is currently going on with the satellite and what happened with the backup. This article is as complete as it can be, as far as the research I have done shows. Kees08 (Talk) 16:22, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Questions by Spacepine

edit
Welcome aboad the Good Ship SOLRAD 1!

Hi, not an expert on FA guidelines - but a space engineering/physics student - so basically the target reader. I have some questions (mostly to sate personal curiosity):

  • Did the scientists know they were working with a spy sat? How separate were the projects?
Assuredly. Votaw's team were NRL employees.
  • So the sat had no ability to store data? Perhaps showing my age a bit, but were all early satellites like that?
Not all. Some early satellites had tape systems
  • Did the magnets cause the satellite to precess because they acted like magnetorquers? Or because they made the satellite non spherical?
The former. I've clarified this point in the article. Thanks!
  • Why did the science part fail? Did the sun tracker just stop working? or did the precession mess it up?
Probably the former, but it's not said. I got that from the 1991 article (which is available online).
  • Were the GRAB transmissions encrypted or otherwise disguised? Omidirectional transmitter, right?
It would have to be omnidirectional, and I didn't read anything about encryption. I've just added that the first downlink was made when the spacecraft was well out of range of Soviet eavesdropping.

--Spacepine (talk) 22:04, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Going through the Black Vault doc, I found a couple more tidbits to add. This article is the most complete resource on the topic you'll find -- at least until the NSA un-redacts their documents... --Neopeius (talk) 22:47, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sweet, thanks for the info! Looking at the Black Vault doc - interesting what they've redacted. Seems like a lot of it could be guessed around from context. Cool article, good luck getting it through --Spacepine (talk) 01:33, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Spacepine: I can answer one bit. The GRAB part was ridiculously simple - on the reception of a signal in the S-band, it sent out a signal on the telemetry frequency with the same duration. That is all! The resulting signal was received by ground stations, turned into voice-frequency pulses of the same duration, and sent directly to tape. Everything they learned was by carefully examining the timing of the signals they received - so for instance if there were three radars hitting the sat, they could see it was three separate ones because they would hit the sat at different times as their radars scanned around and they would get three brief sets of pulses on the ground. Slight differences in PRF also helped differentiate them, at least into families. There was no attempt to hide the downlink signal, and the Soviets could easily hear if they tried, which is, I assume, why the prez retained direct control over the system's use. But I think it would not be trivial for the Soviets to figure out what was going on even if they heard it, it would just sound like random beeping and would not have any obvious pattern to any fixed location on the ground. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:07, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Maury Markowitz: I loved the line you added about the system (under Background). Thank you! --Neopeius (talk) 16:53, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's evaluation

Status as of April 25, 2019

edit

This FAC began on February 19, 2019. It has been ongoing for more than two months and has been extremely rigorous. I have adopted virtually every revision suggested and left no suggestion unaddressed.

At this point, I'd like to summarize where we are in terms of support:

Squeamish Ossifrage

Made a series of excellent comments on 3-14, all of which were addressed. He has not returned despite repeated pingings over time.

Opinion: None

Nick-D

Made two rounds of excellent comments, all of which were addressed. Latest word:

"My comments are now addressed, and I'm pleased to support this article's promotion. Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 19 April 2019 (UTC)"

Opinion: Support

Balon Greyjoy

Gave an extremely comprehensive set of comments on 4-13, all of which were addressed. Greyjoy returned on 4-19 with three minor comments, all of which were addressed. Greyjoy has not since returned, but it can be assumed that Greyjoy is, at least, not opposed.

On 4-25: "Support - Nice job with the article! You addressed all points that I brought up, and while I disagree with you on some style choices, you have done an excellent job of bringing this article up from its beginning. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:32, 26 April 2019 (UTC)"[reply]

Opinion: NoneSupport

Argento Surfer

Reviewed prose on 3-19 and gave his Support. Since then, the article has only been further improved, in prose and in all other capacities.

Opinion: Support

Dudley Miles

Made many excellent comments on 3-20, noting the article was not yet up to FA status. After the comments were addressed, he said: "My queries have been dealt with. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:26, 21 March 2019 (UTC)"

Opinion: Support

CPA-5

Made a round of fine comments on 3-28. All were addressed, and on 3-31, said "Looks good Support. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 16:46, 31 March 2019 (UTC)"

Opinion: Support

Mike Christie

Began a commentary dialogue on 3-21. By 3-23, he had said: "I'm ready to support, but since Maury indicates above that he feels significant information might be added, I'm going to hold off to see if he can suggest sources."

After back and forth with Maury, I added significant information to the article, and Mike Christie supplemented on 4-13: "Laser brain, I'm not opposed to promotion, but have refrained from supporting since Maury has indicated he feels some content is missing. He hasn't opposed, but he's more of a subject matter expert than I am and I would be uncomfortable supporting while he still thinks that. Maury, do you still feel the article is incomplete? I know Neopeius has added some material in response to your comments. Other than that I have no reservations about promotion."

Since then, I have included all material Maury requested, and Maury, himself, indicated he was pleased with the narrative as it now stands.

Opinion: Support, pending Maury's support

Switching to full support, having reread since the last changes. This is a fine article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:00, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maury Markowitz

Provided excellent technical assistance regarding the background and GRAB equipment on 3-25. We went back and forth for several weeks on just how much to include. On 4-4, Maury declared he was neutral on promotion as not enough of his information had been included.

In response to Balon Greyjoy's suggestions, and the feedback I'd gotten on SOLRAD 3, I actually cut down on the background, which Maury declared made the article worse (and I agree). In response, I completely updated the article, incorporating all of Maury's requested information.

On 4-24, Maury said: "Sorry for this tardy reply, been busy IRL. I think the article is much better now. I'll support."

Opinion: Support

Spacepine

Asked a great series of questions, which led to some improvement of the article. He has not rendered an opinion, nor had he expected to.

Opinion: None

Kees08

Has done yeoman's work nitpicking this article to death :) All suggestions of his have been addressed.

From today:

"Support - the background section is a complete story, detailing what the Soviet Union was doing and what the U.S. response was (U-2 flights, shot down U-2, needed replacement for U-2). The pre-SOLRAD 1 story of the mass simulator launched is included as well. Spacecraft wise, all publicly available information is included so far as I can tell, I read through all the declassified documents. The launch section is complete, containing information on the launch and the only publicly available information on the 'glitch' in it. Results show the good, the bad, and the ugly; magnets helped get better data but caused problems in pointing the satellite, the only information on UV is included, the bonus nuclear test monitoring application is included as well. The GRAB results contains all publicly available information. Legacy and status includes all information after SOLRAD 1, including what is currently going on with the satellite and what happened with the backup. This article is as complete as it can be, as far as the research I have done shows. Kees08 (Talk) 16:22, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Opinion: Support

---

Thus, as of 4-25, the tally (including several subject matter experts) is:

6 supports, 1 support conditional on a support that has been given, and 3 abstentions.

@Laser brain:, with Maury and Kees having now weighed in and given their support, is that sufficient for promotion?

Thank you! :) --Neopeius (talk) 16:48, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note to see I saw Kees08's ping and plan to go through the article, probably tonight, since it's changed quite a bit, but since Maury's now supporting the reason for withholding support is gone and I would expect to support. If this is closed before I get to it, that's fine with me. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:45, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much, Mike! I hope you enjoy the new and improved article. :) --Neopeius (talk) 21:28, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I do, and have switched to full support above. I'm glad you've been patient with this process; I think the article has really benefitted, and I hope to see more nominations from you. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:00, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All of your help is greatly appreciated, Mike. Thank you so much! --Neopeius (talk) 03:36, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As of 4-26, the tally is now 7 Supports, 1 Expect to Support, and 2 Abstentions.

A consensus, yes?  :) {{ping}Laser_brain}} --Neopeius (talk) 13:44, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Grrr. @Laser brain: --Neopeius (talk) 13:56, 26 April 2019 (UTC) :)[reply]

@Neopeius: I haven't had time to review the latest developments due my personal life being hectic. The next time Ian Rose or I goes through the list, we'll assess readiness and promote if appropriate. Thanks for your patience. --Laser brain (talk) 15:04, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Laser brain:! Please note that I was not grrring at you, but my fingers continuing to mess up the Ping command. :) --Neopeius (talk) 17:58, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Update as of late April 26: No 8 Supports and 2 abstentions (drive-bys, not Neutrals). It's unanimous! Thanks, everybody!:) --Neopeius (talk) 03:36, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 27 April 2019 [6].

Cardiff City F.C.

edit
Nominator(s): Kosack (talk) 19:30, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Cardiff City, a Welsh association football club playing in the English Football League. I nominated this in late 2017 and it failed due to a lack of reviewers. It's been a while since then, I've tweaked, tuned and improved bits here and there, submitted it for a peer review and had an editor from the WP:GOCE give it the once over. Hopefully it'll get across the line this time. Look forward to any comments. Kosack (talk) 19:30, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by Cas Liber

edit

I enjoyed reading the article and think it is on its way to a shiny star. Just a few quibbles.....

  • During the 1960s, Cardiff began qualifying for European competition for the first time as a result of winning the Welsh Cup. - is this because they just won the Welsh Cup for the first time or because the cup winners became eligible for the first time? - Expanded slightly
  • [After dropping into the Third Division, ]Cardiff were continuously in the lower two divisions of the Football League between 1985 and 1993 - suggest bracketed bit is redundant as you've just mentioned the relegation at the end of the previous para. - Removed
  • In June 2009, the club completed construction of a state-of-the-art 26,828-seat stadium on the site of the now-demolished old Cardiff Athletics Stadium at a cost of £48 million - does "state-of-the-art" actually mean anything? -Removed
  • what kit did the club play in between 1930 and 1992? There is no diagram of that one...
@Casliber: Thanks for your comments, I've fixed the first three issues. In regards to the kit, I was trying to include the most significant changes in the club colours and the kit was pretty consistent in that time. Kosack (talk) 06:57, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah but you haven't listed which one of the ones is it, I figured it was one of the blue shirt white shorts ones....anyway, should be easy to fix. All else is fine on comprehensiveness and prose. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:56, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've added an extra one in to cover the extended time period. Thanks for the support. Kosack (talk) 10:19, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the table position graph - Done
  • File:Cardiff_City_squad_1920.jpg: when/where was this first published? What steps were taken to try to ascertain authorship?
I'm unaware of the original publisher and author. The picture is not used in any of the print sources I possess, the only two uses I have found on the net are very unlikely to have any claim to the rights. I have searched the British Newspaper Archive and it appears the photo was not published in any newapaper at the time either which is why I used the license linked to the picture. Kosack (talk) 21:21, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This needs a US PD tag, and the UK tag in use requires you to specify in the image description what steps were taken - suggest adding some of your commentary here there. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:32, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:CardiffCityFC_League_Performance.svg: what is the source of the data presented in this graph?
The image is the work of another editor so I'm unsure of the source they are using. I have added a source that supports the information to the caption.
@Nikkimaria: In all honesty I'm not good with image licensing at all. If the use of the club badges is objectionable, I would have no problem with their removal. Thanks for taking a look, let me know your thoughts. Kosack (talk) 21:21, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is that they're non-free, and at the moment they are not well justified. If they are to be kept, that needs to change. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:32, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: I've added the US PD tag and provided a brief commentary of searches undertaken for the squad image. I've removed the older logos. Kosack (talk) 21:46, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you're going to be using that tag, we need to find a pre-1923 publication, not just creation. That's going to be a problem if there wasn't a contemporary usage. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:40, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: I've emailed one of the websites that have it in use to see if they have the information. Until this can be established, I've removed the image and added two new ones, both of which are much more stable license-wise. Kosack (talk) 08:26, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Hzh

edit
Comments resolved

The article looks good. I will start with a general comment, other comments will be added over the next few days. The history section can be tightened a little - since there are already separate articles on the history, the history in the main article should be more of a summary. For example, the description of the goal scored in the 1927 FA Cup final can be shortened, also the word "clumsily" seems a bit editorialising, and not given in the source (same for the wording under pressure from the advancing Len Davies). The reference given is dead and there is no video footage in the archived link, although footage of the goal can be seen in other websites e.g. [7]. Simply saying that the ball slipped out and he knocked it into the net with his elbow is sufficient, and supported by the Wales online source. Hzh (talk) 14:38, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Trimmed and swapped refs. Kosack (talk) 16:25, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
I've added a little extra and reorganised some of the info to level the paragraphs out now.
I think you can move the last two sentences of the second paragraph to the end of the first - seems logical to keep the sentences about being in football league together. Hzh (talk) 13:36, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There are a few theories but no definite answer unfortunately. The most popular is that it was based on a play titled "The Blue Bird" that was touring the area at the time of the club's rebrand. An extract from Grahame Lloyd's detailed history of the club mentions it HERE but I don't believe there's an officially recognised reason. Kosack (talk) 22:08, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Early years (1899–1920)

Some of the following are just suggestions, you are not obliged to keep all the suggestions. I noticed some quirks, but everyone has their own, I'm not sure if they are worth mentioning.

  • First sentence - link lithographic, unlink Cardiff, the second comma can be removed (the reference following that comma can be moved to the end of the sentence). - Done
  • Query - are merging with Riverside Albion and wining their first honour something worth mentioning? Hzh (talk) 14:43, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The merge with Riverside Albion seems to simply have been absorbing Albion rather than a significant moment, the board and management seemingly remained unchanged. The Bevan Shield is described as a minor honour in the paper sources I have and has no Wiki page (and probably wouldn't qualify for one), so I chose to leave it out in the main page. Kosack (talk) 15:43, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query - There seemed to be another football club called Cardiff in this period, am I mistaken and is that relevant?
I don't think there was anything significant about a club using Cardiff in their name, I think there may have been more than one other that used Cardiff in their name at some point previously. The major issue was the use of City after the City status was granted, which is what was protected by the relevant governing bodies. Kosack (talk) 15:43, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps changing "As a result" to "In recognition of this elevation in status", and "To combat this" to "To enhance their standing". Hzh (talk) 15:04, 23 February 2019 (UTC) - Done[reply]
  • The two parts of the sentence With the club growing in stature, they were forced to turn down... do not appear to be logically linked, perhaps change to "Although growing in stature, the club was forced to turn down...". Hzh (talk) 15:12, 23 February 2019 (UTC) - Done[reply]
  • The comma in ...in Cardiff and nearby towns, to gauge the level of... can be removed or replaced with "so as". Hzh (talk) 15:22, 23 February 2019 (UTC) - Done[reply]
  • Second paragraph "a lack of facilities" sounds better than "the lack of facilities". - Done
  • Last sentence of third paragraph is unnecessary since the league being suspended affected all clubs and therefore not specific to Cardiff, unless you want to say something related to the club. Hzh (talk) 21:59, 23 February 2019 (UTC) - Done[reply]
1920s success and later decline (1920–1945)
  • Maybe link 1920–21 season. - Done
  • Perhaps change at Wembley Stadium reaching their first ever FA Cup final to "at Wembley Stadium, having reached their first ever FA Cup final". - Done
  • Perhaps change they had won promotion to "winning promotion", and append the start of the following sentence "finishing in 14th position" to the end of this. - Done
  • Perhaps change entered a decline to "declined". - Done
  • It's not clear when they had their record scoreline, but maybe split that sentence if the events referred to happened in different seasons. Add full stop after by a scoreline of 9–2, and change but after finishing to "They finished". If this is the same season, then keep it as a single sentence, but replace the start of the sentence with "During the 1932–33 season" and make other appropriate adjustments. Hzh (talk) 21:59, 23 February 2019 (UTC) - Done[reply]
  • Penultimate sentence - replace replace with "replaced". Hzh (talk) 22:09, 23 February 2019 (UTC) - Done[reply]
Post war and European competition (1945–2000)
  • They were relegated after five seasons there in 1957, having struggled in the bottom half of the table during this period Consider rewriting this, since they were mid-table two seasons out of five (10th in the 1953–54 seasons, therefore not quite bottom half nor struggling), the wording suggests that they were struggling all five seasons. Perhaps move part of it to the previous sentence, e.g. "Cardiff returned to the top tier of English football for the first time in 23 years, and stayed there for five seasons. They were relegated in 1957, after struggling in the bottom half of the table for three seasons." Hzh (talk) 14:07, 24 February 2019 (UTC) - Done[reply]
  • Maybe change again suffering relegation to "they were again relegated". Hzh (talk) 14:11, 24 February 2019 (UTC) - Done[reply]
  • Perhaps changing Cardiff began qualifying for European competition to "Cardiff participated in European competitions". Hzh (talk) 14:26, 24 February 2019 (UTC) - Done[reply]
  • Stray space after ...advanced in European competition. Hzh (talk) 14:30, 24 February 2019 (UTC) - Removed[reply]
  • ...in attempts to stabilize the team's performances. Consider finding another word or adding additional words since they wouldn't be trying to just stabilise, but also to improve if they were in the lowest division. "Stabilize" is US spelling? Hzh (talk) 14:37, 24 February 2019 (UTC) - Done[reply]
  • Link 1995 final. Hzh (talk) 14:45, 24 February 2019 (UTC) - Done[reply]
Foreign investment (2000–present)
  • Maybe change ensure Cardiff returned to "ensure Cardiff's return". Hzh (talk) 16:41, 24 February 2019 (UTC) - Done[reply]
  • The first sentence of the second paragraph seems superfluous or needs rewriting (Division One became Championship in 2004). - Done
  • The "however" in however, Hammam agreed to a takeover may be unnecessary. Perhaps the whole sentence can be rewritten - e.g "The club experienced increasing financial difficulties over the next few years, and the Cardiff Council also refused to approve a new stadium plan due to concerns over its viability in 2006. Hammam then agreed to a takeover by a consortium led by new chairman Peter Ridsdale and the lead developer of the new stadium, Paul Guy." (You can probably rewrite it better.) - Rewritten
  • Omit the accusation levelled against Hammam to keep it neutral. Hzh (talk) 16:41, 24 February 2019 (UTC) - Removed[reply]
  • Need to clarify ownership as well as the club's chairman since Chan Tien Ghee had resigned, and why Vincent Tan was suddenly involved in firing manager. You can do it in this section, alternatively, you can create a new section on ownership and finance which you can see in other featured articles on football clubs - e.g. Manchester United F.C., Arsenal F.C., Liverpool F.C., etc. (Not all featured articles on football clubs have this section, but I think it will help). If necessary, you can move some of the content on the ownership in the History section there. Hzh (talk) 15:07, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I did consider an ownership section but outside the last two owners there would be very little meaningful content I believe and it would be massively slanted to recent events. The likes of United, Arsenal etc have much more available detail due to popularity of the club, I doubt I could provide a whole section to the same level of interest. Kosack (talk) 17:51, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It seems a bit confusing who the owners were - Hammam was one and Vincent Tan is the current owner, but was Peter Ridsdale an owner? Who owned Cardiff before Hammam? Hzh (talk) 19:13, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ridsdale and Hammam's predecessor were elected chairman by the board as they did not own controlling stakes. Tan and Hammam were both majority shareholders so pretty much had absolute control. I've tried to explain this a little better in the text now. Kosack (talk) 20:20, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Omit the accusations against Malky Mackay (it's unnecessary and not important enough to be given in a summary, and it would sidestep any neutrality issue). Hzh (talk) 15:18, 25 February 2019 (UTC) - Done[reply]
  • Reword However, Cardiff finished the 2016–17 season 12th after a good run of form, perhaps remove and append "and guided the club to 12th place finish in the 2016–17 season." (avoid having three "after" in a relatively short paragraph). Link 2016–17 season and 2017–18 season. Hzh (talk) 15:33, 25 February 2019 (UTC) - Done[reply]
Support
  • Change Cardiff is considered to have to "Cardiff has". - Done
  • Maybe change major factor in fan support with the club's matches sometimes being considered as to "major factor in fan support, and some of the club's matches are considered to be" - Done
  • The wording in a single season spell appears to be unnecessary because the season is mentioned later. Hzh (talk) 16:00, 25 February 2019 (UTC) - Done[reply]
  • Maybe insert "as a celebratory gesture" into since its adoption in the early 1990s to indicate its purpose (which I assume is for celebration, but you can change the wording). - Done
  • Maybe change ...performing the action during notable moments of their careers to "performing the action at some points in their careers (the reference for Nathan Cleverley suggests that he did it routinely). Hzh (talk) 13:28, 26 February 2019 (UTC) - Done[reply]
Rivalry
  • Comma after Known as the South Wales derby. - Done
  • Maybe change The rivalry had enjoyed relatively friendly periods to "The rivalry had been relatively friendly". - Done
  • Maybe change Severe violence at one fixture in 1993 saw the match dubbed "The Battle of Ninian Park" and lead to "One fixture in 1993 was dubbed "The Battle of Ninian Park" for its particularly severe violence, which led". Hzh (talk) 13:42, 26 February 2019 (UTC) - Done[reply]
  • Maybe change "bubble trips" were introduced where away fans were only allowed to attend fixtures in police escorted convoys that travel to and from the stadium to ""bubble trips" were introduced for away fans who can only attend fixtures in police-escorted convoys to travel to and from the stadium". - Done
  • The In turn, in the second paragraph is unnecessary. - Done
  • The incidence with Lee Trundle and Alan Tate is not mentioned in South Wales derby, it can be copied or moved there instead. I'm a bit dubious about such details here. Hzh (talk) 21:25, 27 February 2019 (UTC) - Done[reply]
  • The first part of the last sentence can be omitted, and saw the emergence of a hooligan group within the club's fanbase that became known as the Soul Crew may be rewritten as "In the 1980s, a hooligan group known as the Soul Crew emerged from within the club's fanbase." Hzh (talk) 21:41, 27 February 2019 (UTC) - Done[reply]
Ninian Park
  • Omit the comma after Due to the lack of facilities at the ground. - Done
  • The ground was originally to be known as Sloper Park. It was instead named after Lord Ninian Crichton-Stuart, who was a driving force behind the ground's construction, and it became Ninian Park. The reference does not mention that it was originally intended to be named Sloper Park, so you need an additional reference. Perhaps change to "The original intention was to name the ground Sloper Park, but Ninian Park was chosen instead after Lord Ninian Crichton-Stuart, who was a driving force behind the ground's construction." - Done
  • Maybe change Lord Crichton-Stuart performed the kick-off to "Lord Crichton-Stuart ceremoniously kicked off the game". - Done
  • Rearrange A second was opened in 1928, which could hold 18,000 people, replacing an earth embankment as "A second, which replaced an earth embankment and can hold 18,000 people, was opened in 1928." - Done
  • eventually replaced - "eventually" is unnecessary. Remove "increasing" in as increasing doubts mounted since using both "increasing" and "mounted" is tautological. Hzh (talk) 00:33, 28 February 2019 (UTC) - Done[reply]
Cardiff City Stadium
  • Need a source for the assertion The project required the rebuilding of the athletics stadium, the source given does not show that the rebuilding of the athletics stadium is a requirement. Hzh (talk) 02:39, 28 February 2019 (UTC) - Removed, I don't think it really adds anything[reply]
  • Perhaps change This was a move which caused controversy among the rugby club's fans to "The move proved unpopular among fans of the rugby club, which returned to Cardiff Arms Park in 2012." Hzh (talk) 02:50, 28 February 2019 (UTC) - Done[reply]
  • The ground was eventually named the "Cardiff City Stadium" - "eventually" can be omitted. - Done
  • Move the rugby club ground share to somewhere after the stadium opened, and maybe reword On 20 September 2007 it was announced that the Cardiff Blues rugby union club would leave their Cardiff Arms Park home to become tenants of Cardiff City at the new Leckwith stadium. The move... as "When it opened, the Cardiff Blues rugby union club left their Cardiff Arms Park home to share the ground with Cardiff City at the new stadium. However, the move...". - Done
  • Change In August 2014, expansion plans were completed, increasing the stadium capacity - need to introduce the expansion plans first, or rewrite the sentence with any appropriate references. Maybe change to "A few years after the stadium was built, plans to upgrade and expand the stadium were initiated. The expansion plans were completed in August 2014, and the seating capacity of the stadium was raised..." Hzh (talk) 12:41, 28 February 2019 (UTC) - Done[reply]
  • Two "however" in two sentences in the last paragraph, one of them can be omitted, or rewrite. Hzh (talk) 12:51, 28 February 2019 (UTC) - Done[reply]
Colours
  • Rewrite The crest was changed to "appeal in 'international markets'", maybe as "These changes were made to "appeal in 'international markets'"". - Done
  • Maybe change The change angered fans, who expressed their opposition in the news and on social media as well as directly to management. A number of protest marches and demonstrations were held to voice displeasure at the change. to "The rebranding provoked strong opposition among the fans, who organised protest marches and demonstrations to voice their displeasure at the changes." Hzh (talk) 13:26, 28 February 2019 (UTC) - Done[reply]
  • Variations on this crest remained until the 1980s, when extra features... - wording might be interpreted as variations of the crest not being used in the 1980s, I'd suggest "Over the years, a number of variations of this crest have been used. In the 1980s, extra features...".Hzh (talk) 14:46, 28 February 2019 (UTC) - Done[reply]


Going over the article one last time -

  • The last two sentences of the second paragraph can be added to the first paragraph since they deal with the league, although I can see an issue with the repetition of the club being in the Premier League, so it's up to you whether you think it worth doing.
I'm not sure which part you're referring to here, can you elaborate? Kosack (talk) 15:10, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's the first two paragraphs of the lead. The first paragraph talks about being in the league, the last two sentences of the second paragraph are also about the league, seems like these two sentences could be moved to the end of the first paragraph. But, as I mentioned, repeating the same thing in the same paragraph (being in the Premier League in the 2018–19 season) does not sound good, so it's up to you whether to if you want to change this. Hzh (talk) 15:35, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved the sentence where you suggested and rewordes a link to directly reference the reference the actual divisional season to hopefully provide more variety. Kosack (talk) 17:53, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe change leading to the nickname to "which gives them the nickname". - Done
  • Maybe change ...Ninian Park which was opened in 1910 and remained in use for 99 years before, in 2009, the club moved into the Cardiff City Stadium to "Ninian Park opened in 1910; it remained in use for 99 years until the club moved into the Cardiff City Stadium in 2009." - Done
  • Maybe change Their first season saw them playing friendlies... to "In their first season, they played friendlies". - Done
  • Add comma after elevation in status - Done
  • Maybe change moving into Ninian Park in 1910 to "and moved into Ninian Park in 1910". - Done
  • He set about adopting a more professional approach Just a query, when did Cardiff City become a professional club? It might be worth mentioning.
1910, i've added a brief mention to the text.
  • Finishing in 14th position. Lower case for "finishing". - Done
  • Change game. In the 74th minute, he to "game in the 74th minute. He", and change the full stop to a semi-colon after toward the goal - Done
  • Change lined the streets to receive them to "lined the streets to welcome them". - Done
  • Maybe change the club soon declined after their cup success and were relegated to "the club entered a period of decline after their cup success. They were relegated". - Done
  • The "of the team" in ... after 22 years in charge of the team can be omitted. - Done
  • Maybe change meaning Cardiff City were forced to apply for re-election after finishing bottom to "and Cardiff City were forced to apply for re-election after they finished bottom" - Done
  • Maybe change ...since the return of the Football League, Cardiff finished the 1946–47 season as champions of the Third Division South under new manager Billy McCandless and... to "since the resumption of the Football League, under new manager Billy McCandless, Cardiff finished the 1946–47 season as champions of the Third Division South and..." - Done
  • Maybe change one of the most famous victories... to "one of the most significant victories". (I'm a bit uncertain on this, some might consider the use of "famous" as WP:PEACOCK, but it could be OK here.) - Done
  • Maybe change in 1996 finished in their lowest-ever league position to "they finished in their lowest-ever league position in 1996 ". - Done
  • The "however" in However, after lengthy talks can be removed - two howevers in consecutive sentences, therefore either remove one or replace with another word. The sentence The club crest was redesigned, however, and the new design .. can be changed to "However, the club crest was redesigned; the new design" - Done
  • Maybe change Hammam invested heavily in the team, funding the transfers of several new players that saw Lennie Lawrence guide Cardiff to promotion via a Second Division play-off triumph in 2003... to "Hammam funded the transfers of several new players to the club, and new manager Lennie Lawrence guided Cardiff to promotion when they won the Second Division play-off in 2003 ". Hzh (talk) 13:57, 1 March 2019 (UTC) - Done[reply]
I've amended all of the comments listed above bar the first, which I could do with some clarification on, cheers. Kosack (talk) 15:17, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe change Tan became to "Tan later became", and other directors, possessing around 82% of the club's shares to "other directors and acquired around 82% of the club's shares".- Done
  • Maybe change The following year, the club appointed Malky Mackay to "In 2011, the club appointed Malky Mackay" (clarify year since a sentence has been added before that). - Done
  • Change for the first time after 52 years - omit "after 52 years" or rewrite since the Premier League has not existed for that long, perhaps "for the first time, 52 years since they were last in the top tier of English football." Hzh (talk) 15:35, 1 March 2019 (UTC) - Done[reply]
  • Maybe change two wins from 11 games and guided the side to 12th after a good run of form to " two wins from 11 games, and guided the side to a 12th-place finish after a good run of form." - Done
  • ...change to red shirts between 2012 and 2015—some supporters being perceived as fairweather fans maybe change the dash to comma? The interpretation of the fans who stayed away because of strip colour change being "fairweather" is odd even if it is in the source, surely it's only hardcore supporters who care about the tradition to object to the colour change? Or add price of the season ticket which is also in the source, and the success of club or lack of it thereof. Hzh (talk) 15:35, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The fairweather is referring to the general attendance rather than anything to do with the colour change. Kosack (talk) 17:44, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe change ...all performing the action to "all having performed the action". - Done
  • Maybe change ...with the two sides having played each other over 100 times in all competitions to "and over 100 games have been played in all competitions between the two sides".
  • Change ...lead to numerous violent clashes to "led to numerous violent clashes". - Done
  • Maybe change ...and led to away fans being banned to "and resulted in away fans being banned". Hzh (talk) 19:59, 1 March 2019 (UTC) - Done[reply]
  • Maybe change ...to keep the remaining standing areas of the ground open, as clubs at Championship level or above were given three years to redevelop their grounds to remove them to "to keep the remaining standing areas of the ground open beyond the three-year period given to clubs at Championship level or above to remove them". Hzh (talk) 19:59, 1 March 2019 (UTC) - Done[reply]
  • Maybe change ... played at the ground saw Cardiff record a 4–0 victory over Scunthorpe United on 8 August 2009, the opening day of the 2009–10 season to "played at the ground was on 8 August 2009, the opening day of the 2009–10 season, and Cardiff won 4–0 over Scunthorpe United". - Done
  • Maybe change ... 'international markets'" and was part of a "major investment plan" to " 'international markets'" as part of a "major investment plan"". - Done
  • Maybe change ...shirts were featureless to "shirts were plain and unadorned". An additional reference is needed for the changes in the crest section, which is probably the one in the Kit manufacturers and shirt sponsors section. - Done
  • Add a reference at the end of the Academy section. - Done

That's more or less it I think. Good job. Hzh (talk) 19:59, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Both sections do have references on the headings, the blue background blends in with them a bit. Kosack (talk) 22:11, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. I think the references should automatically appear in a lighter colour when the background is darker. Something must have gone wrong with the table which is out of our control. Hzh (talk) 23:20, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for your thorough review, much appreciated. Kosack (talk) 09:54, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Lee Vilenski

edit

I had a look through the article, and it looks very good. Could I have a little explination on "The team's longest period in the top tier of English football came between 1921 and 1929. Since then, they have spent a total of nine seasons in the top flight, the most recent being in the current 2018–19 Premier League season." in the lede. Could this not comment that the team were in the top flight for (presumably) 18 years, and had this run as well? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:27, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Lee Vilenski: Perhaps a reword to "The club has spent 17 seasons in the top tier of English football since, the longest period being between 1921 and 1929. The team's most recent season in the top flight is the current 2018–19 Premier League season." Thoughts? Kosack (talk) 15:37, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that would be better. It's a little confusing otherwise. I'll scan the rest of the article in a bit. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:17, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Changed that over. Look forward to any comments. Kosack (talk) 19:59, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I can't see too much else that would cause me any concern. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:28, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

edit
  • Quality and reliability
  • I did the source review at the previous archived FAC. I raised questions about the quality/reliability of several sources, but concluded that I was "happy to accept the opinions of other editors with more expertise in football articles than mine, as to the reliability of these sources. If they don't object, I won't." Same applies now. The sources in question were:
  • English Football League Tables
  • Welsh Football Data Archive
  • Historic Football Kits
  • 11 v 11
  • To these I will add: The Rec.Sport.Soccer Statistics Foundation
  • Source links
  • All working per the external links checker tool
  • Formatting
  • Ref 39: The Independent should be linked on earliest mention (it is linked in ref 69)
  • Ref 62 missing publisher location: Also, ISBN should be in the consistent format used in the bibliography
  • Ref 72 missing retrieval date
  • Ref 76: "cricketarchive.co.uk" is not the publisher, it's what has been published. You could use "work=" and add "publisher= Cricinfo"
  • Ref 104: missing publisher details

Subject to the above, sources look in good order. Brianboulton (talk) 21:52, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Brianboulton: Thanks, I've fixed the issues you found above. Just to clarify the extra source, the Rec.Sport.Soccer Statistics Foundation (RSSSF) is widely accepted as a reliable source and is used extensively. The organisation's charter provides a clearer overview of the website's information process. Kosack (talk) 08:18, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coord notes

edit

Looks pretty close but a couple of things:

  • I'd expect to see the content under Manager history cited; likewise Backroom staff, unless the citations at the top of the Players section are supposed to cover that too.
@Ian Rose: There were sources on the table headings but the blue of the table was making them difficult to see. I've moved them under each table now to make them clearer. Kosack (talk) 06:52, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • As this would be the nominator's first FA if this is successful, unless I missed something above, I'd like to see a spotcheck of sources for accurate use and avoidance of plagiarism and close paraphrasing -- you can request at the top of WT:FAC, or perhaps one of the earlier reviewers would like to take care of it.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:29, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The information and sources look fine to me, and I checked a good number of the sources I can accessed when I first went through the article. Earwig's Copyvio Detector did not show anything suspicious - one is a copy of an old revision of this article, another is the source of a a quote, the others also appear to be OK, although I did adjusted a sentence to remove a part that was copied. Hzh (talk) 14:42, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Hzh: Thanks for partaking in the review process! Normally for a spot-check (unless I'm quite familiar with the reviewer and their methods) I would expect an enumerated list of text–source comparisons. For example, "I checked this passage against this source" and whether it passed verification. Can you provide a list of which passages you checked, against which sources? --Laser brain (talk) 16:45, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If this is what you are interested in, then you'll have to disregard my reply on copyvio check. I went over the entire article sentence by sentence (twice), checking against the sources where necessary, which took a week. I'm afraid I do not have the time to do it again. Doing that here means writing a reply that's greater than the size of the article for the sources I checked, and it would be better to have someone else looking at it afresh. There are a number of tools you can use for checking, for example Earwig's Copyvio Detector which does pretty much what you wanted. Hzh (talk) 10:54, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, Hzh, we don't doubt you've put in the effort. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:58, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 22 April 2019 [8].

Western Area Command (RAAF)

edit
Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk) 09:09, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Following on from Eastern Area Command and North-Eastern Area Command, I present the longest-surviving RAAF area command, which operated from 1941 to 1956 and covered most of Western Australia. Geography meant that its prime focus was maritime patrol and anti-submarine warfare, so its story was never going to be as action-packed as its northern cousins but, unlike North-Eastern Area at least, it did get to control an RAAF B-24 Liberator heavy bomber squadron, No. 25, which still exists as the non-flying "City of Perth" squadron. Western Area's post-war period also closed with a bang of sorts, as the British atomic test at Montebello took place within its boundaries. I've copyedited and added some info since the article's MilHist A-Class Review a few years ago, so have at it. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk)

Source review by Factotem

edit

Incoming Factotem (talk) 09:27, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • General
  • William Hely appears in the infobox as commander, but this is not supported by anything in the main body of the article.
  • Second last para of post-war section...?
Caught out by a sneaky name change from William to Bill. Factotem (talk) 23:07, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Technical checks
  • ISBN formats are inconsistent; mix of ISBN-10 and ISBN-13;
  • I'm a bit dubious about converting 10-digit ISBNs just because we can. I always try to use the exact ISBN from the edition I've referenced, so if it has both 10- and 13-digit I use the latter but if it only has 10 then I don't convert. Of course I'm happy to check that I've always used 13-digit if available.
  • Series/volume information is provided as part of the title for publications by Gillison, Odgers and the RAAF Historical section, but the cite book template has parameters that allow these to be presented separately. The sources can still be identified without any problem, which is what's really important, so this is somewhat picky, but I don't think it's any less picky than consistently formatted ISBNs, which FAC seems to insist on;
  • Well, per above, I don't know about FAC insisting on consistent ISBNs if only 10-digit ones are used in the relevant edition. As far as series v. title goes, I don't feel that strongly about it either way, it's just that the format here is consistent with most other RAAF units articles I've brought to FAC.
  • I wonder if the Pathfinder bulletin could be listed as a magazine in the bibliography (after all, you list a PhD thesis there)?
  • There is method in my madness here in that Pathfinder, though organised like a magazine or bulletin, is AFAIK only available online and has no page numbers and so doesn't really benefit (IMO) from a short cite to something in the References section (unlike the thesis, which employs page numbers and may have different page ranges cited for different parts of the article).
  • External link checks
  • Ext link checker tool doesn't throw up any problems
  • Reliability and quality of sources
  • Because it is a primary source, I spent some time checking the first seven (out of a total of 13) uses of the Western Area Headquarters source. Did not see anything to suggest problems with WP:PRIMARY, except you seem to have excluded the four WAAF officers from the total number of officers stated at the end of the 5th para in the World War II section (ref #28 in the version that I reviewed). As a sidenote, I would also point out that you're mixing numbers here (247 staff, but seventy-two officers) and elsewhere in the article (I believe MOS likes us to enumerate numbers above ten and not to mix enumerated and spelled-out numbers in the same sentence);
  • I have to admit I like to only use figures for numbers above 100 because there are so many digits in military articles with their numbered units and so on. That said, I think MOS does like the same style for all numbers in same sentence so "247 staff including 72 officers" is probably called for in any case. Tks also for finding that error re. the Waafs, will fix.
My mistake. I thought all numbers above 10 had to use figures, but on reading MOS:NUMERAL I see it's not that simple. Just need to be sure that styles aren't mixed in the same sentence. Factotem (talk) 23:07, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I checked through the website and newspaper sources and found nothing to concern me.
  • Survey of sources for comprehensiveness
  • I completed an albeit cursory search of Gbooks and JSTOR for western area command raaf and found nothing to suggest the article isn't a comprehensive survey of relevant sources.

That's all. Factotem (talk) 10:55, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tks very much Factotem, always appreciate your thorough reviews -- embedded responses above. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:25, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome. I've queried the ISBN format consistency thing on the TP; it's something I picked up from reading other reviews rather than something I personally care deeply about. See no reason not to Support on sourcing. Factotem (talk) 23:07, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:34, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM

edit

This article is in great shape. I reviewed it for Milhist ACR back in July 2016, and have looked at the changes since then, and read through it again just now. The only issue unresolved from the ACR was the addition of some info about what aircraft each squadron was operating, and I note that has now been provided. I have a few pretty minor comments:

  • covering New South Wales and Queensland; at the same time, Central Area" seems to beg a full stop and new sentence rather than a semicolon.
    • Done.
  • "following the outbreak of the Pacific War,." has an unneeded comma
    • Done (well caught).
  • suggest moving the RAAF area commands map down two paras, closer to November 1942 in the narrative
    • On my 1366x768 screen, two paras down would sandwich the image of Brownell and co, so compromised on one para down.
  • is there an ORBAT available for the post-November 1942 expansion of the command?
    • Not as such, hence my simply listing operational squadrons at as April 1943 per Odgers.

That is all I have. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:49, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, PM. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:33, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit
  • File:RAAFAreaCommands1940.png: source link is dead. Same with File:RAAFAreaCommands1942.png
    • Updated links.
  • File:An010702DeLaRue1941.jpg: if this was created by a newspaper, why would it be AustraliaGov?

Also the article is missing a description. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:02, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley

edit

IR's armed forces articles have the considerable merit – from a reviewer's point of view – of brevity, but that doesn't mean they aren't comprehensive. This one is is a good read, well and widely referenced, with better illustrations than one might expect for an article about a fairly recent time, given copyright constraints (a prize might perhaps be offered for Senior Officer with Worst Shorts among the brass in the second photograph). The article is thoroughly and widely referenced. Meets the FA criteria in my view. Happy to add my support. – Tim riley talk 22:55, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks as always Tim -- the RAAF is quite well served by histories of its small units, especially the flying squadrons, but much less so when it comes to larger formations (wings, groups, commands) so for better or worse I think these types of WP articles are the most comprehensive one will readily find on their subjects. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:50, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

edit
  • Shouldn't it be "1941–1942", "1942–1945", "1946–1948" and "1951–1953" in the infobox be?
    • Last time I checked MOS made this optional in infoboxes to help save space, and I like to take advantage of that as we can have lots of date ranges in military boxes.
  • MOS told me that it indeed helps save some space but only where space is limited "IMO" the active years and the last commanders should have the four-digit numbers because the space isn't limited. I tottaly understand the first commanders their digit numbers are limiting the infobox. Of course this is just an opinion, what do you think about my opinion? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 10:38, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd agree in this instance space isn't really at a premium so I'm not that fussed if we went to the four-digit years, but I think it should be consistent within the infobox, all one or the other. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:09, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who was the last commander between 1953 and 1956?
    • Probably not wikinotable or I would've added it in but I can double-check the unit history...
      • Double-checked and we do have a name for the last commander (Watson) but TBH I've never heard of him apart from this and if I may say so that's a pretty good indicator he's not notable in WP terms... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:09, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:32, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:11, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I have only one (actionable) comment, which may be just my ignorance:
Lead/IB
  • I was a bit confused by the map in the IB until I saw the one lower down. I'm still a bit confused, however: the area that covers most of Western Australia and South Australia (and a corner of the Northern Territory) was covered by who?
    • Yeah, always thought those 1940 boundaries were pretty eccentric myself. I think they started with where units were located, then they drew boundaries encompassing those locations rather strictly by state lines, hence the lead saying "units in" Western Australia rather than just Western Australia (which was never strictly correct even later, as the second map shows). So that big area you mention was no man's land in 1940, because there were no RAAF units in there, and I guess no prospect of any at the time. It was only in 1941 that every square inch of the country was assigned to an area command.
  • "Hippolyte De La Rue"? That sounds more like a name from Round the Horne, but I'll take your word for it! (And the nickname Kanga Rue?! I'm not sure I've heard anything more Australian!)
    • Yes, bit of a gift for air force comedians, that name! To further confuse matters he was also called Frank, though it wasn't even a middle name (a tribute to his presumed Gallic roots perhaps)...

Aside from that very small point, this appears (to my ignorant eye) to cover everything I'd expect to see. Usual cop out for ignorance, but this passes the FA criteria, as far as I am concerned. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 20:29, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tks Gav, appreciated. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:50, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 15 April 2019 [9].

SMS Lothringen

edit
Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 19:39, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is another entry in the series of articles on German battleships - I wrote the article originally in 2010 and then rewrote it with new sources last year, after which it passed a MILHIST A-class review (here). The ship had a relatively uneventful career, missing the Battle of Jutland owing to a badly-needed overhaul. Lothringen was briefly kept by the postwar Reichsmarine and converted into a parent ship for minesweepers. Thanks to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 19:39, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM

edit

This article is in great shape. A few comments from me:

  • in the lead, perhaps mention that Lothringen is Alsace-Lorraine, which will be more familiar to most readers
    • Good idea
  • link knots in the lead
    • Done
  • I continue to find the mention of HMS Dreadnought out of chronological order to be rather odd. My view is it should be inserted at the chronologically relevant point, rather than in the design section where it presages future events
    • For me, it makes more sense to include it where the article discusses the ship's design, since it has more relevance there, in my opinion, than it does to the ship's activity. I read it as kind of jarring to be talking about the training activities in December 1906, then talk about Dreadnought rendering ships like Lothringen obsolescent, and then go back to training activities.
  • were the 17 cm guns in casemates, have gunshields or were they in open mounts? I assume the 8.8 cm guns were in open mounts?
    • Clarified
  • in the body, keel laying, ship launching and ship commissioning aren't linked
    • Fixed
  • link IX Corps (German Empire)
    • Done
  • "to the North Sea, and continued to the Atlantic" does this mean through the Channel or north of the UK?
    • The former - clarified
  • suggest "By achieving a rough equality of forces, it was hoped that the German Navy"
    • Good point
  • suggest "to retain eight pre-dreadnought battleships for coastal defense under Article 181, two of which would be in reserve."
    • Yeah, that sounds better

That's me done. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:43, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks PM! Parsecboy (talk) 11:48, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

edit

Image review

edit

Comments and suppport from Gerda

edit

Thank you for another good one. Minor comments as I read:

Design

  • I am not sure that we need the translation of Kaiserliche Marine again.
    • A fair point.

... to 1907

  • "the Kaiser's Schießpreis" - the German Kaiser looks strange with an English possessive, - perhaps "emperor's"?
    • I don't know - Wilhelm II is routinely described as the Kaiser in English.

1908 ...

  • link Austro-Hungarian the first time (delink the next)?
    • Good idea
  • "Kaiser Wilhelm II's" - another strange looking mix of German and English, but no solution

World War I

  • "Additionally, she was in poor condition by that time and required extensive repairs. She returned to service on 14 July and replaced Hessen in the straits in late August." - not sure if repair was done? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:24, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good catch, clarified this.

Lead again as it came up in ERRORS: do we really need a link to battleship? Better avoid sea-of-blue, perhaps? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:32, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, support. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comments

edit

We're coming up on a month without any support for promotion. I've added it the Urgents list but this will have to be archived in the next week if we don't gain any ground. --Laser brain (talk) 20:26, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Gog the Mild

edit

It is possible that Gerda Arendt and Peacemaker67 do support promotion, but have not indicated so clearly enough. I only occasionally do ships, but shall take a look at this one over the next day or two. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:50, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Gog, much appreciated. Parsecboy (talk) 20:59, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have made a few copy edits which you will want to check.
  • "She was laid down in December 1902, was launched in May 1904, and was commissioned in May 1906." Optional: the last two "was" are superfluous.
    • I've gone around and around on this, and have been told contradictory things by different people. I always wrote it this way, but Dan and others always either took it out or advised that I do, until Tony told me the opposite in a relatively recent FAC. So I'm going to avoid pulling my hair out and write this the way it makes sense to me :)
  • I have been in similar situations. It is not actually wrong, which is why I marked it as optional. To me it reads clumsily, but if it works for you, then fine.
  • "Like all other pre-dreadnoughts built at the turn of the century," Optional: "at" -> 'around'.
    • Works for me
  • "Already in poor condition by 1916, she was withdrawn from fleet service in February." I am not sure what purpose "already" serves.
    • My point there was that the ship was only ten years old, but I suppose the average reader won't know that's a relatively short time for a ship.
  • Yes, I took that, but, as you suggest, it needs explaining for the mythical "average reader". Feel free to change to 'In poor condition by 1916 after just ten years' service' or similar.
  • "The fifth and final unit of her class, she was ordered under the contract name "M" as a new unit for the fleet." I am not sure about the "as a new unit for the fleet" bit; is it not already explicit?
    • I added a note on this, see if that's clear
  • It is. And I now know something about pre-WWI German naval contracting with which to amaze my friends.
  • "as part of an effort to increase public support for naval expenditures". "expeditures" would normally be singular.
    • Fixed
  • "Admiral Henning von Holtzendorff became the fleet commander. Holtzendorff's tenure as fleet commander" I think that "as fleet commander" can be dispensed with.
    • Good point
  • "Lothringen was sent out into the Little Belt in February 1912". Optional: delete "out".
    • Done
  • "owing in large part due to Kaiser Wilhelm II's displeasure". Not grammatical. You can have 'owing in large part to Kaiser Wilhelm II's displeasure' or 'in large part due to Kaiser Wilhelm II's displeasure'.
    • Good point - fixed

What a well written article. I am impressed.

Thanks Gog. Parsecboy (talk) 17:10, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 15:06, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well up to FA. Looks as if a lot of work has gone into it. Good stuff. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:16, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Date ranges. MOS:ENTO "The en dash in a range is always unspaced, except when either or both elements of the range include at least one space." (My emphasis.) Gog the Mild (talk) 15:10, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Right, look at the example they give: 1–17 September. Parsecboy (talk) 16:26, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Umm. There seems to me to be a contradiction; but fair enough, your usage is compliant by extending the example. Teach me to read to the end! Gog the Mild (talk) 16:30, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, yup - I think the distinction would be if the two halves of the range have multiple, spaced components (so the Battle of Jutland would be "31 May – 1 June") but if not, the dash is unspaced. Parsecboy (talk) 17:14, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nice theory, but one example is "1492 – 7 April 1556"!

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

edit

Another ship another day I only have one comment.

  • The infobox doesn't uses short tons while the lead does "At full load, she displaced 14,394 t (14,167 long tons; 15,867 short tons)".
    • Fixed

@Parsecboy: Here some other comments. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 14:37, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@CPA-5: Gog the Mild (talk) 18:17, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Parsecboy hadn't, unless I had missed it, and I didn't know whether you routinely "watched" review pages you have commented on; I don't. I didn't want you to have missed his responses, especially in the light of Lazer brain's suggestion that he may pull the plug. Apologies if you were already onto it. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:42, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nah I think Lazer brain mayn't pull this one out. This nomination has an image, a source review and 3 supports, if he replies to my comments then the nomination has 4 supports. This one is close to an FA-class. But no worries I appriciate your help and don't worry about this one. Trust me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:08, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 14 April 2019 [10].

Round the Horne

edit
Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) & Tim riley talk20:42, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Round the Horne is a BBC radio comedy show from the 1960s. It broke boundaries and records, and helped, in its own small way, to alter the social scene of Britain. Even now, 50 years after its last episode was broadcast, it is still considered the best radio comedy series of all. It would be bona—nay, fantabulosa—to vada your dolly old eeks with comments (that's your actual palare, that is – when trolling meant something quite different). We've tried to keep it clean, but if you see a double entendre, please do whip it out. – SchroCat (talk) & Tim riley talk20:42, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Dudley

edit

Smerus

edit

Support. I have spladgered my grommets seeking a quibble, but have been forced to chuck in the towel (even though that has left my grommets exposed). Congrats.--Smerus (talk) 08:38, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Smerus, for your input at PR and your support here. We are much indebted. Tim riley talk 10:05, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed we are: many thanks Smerus. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:00, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • Swapped for a more appropriate one

Support Had minimal comments at the PR, and they were addressed.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:10, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Wehwalt. I fear the article must seem a touch odd to anyone not from these shores, and we are most grateful for the trouble you have taken in reviewing it. Tim riley talk 22:16, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, many thanks, Wehwalt. I'm also much obliged. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 00:01, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Moise

edit

Very well written and comprehensive. I hadn't heard about this show before but was happy to learn about it. I made a couple of really small edits. One more minor point for your consideration:

  • There are a number of mentions throughout the article of the Hornblowers and the Fraser Hayes Four but inconsistent use of the/The and whether there are quotation marks around "The Hornblowers". Note that MOS:THEMUSIC recommends "the" (small t) but I know this is a contentious point and would never insist on this to anyone who has strong views that it should be otherwise—as long as each article as a whole is consistent in its usage. Cheers, thank you for the interesting article. Moisejp (talk) 03:18, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks Moise - that's very good of you, and thanks for your time and comment. I've made the capitals on Hornblowers and Fraser Hayes, to lower case so they are all consistent. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:12, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

edit
  • No spotchecks carried out
  • Newspapers
  • The link to The Independent (William Cook 7 June 2006) goes to a google search page
  • The Liverpool Echo (Joe Riley 18 May 2005) does not appear to need a subscription to view
  • However, the Daily Telegraph (Charles Spencer 2 January 2004) does need the subscription template...
  • ...while Spencer's 3 February DT article is shown without need for a subscrption
  • Websites
  • "Round and Round the Horne": link goes to wrong page
  • "Mary Warnock": link goes to wrong page
  • Apart from these minor issues, the references are impeccably presented. All other links are working correctly. The sources themselves are of the required standards of quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 10:18, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for this extremely thorough review, BB. The points you mention shall be attended to pronto. Tim riley talk 11:11, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All done – satisfactorily, I hope. Tim riley talk 11:30, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks Brian. Tim seems to have sorted these ones already. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:32, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Jim

edit

I stopped nadgering my splod to review this bona effort, but I find nothing that needs changing Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:12, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Jim, for your support. I hope you enjoyed reading the article as much as we enjoyed writing it. Tim riley talk 13:31, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, many thanks once again, Jim, we're much obliged. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:54, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Late comment

edit

Whilst idly fangling my wurzels, I noted that there was no explanation in the article of the programme's title. If we are being encyclopaedic, we should I think give a word to the not-so-wise about circumnavigation.--Smerus (talk) 09:29, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I'm not sure I read anything that explained it (I think the writers of the various sources thought the joke too obvious to explain), but there will be some who don't see the connection, I'm sure. I'll have a hunt to see what there is. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:53, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly OED seems only to give 'around the horn adj. and n. Baseball (a) adj. (attributive) designating an act of throwing the ball around the infield (see around the horn at Phrases 2); (b) n. a double play in which the fielder at third base throws to second base who throws to first base, getting two outs in the process; (also, rare) a type of sidearm pitch' , and doesn't have (at first glance) 'round the Horn' (or 'around the Horn'). If there is a derivation (and there clearly is) of the title, obvious or not, it should be noted somehow.--Smerus (talk) 10:14, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This looks suitable to me, and I'll add it, if SchroCat and Smerus concur. In a footnote: To "round the Horn" is a traditional term for navigating the dangerous waters at the southern tip of South America, Cape Horn. Ref: NYT etc, as in link. (Afterthought: I see from the WP article on Cape Horn that the winds match our two nominators. One of us is in his Roaring Forties and not so far off his Furious Fifties, and the other is in his Screaming Sixties (Department of No Surprise). But I digress.) Tim riley talk 15:12, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bona by me!--Smerus (talk) 16:03, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from KJP1

edit

Commented at the Peer review, here. Very well-written, comprehensively sourced and a great pleasure to read. KJP1 (talk) 08:31, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks KJP - your assistance at PR was as invaluable as always. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:41, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I echo my Rt Hon and Disgraceful Friend's thanks to you, KJ. Tim riley talk 17:39, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another late thought

edit

This is a tricky one. Should it be "the wogglers' trade" or "the woggler's trade"? My belief is, according to standard English practice, the latter. Of course, your source may give the former - but that would then be i.m.o. an error in copyediting..........OED gives, for example, "cobbler's awl", "cobbler's punch" and " cobbler's wax "; also "cobbler's end" and "cobbler's peg", (both of which could certainly be worked at).--Smerus (talk) 10:55, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rather rash to dwell on "cobbler's" in this context, me judice, and the possessive apostrophe is faithfully reproduced from the source. Rambling Syd presumably had the Gowers revision of Fowler in his gander bag; I haven't checked the current edition. It is very flattering indeed that you are inclined to revisit this review, though I hope nobody you know is aware of the fact. Tim riley talk 17:38, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am hoping my pseudonym may help conceal my dark tendencies.--Smerus (talk) 18:01, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Smerus: Should this be considered an open item, or are you satisfied with Tim's response? --Laser brain (talk) 20:59, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 14 April 2019 [11].

Kim Clijsters

edit
Nominator(s): Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:06, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Kim Clijsters, the first Belgian tennis player to hold the world No. 1 ranking. Active from 1997–2012, Clijsters has been ranked as the 14th greatest women's tennis player in the Open Era. She is perhaps most famous for retiring at the age of 23, only to come back and become one of the few players to win a Grand Slam singles title as a mother.

I have re-written the entire article over the past six months, and it has passed its GA review. I have written eight other GAs for the Tennis WikiProject, but this is the one I have spent the most time on. There are two other tennis FAs (Milos Raonic and the 1877 Wimbledon Championship). If promoted, the article would be just the eighth Women's sport biography FA, the first since 2014, and by far the most notable of the group. I am hoping to have this article ready to be a TFA by June 8th, and I recognize the window for that opportunity is closing. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:06, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review


Comments from Hmlarson

Overall
  • This is a very good article. It is really well-written and sourced. Nice work! Here are a few initial comments. I'll add some more as I go along.
Lead
  • "Clijsters is a former world No. 1 in both singles and doubles..." Consider changing to something like: Clijsters ranked No.1 in the world in singles from ____ to ____ and doubles from _____ to _____, if possible.
    • This won't work because she had four brief separate reigns at No. 1 across three non-consecutive years. Nonetheless, I added in the next paragraph that she first became No. 1 in 2003, and the third paragraph already mentions she becomes No. 1 again in 2011. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:03, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Clijsters played in an era where her primary rivals..." Consider changing to something like: Clisjsters competed professionally from ____ to ___ in an era where her primary rivals...
  • "Born to athletic parents with backgrounds in professional football and gymnastics, Clijsters was renowned for her own athleticism." Consider removing the first part of the sentence before the comma in the lead and "her own". It detracts from her accomplishments + is really more supporting info (not primary).
Other work
Coaching + Broadcasting career
Nonprofit Ten4Kim
  • Consider for inclusion.

ref 1 ref 2

Entrepreneur
Awards
Coaches
Personal life

Hmlarson (talk) 19:45, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Comments from Figureskatingfan

Overall

Very well-done and thorough article about an important figure in women's tennis. I'm not at all familiar with tennis, so I'm sure I'm missing some of the nuances, but I was able to come up with a few picky points.

2003...
  • Clijsters had a historic season in 2003. The word "historic" feels pidgeony to me. I suggest that you find a source that expresses the same or a similar sentiment, and if not, that you remove it.
Hopman Cup
  • Is it necessary to explain how this tournament is run? You don't make similar explanations for other tournaments like Wimbledon. If we can click on the link to find that information about Wimbledon, we can do the same for the Hopman Cup, right?
    • I wanted to explain the format because as a team competition, it's relatively complicated compared to the individual tournaments. I wouldn't expect even a regular tennis fan to be familiar with it, and I feel like you need to understand the format for the next paragraph to make any sense. I don't explain individual tournaments because aside they all have the same standard bracket format, which is also much simpler. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:03, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Clijsters vs. Henin
  • Clijsters's biggest rival was Justine Henin, who grew up in the French-speaking part of Belgium. They have been regarded as having little in common except their nationality and their relationship has varied over time. I don't see either statement directly supported by ref 172. Of course, they can be inferred by the SMH article, but I'm not sure that's enough for a FA. I suggest changing the wording to better reflect the SMH source, or any other that discusses the rivalry.
    • I'm taking the first part of the second sentence from "despite the fact the Belgians are indivisible in the public estimation in their homeland, sometimes it seems that all they have in common is their nationality." Was that what you were concerned about? Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:03, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job! I'm ready to support when the above points are addressed, or when you explain why they shouldn't change. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 03:46, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Figureskatingfan! I addressed all of your comments. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:21, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, my pleasure. I love reviewing articles because I get to read about stuff I know nothing about. I'm satisfied with your response above about the Hopman Cup; it makes total sense. Nice job; I will now SUPPORT. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 05:41, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

edit
  • Quality and reliability: The article is amply referenced, using a mixture of local and national news reports, on and offline magazine articles, some dedicated tennis websites, and major broadcasters such as BBC and CNN. Overall the mix is much what I would expect to find in a major tennis article, and in my view meets the required standards of quality and reliability.
  • Verification: Spotchecks – I carried out a sample of spotchecks for verification and close paraphrasing. Mostly these checked out, but a few raise minor issues:
  • Ref 15 - ARTICLE: "She won two junior Grand Slam doubles titles, the French Open with Jelena Dokic and the US Open with Eva Dyrberg". SOURCE: The US Open victory with Dyrberg is not mentioned in the source
  • Ref 102 - ARTICLE: "Clijsters entered 2007 intending to retire at the end of the season, but only played in five tournaments due to injuries." SOURCE: No mention of restricting her appearances to five, or of other factors that limited her appearances, e.g. marriage.
  • I moved the source to clarify it is just for the first part of the sentence, added the book source to the end of the sentence, and re-worded the second part to clarify that she only ended up playing five tournaments (which wasn't her plan). Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:03, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 142 - ARTICLE: "She needed to retire from a fourth round match at the Indian Wells Open due to a shoulder injury. Then, as a result of a right ankle injury suffered while dancing at a wedding in April, the French Open was the only clay court event she entered. At the second Grand Slam tournament of the year, she was upset in the second round by No. 114 Arantxa Rus after failing to convert two match points in the second set." SOURCE: The information relating to Indian Wells is not covered in the source.
  • External links: All links to sources are working according to the external links checker tool.
  • Formatting: A few issues:
  • There is a general issue around italicisation of organisations such as ESPN, CNN, CBC, ABC, Reuters and BBC (there may be others). You have used the parameter "website=" in the template, but these organisations are not websites, they are the publishers of the website and should not be in italics. In such cases use the parameter "publisher=", which will automatically de-italicise.
  • Some of the New York Times articles are only available on subscription. You need to check these and where appropriate add the (subscription required) template.
  • Ref 10: state tha the source language is French
  • Ref 81: you should clarify that the publication is the New York Sun, not to be confused with the British tabloid.
  • Ref 214 Bodo 2010 lacks page reference. What is the significance of the added date?
  • Ref 246: source article title missing
  • Ref 249: What does "bekroningen" signify?

Brianboulton (talk) 21:07, 22 March 2019 (UTC) (For the purposes of clarification I did the review, not the responses)[reply]

Thanks, Brianboulton! I replied to all of your comments above. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:20, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ceranthor

edit

Will post comments ASAP. Long article, so lots to read! :) ceranthor 17:40, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • "Clijsters was a world No. 1 in both singles and doubles, having once held both rankings simultaneously." - think it would be worthwhile mentioning when she held both
  • " were compatriot Justine Henin and 23-time Grand Slam singles champion Serena Williams." - not sure you have to include the number of times Serena won Grand Slams; not necessary IMO
    • I wanted to say "compatriot Justine Henin and Serena Williams, one of the greatest players of all-time", but I feel like that is too subjective for the lead. I felt like writing "23-time Grand Slam singles champion" is a more objective way to say something along the same lines. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:30, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Coming from a country with limited success in men's or women's tennis, she" - obviously it's implied that you're talking about Clijsters, but since you refer to three female-identifying players in the previous sentence I'd use Clijsters instead of "she" here

Professional career

  • "Clijsters continued to excel at the ITF level, winning four more titles within the next year, two in each of singles and doubles.[9][17]" - "two in each of" is wordy; one or two of these words need to be cut but not totally sure which
  • "Clijsters began 1999 ranked No. 420 in singles.[18]" - in which ranking list, exactly?
  • "entering the main draw as a lucky loser after losing in the final round of qualifying." - is "lucky loser" an idiom or an actual tennis term? I have never heard it used, but if it's an idiom it should be rephrased because I think they should be avoided in encyclopedia articles
    • It is a tennis term, referring to a player who makes the main draw after losing in qualifying due to a different player in the main draw withdrawing from the tournament after qualifying already began. I added the wikilink to the lucky loser page. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:30, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After barely getting a spot in the qualifying draw," - wait, why is this? Elaborate?
  • "With her success, Clijsters became the first Belgian world No. 1 in each of singles and doubles.[18]" - same note as above
  • "She extended her tour win streak to 17 matches—all of which without dropping a set[17]" - don't need the "of which" I don't think
  • "she needed to retire from that match as well after twisting her ankle down a break in the third set " - is "down" meant to be "during?"

The other sections looked fine. This is a well-written and engaging article, and I'll be happy to support it per 1a once my comments are addressed. ceranthor 19:02, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ceranthor! I replied to each comment above. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:34, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Sportsfan77777: All fine except the one I responded to above. Support per 1a. ceranthor 13:16, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I made the change above. Sportsfan77777 (talk)

23:53, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Hawkeye7

edit

Overall, a great article. Well written and referenced. Will be happy to support. I have a few comments:

  • "Her father Lei was a professional football defender" Can we link football here? I had no idea what code they play in Belgium.
  • "world No. 1" Should "world" be capitalised? Or should "No. 1" not? I'm inclined to the latter, per the article in question, but "No. x" is used consistently throughout the article.
  • "Clijsters's rivalry with Serena included two of the biggest controversies in Serena's career, the 2001 Indian Wells final which led to both Williams sisters' long boycott of the tournament and the 2009 US Open semifinal which Serena lost on a point penalty." Comma after "tournament".
  • The word "longtime" seems a bit over-used.
  • Looking at the Career statistics, they are sourced to [12] but this does not cover all the information presented. I there a missing source?
    • I added her WTA profile as a second source. I believe they both cover everything. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:01, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • The WTA profile is a little better in that lists not just the titles, but also the finals (and counts both). It also has the overall W–L records for each Grand Slam. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:01, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • With the ITF profile, the performance timelines can be found under the "Grand Slam Singles" and "Grand Slam Doubles" tabs. The year-end rankings and a list of titles are on the default "Biography" tab. The individual match results for the Grand Slam finals (including opponents) can be found under the "Activity" tab, but you need to click on "View All". Otherwise, it just shows matches from the most recent 52 weeks (which is silly for retired players who haven't played recently...). Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:01, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • From looking at her WTA profile, I caught two errors in the singles performance timeline. First, I corrected the number of finals in 1999 (and the total). Second, her total number of wins at Wimbledon was one too high (due to a walkover match win in 2006, which doesn't officially count as a win towards her W–L record). I believe everything else is correct. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:01, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional portals: Belgium, Biography, Olympics, Women's sports.

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:06, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help, Hawkeye7! I addressed each of the comments above. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:01, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Looks great to me. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:37, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 14 April 2019 [13].

Crater (constellation)

edit
Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:44, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article got a good going-over at GAN. There are 30 constellation articles that are Featured, hence provide a good template, and I think this is within striking distance of FA-hood, so have at it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:44, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • 4.1, 141 in the following doesn't look cool: "orange-hued star of magnitude 4.1, 141 ± 2 light-years from the Sun." Shouldn't this be "orange-hued star of magnitude 4.1, and is/some/ 141 ± 2 light-years from the Sun."?
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:34, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
added the source that SIMBAD uses.. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:34, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
thx! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:18, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Squeamish Ossifrage

edit

Not to contradict the above editor, but I have quite a few problems with references and reference formatting.

Dude my support is on verifiability, not on formatting. AhmadLX (talk) 14:03, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Book-form sources need ISBNs when appropriate. Ideally, they should be presented as properly-hyphenated ISBN-13s. Many online ISBN converters will let you correct ISBN-10s or unhyphenated ISBN-13s.
isbns fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:10, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Publication locations for book-format sources are optional, but they are all or nothing. Many of yours have them, but not all.
locations added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:50, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article titles may be either in sentence case or title case, but you need to choose one and be consistent.
lower cased now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:18, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Chinese-language AEEA reference is pretty much just a raw external link. It is not formatted correctly and lacks, well, most essential bibliographic information.
extra info added and formatted Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:46, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is Ridpath a reliable source?
This is science writer Ian Ridpath - he has written popular astronomy guides and won awards etc. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:57, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed on this one... Squeamish Ossifrage (talk)
  • Unlike books, periodicals generally don't require a publisher unless that information would serve to prevent confusion. For stuff like Sky & Telescope, its inclusion is actively discouraged.
removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:59, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • You should be consistent about whether you shorten long lists of authors to et al. or list them in full.
all listed in full apart from GAIA one(s) as not sure about formatting Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:18, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • For Kunitzsch and Smart 2006, it should be Sky Publishing, not Sky Pub.
unabbreviated Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:59, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Gaia Data Release 2" has two identical entries in the reference list.
Nope, I'm wrong. Three At least four! Okay, lots more than that. You need to use SOME method to condense these. I don't know if there are any other sources with this problem. It makes evaluating the reference section far more challenging than it should be.
I'm not sure the best way to have this - is the one reference with links to different data Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:18, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I like to think of myself as science-literate, but this gets pretty deep into the weeds of astronomy sourcing for me to be comfortable with making definitive statements. So please let me know if I'm understanding things correctly! The only difference between the various citations appears to be the VizieR link. This presents, to me, two possibilities. 1) Is the information being cited actually available (in the plain, anyway) in the base source—the Astronomy & Astrophysics publication? If so, then the VizieR links can perhaps be omitted to make the sourcing easier to manage (if they're very important, perhaps introduce why in footnote?). 2) If you're relying directly on the VizieR entries, then the citations should be restructured to indicate that's what you're citing. Or, perhaps, I've gotten the entire situation wrong? Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:15, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The anser is "sort of". Many astronomy articles have results or data covering a large number of objects (sometimes in the thousands). The article listed here, will not contain a table listing all the results. What you have to do is find the page that lists the data and enter the identifier, which will give you this. The table that supplies this data is not viewable in the article itself, only the online search tool Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:43, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • You sometimes give volume and issue for The Astronomical Journal, and sometimes only volume. Be consistent (and volume and issue is preferable).
issues added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:23, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seligman is not properly formatted (URLs are not site names). Also, why is this a reliable source?
The profile suggests he knows what he's talking about :). Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:28, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
...but not agreed on this one. Don't get me wrong, I'm certain that he does, in fact, know what he's talking about. But our self-published source use guideline requires the self-published author be "an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published". He holds a Master of Arts degree in astronomy and his career has principally consisted of teaching at a community college. Regardless of the merits of his web resource, I'm struggling to see how its use is compliant with WP:SPS. He is not an "established expert" in astronomy (or any narrower field thereof). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:15, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This I can deal with - will do so tomorrow. Busy weekend and I need to sleep Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:44, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, galaxies can be tricky to find info on. Had to remove some info. Ok over to you @Squeamish Ossifrage: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:36, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

At this time, this should not be considered an exhaustive analysis of the sources used or reference formatting. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 02:22, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Jim

edit

Usual high standard, a few quibbles Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:03, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • ’’ 2nd-century ‘’ — Is this MoS? I’d write second-century
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:06, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • ’’ John H. Rogers’’ —who he? Perhaps nationality and job so we know why he matters?
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:06, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • ’’ Alpha through Lambda’’ —Although capped in star names, should be lc here
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:06, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • ’’ the white dwarf is unable to be seen’’ —’’cannot be seen’’ is tidier
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:06, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • ’’ periodically ignites and erupts’’—perhaps clarify this isn’t combustion?
not sure how without going into a lot of extra detail... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:06, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jens Lallensack

edit

First comments, did not read everything just yet:

  • He proposed that Corvus and Crater (along with the water snake Hydra) were death symbols – unclear to me: It was previously mentioned that they possibly were not separate constellations in Mesopotamia, combined into the Babylonian Raven? When was the constellation first seen as distinct?
Ok, it is discussed on pages 25 and 26 of this paper, with another mention on a table on page 19. I have tried to convey the source as accurately as possible without interpretation. It talks about the cup, raven and water snake being a "group" mostly but then isn't clear from the table whether the stars of Crater are just incorporated into the raven. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:27, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
According to our Babylonian star catalogues it is Sumerian not Akkadian...trying to clarify in the source if possible... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:33, 10 March 2019 (UTC) not explicitly mentioned in source. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:26, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • These two constellations – "these two" means Crater and Corvus? But why not Hydra?
Oops, that was Corvus and Hydra only (I buffed Corvus before). Imported by mistake and now removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:31, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The three brightest stars—Delta, Alpha and Gamma Crateris—from a triangle – Is it supposed to be "form"? But I wonder if it makes sense to mention that three stars are forming a triangle: they always form one, except for when they are on a single line?
yes it should be "form" - yes true, three stars should always form a triangle. I guess it means they are distinctive three stars near Nu Hydrae. (i.e. not four or two or another number of stars, and the triangle is not flattened) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:52, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have no source that says that, and the books often shy away from less distinctive shapes. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:52, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • traditionally called Alkes "the cup" – what language is this, may be worth adding?
Arabic - added as footnote so as not to disrupt flow Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:51, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • While reading through the list of stars I was repeatedly wondering where the discussed stars are located within the constellation (some stars have this info, others do not). Unfortunately the map does not show all of them.
Early in wikipedia, all the IAU maps were imported to use. They (and about 99% of maps) generally only incorporate the brighter stars. I am not sure why this is, It'd certainly make the map "busy". Maybe there is a belief that hardcore people really wanting to know where a star is will just use the coordinates....not sure. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:51, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok @Jens Lallensack: do you have further queries? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:34, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any reason why this book isn't used? It has much more detail on the mythology part. For example, it explains why the water snake would be an excuse (something that let me wonder while reading this article). Also, it states that after being casted on the sky, the crow is prohibited to drink from the cup; wouldn't this also be an important fact to add? The book even contains a brief description on the shape of the constellation (see comment above). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:48, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I have never come across that book in google book searches! Yes it is very useful! Thanks! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:38, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any thoughts on the additions I suggested (why is the snake an excluse; crow is prohibited to drink from the cup)? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:05, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, forgot to add those tidbits. Now added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:36, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and support. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:39, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Support It mostly looked good, although I had to edit in a couple of places. There's just one minor nit:

  • "The largest star in the constellation, Epsilon Crateris...": Perhaps the largest naked eye star in the constellation? Otherwise I don't know how this claim can ever hold up.
Good point - tweaked (am sure that is what the source implied anyway) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:18, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Other than that, I support for FA status. Praemonitus (talk) 00:40, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

thx! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:18, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Colin M

edit

Mostly prose-related.

tweaked. I have a vague memory of that being argued the other way in the past. But I will go with the target article Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:39, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no star brighter than third magnitude. This is a weird way to start a paragraph. Presumably you mean in the constellation? It kind of comes off as an absolute statement.
tweaked. trying to be a tad too brief. and failing Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:39, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • A few copy editing issues in Phylarchus paragraph...
    • Phylarchus wrote of a different origin for Crater: the city of Eleusa near Troy was beset by plague. The colon kind of gives the impression that what follows (up to the end of the sentence) will be the origin. I would structure the paragraph more like Phylarchus wrote of a different origin for Crater. He told how the city of Eleusa near Troy was beset by plague. Its ruler, Demiphon...
tweaked. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:53, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • 'its' not capitalized at start of sentence
whoops! tweaked. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:53, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Seems appropriate to wikilink at least 'Eleusa' or 'Troy' (and possibly character names if they're significant enough to have articles?)
I looked for something to link Eleusa but couldn't find conclusive one. linked Troy. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:53, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • its ruler Demiphon consulted an oracle who decreed that a maiden would be sacrificed each year, which he subsequently determined by lottery. I find this wording just a little awkward. 'which' is clearly supposed to refer to 'the choice of maiden', but it doesn't quite follow grammatically. Maybe break up the sentence again? Its ruler Demiphon consulted an oracle who decreed that a maiden would be sacrificed each year. Demiphon declared that he would choose a maiden by lottery, but did not include his own daughter.
duly tweaked. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:00, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Later, Mastusius killed Demiphon's daughters... Paragraph previously referred to daughter singular.
that was a mistake. tweaked. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:00, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's a 'lunar mansion'? Can that be wikilinked? Or it might be simpler to trim that detail (it seems peripheral to the topic at hand - if the reader wants to learn more about the Vermillion Bird of the South, they can click that article link)
linked. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:00, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, 'Vermillion Bird of the South' isn't fully capitalized in the corresponding article. Are you sure it's appropriate to capitalize here?
article header is capped. first sentence isn't. other mentions are. so changed the offending first sentence on other article. It is a proper title so should be capped. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:00, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you're going to have this 'In other cultures' subsection, shouldn't the content about the Babylonian Raven also go there?
this one is a bit less obvious but usually the Babylonian material segues into classical material seamlessly and it makes more sense to keep in one section, leaving In other cultures for non-indo-european myths. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:00, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the 'Stars' and 'Deep-sky objects' sections could do a better job of providing context to the reader and following the spirit of summary style. The 'Stars' section starts by giving some good context about the first few stars mentioned and why they're noteworthy in the context of the constellation (e.g. they're especially bright, or they're positioned at some extremity). But starting around R Crateris, the text gets fully entrenched in the pattern of just listing stars (and their statistics) one after the other without giving any obvious indication of why we should care. I would try to lead with that indication of noteworthiness. e.g. Seven star systems in Crater have been found to host planets, including BD−10 3166, WASP-34, and HD 96167 which each host planets with minimum mass approximately half of Jupiter's. In 2012, it was discovered that the sun-like planet HD 98649 has a long-period planet companion, at least.... I'm far from a subject-matter expert on this, but I feel like you could trim some of the specific statistics (unless they're important and contextualized in prose) from these sections. Readers can always look up stats at List of stars in Crater or at the corresponding article for the particular celestial object, right?
this is tricky. There are a bunch of variable stars from R crateris onwards. I wanted to find a source that explained that variable stars were of interest to observers (I found one ages ago but forgot where I got it and where I used it) Stars with debris disks and planets are self-explanatory in their interest. Will have another look Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:05, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have you thought about having a 'History' section? You mention in the intro that the constellation was listed by Ptolemy in the 2nd century BC. There are some more facts about the historical development of the constellation sprinkled in the article (e.g. that its official boundaries were set in 1930 by so-and-so, that Flamsteed at some point conceived of it as a combined constellation with Hydra, and gave them some designation). I wonder if there's more to be said about its status over time (and whether it would be worthwhile saying it in one centralized section). Just an idea.
my take on it is that would be a bit clunky and essentially divide it pretty much the way it is now. Even though the 1930 material is nearly a century old, it is still current so calling it historical would be misrepresenting it really. Also the ancient material as a body I thought is more exacting than a histoy label. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:00, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

-Colin M (talk) 04:16, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coord notes

edit

Looks like we still need an image licensing check and, given Squeamish Ossifrage's caveat above, another set of eyes on source reliability and formatting. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:34, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I take that The Patrick Moore Practical Astronomy Series, Sky Publishing and (especially) Phanes Press are reliable sources? Same for Ian Ridpath, normally when we use self published sources in FAs we want well recognized experts.
Patrick Moore has authored many books and generally well-regarded Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:13, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The other sources seem fine for me and so is the general formatting of the references, but I did not check that (formatting) aspect so deeply.
  • File:Crater IAU.svg: Is the current license correct? The copyright page gives CC-BY 4.0.
updated Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:21, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
not so sure. It was designed as a map to teach astronomy rather than art for its own sake - depends on how narrow or wide the definition is I suspect... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:21, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Upon thinking, commons:Template:PD-scan may be more appropriate ... but a lot depends on how much work Adam Cuerden did to the image. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:38, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well he cleaned it up. Dunno how someone quantifies that....added anyway as the basic look is the same... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:13, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As I live in Britain, my work definitely qualifies me for copyright, but I'm generally happy to release (and have here) This is from the Library of Congress ( US Federal government - no copyright), so only my work has copyright. PD-Art or PD-Scan definitely are not appropriate, as the LoC, as a US Federal government branch, cannot gain a copyright. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.5% of all FPs 11:35, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:CraterCC.jpg: Can we be certain that the Wikimedia uploader and the source website operator are the same person?
the edits of the uploader suggest so. I don't feel strongly about the image and would miss its removal of reviewers felt the evidence was insufficient. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:21, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am inclined to AGF on this then. I presume you could email them through their website to get confirmation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:38, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is no ALT text anywhere that I can see. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:38, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:21, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Thanks for the image review. Can you ping me when you consider these items resolved? --Laser brain (talk) 21:00, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Laser brain:I've pinged Adam Cuerden, as I am not 100% certain whether they are claiming any credit for the restoration work. Depending on how extensive the changes were they may create a copyright. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:58, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Laser brain:Based on Adam Cuerden's comments it seems like the last aspects of copyright are resolved here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:41, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 13 April 2019 [14].

Newberry Volcano

edit
Nominator(s): ceranthor 16:07, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the largest volcano in the Cascade arc. It's been a long time coming, but I think this is a comprehensive and well-written account of a major volcano. ceranthor 16:07, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by JJE

edit

My peer review comments here were meant to be the equivalent of a FAC review, including point by point review against FAC criteria. They are resolved, so I'll support right away. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:15, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Jo-Jo Eumerus. ceranthor 16:22, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support. In passing, I notice two words that look like BrE in anotherwise AmE article: "amphitheatre" and "centimetre". I'm not sure the mention of Rhode Island in the lead is especially helpful to an international readership. The ISBNs are inconsistently hyphenated. And I think it is usual to indicate among the online sources which ones are subscription only. But these are exceedingly minor points, and the article is readable and clear. It looks, to my inexpert eye, to be comprehensive, and is thoroughly and widely referenced. Meets the FA criteria in my view. – Tim riley talk 11:25, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tim riley: Thanks for these detailed comments. I changed the BrE spellings and dropped the RI mention from the lead (but kept in the main body). Is there a systematic way to check to see if the articles are subscription only (perhaps incognito mode in Chrome would be useful for that)? Likewise, is there a source that lists ISBNs for all book sources that I could use, since Google Books / Amazon don't seem to include the hyphens for ISBNs. ceranthor 13:31, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I can't think of any systematic way of checking which sites are free and which need a subscription. Presumably you had to log in somewhere to view the latter? For those sites the {{subscription}} template can be added to the citation. If you are going to follow up the point about ISBNs (and I'm not entirely sure I'd be so thorough in your position, but don't say I said so) the way I get hyphens in 13-digit ISBNs is to go to https://www.isbn.org/ISBN_converter, input the un- or part-hyphenated ISBN to get the 10-digit version and then copy and paste the 10-digit number into the converter and lo - the 13 digit number appears, complete with hyphens. It's something of a fiddle-faddle, and there may be a better method if I only knew it. Tim riley talk 13:58, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That seems reasonable. I'll use that for the ISBNs, and I'll let you know when I figure out the subscription issue. Thanks. ceranthor 13:59, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Tim riley: Think I got all the ones that weren't public/open access. Thanks! ceranthor 14:10, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All looking admirable now, in my view. Looking forward to seeing the article on the front page. Tim riley talk 22:06, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

@Nikkimaria: Sorry, can you clarify the 70 years ago bit of your comment? Per Commons:Hirtle_chart, I would think that this being published prior to 1924 would make it fall under PD. I changed to the standard US-PD template. ceranthor 13:51, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Because you were using the {{PD-old}} template which refers to authors who died over 70 years ago. Now it's using the correct template. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:51, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, understood. Thanks for clarifying. ceranthor 17:24, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

edit
  • Spotchecks not carried out
  • The sources appear to be of the appropriate standards of quality and reliability
  • All links to sources have been tested and are working
  • Formatting. There is a small inconsistency relating to the locations of publishers of book sources. In a couple of cases (Harris, Kienle & Wood) you give the location, in other cases you don't. Otherwise sources are presented uniformly and consistently. Brianboulton (talk) 19:28, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Brianboulton: Thanks, Brian, for noticing the location discrepancy. Is it generally better to include location for all book sources in your estimation? ceranthor 19:51, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to do it, but I don't insist if you feel otherwise. It's a very small point. Brianboulton (talk) 20:03, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Brianboulton: Went ahead and removed the locations for consistency. Thanks for the review. ceranthor 20:15, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Jim

edit

Great stuff, just a few niggles, may be more when I finish reading Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:55, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • its northernmost to southernmost point;— why not from north to south?
  • known as Newberry Caldera— I'm not sure this needs saying twice, certainly shouldn't be bolded twice
  • 12,000 acre feet in volume —needs conversion to metric
  • Animals near Newberry Volcano consist of burrowing owls...— flesh and bones is more likely, include is better
  • 0.0012 to 0.4363 square miles (0.3 to 113 ha) — elsewhere you have used acres for small areas, inconsistent to use fractional sq mi here
@Jimfbleak: Thanks, these were helpful. Think I've addressed them all, except for the acre-foot one, which I've replied to above. ceranthor 17:21, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For the acre-foot, I guess you would have to manually convert to cubic metres, but I'll leave that with you. Otherwise all looks good, changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:33, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Will do. Thanks for the support, Jim! ceranthor 18:36, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian Rose, Laser brain, and Sarastro1: Wanted to check in and see if this nomination was missing any elements necessary for review? I think it's had a thorough source review and image review, though I suppose it might still need spotchecks. ceranthor 14:50, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ceranthor: We just haven't gotten to this one yet in our recent passes through the list. I'll be checking it out soon! --Laser brain (talk) 15:50, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 13 April 2019 [15].

Irakli Tsereteli

edit
Nominator(s): Kaiser matias (talk) 00:54, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Irakli Tsereteli was a Georgian politician active in revolutionary Russia, and arguably the most important figure in the Petrograd Soviet until the Bolsheviks took over. Now largely forgotten, he played a major role in leading the Soviet and giving it power within the Russian government. The article was nominated once before several months ago, but failed due to lack of reviews. I'm hoping this time we can resolve that. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:54, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  • After the October Revolution and rise of the Bolsheviks, he returned to Georgia. Tsereteli worked as a diplomat at the Paris Peace Conference, where he lobbied for international recognition and assistance for the newly independent Democratic Republic of Georgia, which largely failed to materialize before the Red Army invaded in 1921. - could you split that, or reword it somehow? It's a lot for once sentence.
Used a semi-colon, is that enough you think?
  • In 1915, during his Siberian exile, he formed what became known as Siberian Zimmerwaldism, and developed "Revolutionary Defensism", the concept of a defensive war, which Tsereteli argued was not being conducted at the time. - these are two different thoughts. You should split them into two. For the first, I suggest starting with, "During his 1915 Siberian exile, Tsereteli formed what became known as Siberian Zimmerwaldism". Here, I would explain what this term is to benefit the reader. For the second half, the "was not being conducted at the time" is a bit confusing. Could you try rewording that a bit?
Tried to re-word this, but I'm a little uncertain and feel it can be made better. Let me know what you think.
Much better! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:13, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "at his family's estate in Gorisa;[3] From a young age" - not to be pedantic (but that's what FAC is for), but if you're using a semicolon, then "from" shouldn't be capitalized.
Thanks. Pedantry is definitely welcome and encouraged.
Much appreciated lol ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:13, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he was one of two students given a sentence of five years' exile in Siberia, the longest sentence given." - I'm confused by "longest sentence given." Longest among two people? Among students in general? Longest possible sentence?
Clarified
  • and considering "its acceptance as being in conflict with [his] views" - was this quote by Tsereteli? Or his biographer?
Clarified Tsereteli himself wrote it. It's unclear who he wrote it too, otherwise I'd add that.
  • "After declining the offer to return to Georgia, Tsereteli was sent to the village of Tulun, roughly 400 kilometres from Irkutsk, arriving in early 1902." - make sure you have imperial units for American folks. The sentence could be stronger, something like - "Tsereteli arrived in the village of Tulun in early 1902, located about 400 kilometres (250 miles) from Irkutsk, Siberia's administrative center."
Done
  • "On his release from prison Tsereteli returned to Georgia" - so the Siberian bit, he was in jail? I was confused because he was permitted to move to Irkutsk, and prisoners don't usually have a say.
Exile in Tsarist Russia was a little unusual like that: prisoners in Siberia were not jailed per se, and as a result escapes were quite common (Stalin, for example, was exiled and escaped multiple times in his younger years). I've changed the word "jail" to "exile" so hopefully it makes it slightly clearer.
Thanks, I had a feeling that was the case. It's clearer now. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:13, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Suffering from a form of haemophilia, Tsereteli became seriously ill in the autumn of 1905, but was unable to quickly return home as the 1905 Revolution broke out in the Russian Empire.[20] It was only in May 1906 that he returned to Georgia." - so did he not go home because of his illness or because of the revolution? Given the next paragraph, I'm guessing the illness?
Tried to clarify that: he was supposed to go home for rest, but the revolution got in the way.
  • After you quote the first speech, you should end it with a period and continue. Also, the "or indeed anything" felt a bit unencyclopediac.
Fixed
That is a mistake on the article, which I've fixed. Thanks for noticing that.
  • "Stolypin grew increasingly tired of the opposition from the Social Democrats, and feared that his reforms would not be passed" - I had to read this a few times before I realized you weren't talking about the subject of this article. Perhaps put this in the previous section? It feels out of place almost.
Moved this sentence and the next one to the previous section, as they kind of flow well together.
  • "A conspiracy was created implicating the Social Democrats with trying to overthrow the government" - given that there is a link to the coup, could you maybe reword this to be more specific? Such as, "In June 1907..." I don't know what happened after because I'm only reading the article for the first time, and I was confused by the wording. Be more specific with what happened.
This I will have to get back on. I can't recall the specifics of it, and will have to read up on it to best summarize it for here. Give me a couple days to do so.
Thanks, that's the only part that's still giving me a bit of trouble. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:13, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to re-word it, but as the alleged conspiracy was less important than the actual arrest, I don't want to place too much emphasis on it here. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:40, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Duma was dissolved on 2 June 1907 and shortly after midnight on 3 June several of the Social Democrats were arrested, including Tsereteli." - using active voice instead of passive voice would make this whole section clearer.
I think I fixed this, but I'm not sure.
  • "Tsereteli also engaged in discussion with other Social Democrats in the Irkutsk region on his views towards the war, and like them would have them published in a journal – Siberian Journal (Сибирский Журнал, in Russian), later replaced by the Siberian Review (Сибирское Обозрение) – that he edited" - the "like them" part threw me, as well as "that he edited", thrown at the very end. Could you try rewording it?
Re-worded, hope that makes it clearer.
It's better. I think it could still be split up more into separate sentences, but I'm not gonna harp on it. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:13, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Through his editorship of the journals, Tsereteli both became a mentor to other Siberian Zimmerwaldists and influenced the group's stance on the war, even though he only wrote three articles over the course of the war, making it difficult to fully determine his position." - the ending kinda threw me off. Is there any way you could word it to be a bit more definitive?
Re-wrote, any better?
Much. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:13, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Tsereteli was appointed to the Soviet on 21 in an advisory role" - when?
Sorry, seem to be missing a "March" there. Fixed.
I miss words or do double words all the time, no worries :) ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:13, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anything about Tsereteli's time as a lawyer?
Unfortunately not. The main source of his life is sub-titled "A Political Biography," and really holds up to that, and no one else really wrote about him.
Limitations of the time, completely understood. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:13, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's not much from 1932 to 1948. What did he do then?
As noted, there isn't anything out there I'm aware of on this era in his life. Even his own memoirs focus on 1917, which is a shame.

The article is in pretty good shape. I'm sorry the article failed before due to lack of comments. I hope you don't find my comments too burdensome. I happened upon this FAC while I was working on an FAC of my own. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:06, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for looking over it in such detail, definitely not budensome. Glad to have someone not familiar with the topic look it over, always helps to clarify things I would take for granted. And certainly will take a look at your FAC when I have some time. Kaiser matias (talk) 03:36, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who writes about historical, often forgotten subjects, I'm glad to be detailed in my review. I thank you for your quick replies. I'll support when you clear up the bit about the coup, as it's a well-written article, and I learned a lot about the Russian Revolution through this one figure. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:13, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for your hard work on the article. Supporting now! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:38, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

edit
  • Spotchecks not carried out (I have no access to these sources)
  • The article appears to be widely researched, and the sources appear to be of the appropriate scholarly standards of quality and reliability
  • A couple of minor presentational points:
  • Ref 110: page range format is not consisitent
  • In the bibliography, Trotsky is out of alphabetical sequence

Otherwise, sourcing information is impeccably presented. Brianboulton (talk) 17:44, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking it over. I do believer most of the sources here are (or were at one point) available through Google Books, though I also kept to largely prominent scholars (most of them have their own articles here, for what it's worth). Kaiser matias (talk) 02:51, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tim riley

edit

It is not clear whether the article is meant to be in BrEng or AmerEng. At present we have the English spellings centre, defence, favourable, haemophilia, kilometres, organisations, publicised and travelled and the American center, criticized, defense, and (weirdly) maneuvered. We also have disinterest, which doesn't mean what I think you think it means, and attitute, which doesn't mean anything. I hope to look in again with more substantive comments shortly, but I hope these few orthographical points are of some use. Tim riley talk 00:02, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're seeing the result of a Canadian trying to use British variations, and apparently not doing so good. I will admit I don't quite get what you mean in referring to "maneuvered" (is there a British version of it I'm unaware of), or your reference to "disinterest" (a lack of involvement, which fits with Tsereteli's reaction to religion). If there's any other egregious issues please let me know, and I'll certainly give it another pass myself. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:40, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
BrE users follow the French spelling "manoeuvre" (though rarely using that strange French diphthong, as in "manœuvre"). The OED confirms that "maneuver" is "North American", so if that's your preferred form of spelling for the whole article, that's fine, but you'll want to be consistent throughout. "Disinterested" doesn't mean "not involved with" but means being impartial. One wants one's efforts to be judged by disinterested judges but not by uninterested ones. Tim riley talk 18:03, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanations, I was unaware of those and am glad for the advice. I've changed the wording in both cases to avoid any issues. Kaiser matias (talk) 16:41, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tim, do you have time to comment further on the article? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:02, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Give me a few hours. I'll comment today if I possibly can. Tim riley talk 10:10, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support – There are comments, above and below, from reviewers far more expert in the field than I am, but as a complete newcomer to the topic I find this article readable, clear, well illustrated and drawing on a wide range of sources ranging from vintage to recent. It seems to be balanced and impartial, and does not go into excessive detail. A few minor drafting points, which don't affect my support:

  • In Early years and education "more cautioned against" reads oddly. Perhaps "more cautious about"?
Changed
  • In October Revolution "Seen as a threat ... a warrant for Tsereteli's arrest was issued" goes off the rails syntactically. It was Tsereteli, not the warrant, that was seen as a threat.
Changed the wording to make it more clear.
  • In Paris Peace Conference and Europe I think I'd make "the British wanted allies in the region in the event the Bolsheviks allied with the Turks" "the British wanted allies in the region in case the Bolsheviks allied with the Turks" (I had to read this sentence twice to get the meaning, but that may just be me).
Changed.
  • In Exile and later life there is not quite a dangling participle but a slightly odd one in "Initially working with Fedor Dan, whom he had met during his Siberian exile, they clashed", where the intended sense calls for "he" or "Tsereteli" rather than "they..."
Modified wording.
  • In Political views "only Belgium fit" needs to be "only Belgium fitted".
Changed (thanks for that, another British style I'm not used to).
  • In Legacy the first sentence of the second paragraph is missing something at the end: Rex Wade notes that because xxx, and then we stop, when "because xxx" needs to be followed up by "then yyy".
I removed the "because," so it should be more straightforward now.
  • Also in Legacy "an apt, simple form" – a touch editorial but not objectionably so.
Made it more factual and direct
  • A duplicate link to Ukraine seems harmless, but could go.
removed

Very minor points. Happy to support the promotion of this informative and enjoyable article, which seems to me to meet the FA criteria. – Tim riley talk 17:05, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tim riley: Thanks again for your assistance, especially in the finer points of the BrEng style. I've addressed everything here, but of course if you see anything else please say so. Kaiser matias (talk) 02:47, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure. I've learned much from the article page – and have learned something from this review page too: I had no idea that in any variety of English the past tense of the verb "fit" was "fit". Now I know. I hope to see the excellent article on the front page in due course. Tim riley talk 16:17, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit
Without looking further yet, I believe they may have first came out in his memoirs, which was published in 1963 in France. Kaiser matias (talk) 16:41, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If that was the first publication, that will present a problem with regards to the current tagging. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:50, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. I'll take a look at the book and see what can be done. As they are both nominally government-produced, I should be able to find earlier publication dates for them. Just need a couple days to get to the source. Kaiser matias (talk) 17:35, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria:: I was incorrect, and both are from the Roobol book. They are cited within as published in 1917 (lead) and 1904 (mugshot). Thoughts on how to proceed? Kaiser matias (talk) 02:24, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What specifically is said about their provenance in that source? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:26, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The first one says: "Tsereteli as Minister of Posts and Telegraphs. From a picture photograph." The next: "Tsereteli in the Metekhi prison in Tiflis in 1904." Kaiser matias (talk) 03:41, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that doesn't mean they were published on those dates though. Is the Roobol book the earliest publication we can find for both? Nikkimaria (talk) 10:36, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) At the moment, yes. The originals would be at the Hoover Institution archives at Stanford University; however that is currently closed to access for at least another year. Kaiser matias (talk) 02:38, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately without more information we'd have to assume these are still under copyright. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:53, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Understandable. I'll remove them for now, and keep working on confirming their status. Kaiser matias (talk) 02:54, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Midnightblueowl

edit
  • This sentence is currently in the lede paragraph: "He was born and brought up in Georgia when it was part of the Russian Empire,". At the very least it needs to have the comma changed to a full stop, but I would recommend moving this to the start of the second paragraph anyway. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:52, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed
Done
  • "After the October Revolution and rise of the Bolsheviks," - I think that this wording maybe relies on a little too much prior knowledge on behalf of the reader. Perhaps something more explicit, along the lines of "After the Bolsheviks seized power of the Russian government during the October Revolution"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:52, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done
I added the qualifier "Bolshvevik-led" in front, just because it wasn't really exclusively the "Russian" Red Army. Hope that works.
  • I would recommend pursuing a more integrated chronological approach in the lead. We mention his death at the end of the second paragraph and then start talking about further thing which he did during his life in the third. That feels a little confused, to me. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:52, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Reorganised it to be more chronological, hopefully it makes more sense now.
  • "a leading Social-Democratic spokesman". I think the leader could be clearer about his specific party membership and ideological bent here, particularly as "Social-Democratic" can have various different meanings. I would recommend something like "Ideologically a socialist, he was a leading spokesman for the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party during the era of the Russian Revolutions." That would be much clearer and less ambiguous for the reader. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:54, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Added the link to the parties, including the Georgian one, as he was quite prominent there, too.
Thanks for going over it, if there's anything else please let me know. Kaiser matias (talk) 02:49, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Midnightblueowl: Is there anything else that needs to be addressed? Kaiser matias (talk) 18:09, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Found some free images to use.
Added the link to the specific branch of Orthodoxy.
@Midnightblueowl:, Anything else? Kaiser matias (talk) 01:32, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we really need "(Georgian: ირაკლი [კაკი] გიორგის ძე წერეთელი; Russian: Ира́клий Гео́ргиевич Церете́ли, Irakliy Georgievich Tsereteli;" in the first sentence? It takes up almost the entirety of the line. Might it be better to stick this in as a Note or something? I just worry that it's the sort of thing that puts some readers off my making the whole thing look too complicated. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:39, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Moved all that to a note.
  • " A dedicated social democrat," - what do we mean by this? My worry is that social democracy as we now understand it did not really exist at this point. Might "A dedicated socialist" be better (and more appropriate)? Or do you disagree? Just think we need to be clear in the way we present ourselves and avoid anachronism. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:40, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The term "social democrat" is fairly established for Tsereteli and the faction he belong to in Georgia and Russia (the RSDRP itself was founded in 1898). It would be inaccurate to describe him as a full-on socialist, as he was more moderate than that (hence the use of "social democrat"). That said I have tried to add a qualifier in the lead there, hopefully it makes it more apparent.
  • "the writings of Charles Darwin," - it may seem a bit silly, but perhaps we could just clarify who Darwin was: "the British biologist Charles Darwin" or something. Just in case some readers don't know or at least might require reminding. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:10, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Added a brief description
Added mention of Christianity at first.
Done
Added
Done
Changed
  • "This refusal, which was publicised with other exiles, cited social democracy, and effectively confirmed Tsereteli's support for the ideology by this point." I think we may need some clarity on this point. If I understand correctly, at this point, "Social Democracy" was a term used by Marxist parties and it meant something explicitly socialist; it was only later, as a result of changes in the German Social Democratic Party, that the term came to be associated with the ort of centre-left, quasi-socialist ideology we now know. I think that here we need to be careful lest we apply the later ideology to Tsereteli. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:10, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I do understand what you mean, and agree the wording needs to be careful to not give off the wrong viewpoint. I added the qualifier that it was social democracy as understood by the RSDLP, though if you think there's a better way to show the distinction without disrupting the flow of the article I'd gladly add it.
  • "became familiar with the Russian social democrats, particularly Marxism" - again, let's be careful here. If by "Russian social democrats" we mean members of the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party, then we should make that clear. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:10, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've capitalised "Russian Social Democrats", which with the mention prior to the party itself, hopefully makes it clearer.
Done.
Done.
  • The article talks about both Bolsheviks and Mensheviks but does not clarify that they were different factions of the same party, or explain the schism in any way. I'd definitely recommend adding a sentence or two to the main article making this clear. Otherwise I think we rely on the reader having too much background knowledge. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:14, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Added a brief note to the first mention of both Menshevik and Bolshevik in the article, and mentioned the 1903 split. As Tsereteli had nothing to do with the split I don't want to get too detailed into it, but agree something should be mentioned there.
  • "what type of opposition" - it might be best to specify "anti-war opposition" here as the article has previously referred to the "opposition" in a different context, meaning the anti-government elements of the Duma. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:15, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Noted it was against the war.
Cut it down into a couple smaller sentences.
  • "was not strong enough to call a general strike, as the proletariat was not strong enough to overthrow capitalism," - "strong enough... strong enough". Bit repetitive. Perhaps make an alteration to "the proletariat was too weak to overthrow capitalism" or something like that. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:34, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
Changed.
Done.
Done
Changed
  • "the Provisional Government claimed it was the legitimate successor to the Russian Empire," - it claimed it was the legitimate successor to the empire's government, not the empire itself (that would be the Russian Republic). Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:34, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Clarified.
  • "for the post of Prime Minister" - previously in this section, "prime minister" has always be written in lower case. I'd make sure that this is standardised, whichever you choose (I'd go for the capitalised form, but it doesn't greatly matter). Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:34, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As it is a specific title and used as such throughout, made them capitalised.
Changed.
  • "the two were asked to attend on account of their contacts in Europe, and that neither had a major role in the Georgian government" I'm not 100% clear what the latter half of this sentence means. Could it be clarified? Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:34, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Made it clearer.
Noted.
Have addressed some of the comments, will get back to the rest shortly. Kaiser matias (talk) 19:40, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Clarified
This came up before (above actually), and as I noted it wasn't specifically the "Russian" Red Army, and while it is a rather pedantic point, I feel it is slightly anachronistic to add that qualifier.
Added qualifier
Changed.
Added location.
Changed
Agreed. His papers are housed at Stanford University, but are unavailable for the next few years. I'd ideally like to go and look at them myself when they are available again.
I noted he was against Lenin's Marxist views, as that is more in line with what the source says.
I've changed the wording to make it more neutral, while still noting he's relatively obscure.
Addressed everything here. As always appreciate you taking the time to go through the article in such detail, it really helps to have someone familiar with the topic to critique it. Kaiser matias (talk) 20:12, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Midnightblueowl: How are you feeling about the condition of the article now? Any further comments/concerns? --Laser brain (talk) 19:52, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Laser brain: I'm very happy to Support this article as an FA. Excellent work, Kaiser Matias, well done. talk) 14:38, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 12 April 2019 [16].

Lancaster's chevauchée of 1346

edit
Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 17:35, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The latest in my series of articles attempting to improve coverage of the Hundred Years' War. The war in Gascony was crucial to the events of the war in 1346, but was overshadowed by the English victory at Crécy in August. The Earl of Lancaster had successfully kept the cream of the French army away from Crecy by holding out at the Siege of Aiguillon before south west France was stripped of troops to face Edward III in north east France. Lancaster then took 2,000 men and cut a swathe through French territory on a mounted raid lasting seven weeks, covering 350 miles, capturing numerous French towns and castles, and sacking the provincial capital, Poitiers. After a recent A class review I am hopeful that it approaches FA standard, but no doubt it contains flaws and lacunae and all suggestions for improvement are welcome. Pinging the contributors to the ACR, who may be interested in re-commenting for FAC @Buidhe, Peacemaker67, CPA-5, AustralianRupert, and P. S. Burton: So lay on, and be damned he who first cries "Hold, enough". Gog the Mild (talk) 17:35, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

edit
  • Spotchecks not carried out
  • Lacey: Robert Lacey wrote a series of books under the umbrella title of Great Tales from English History. You need to specify which particular volume this source refers to, and also to provide an ISBN.
  • In general, the sources appear to be of the appropriate standards of quality and reliability. There are no formatting issues.

Brianboulton (talk) 17:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Brianboulton, thank you for looking at the sources. Lacey: he did indeed. However, the 2008 the Folio Society edition consists of a selection from the three previous volumes, and so is not part of the series. It has no fuller nor more complete title, nor volume number. Nor does it have an ISBN; strange, but true. In support I offer the WorldCat entry with the note at the bottom "Selections from the work of the same title originally published in three volumes: London: Little, Brown, 2003-2006", and offering an OCLC, but no ISBN. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:09, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Brianboulton (talk) 20:35, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by PM

edit

I went through this article in detail at Milhist ACR, and I consider it meets all the FA criteria. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:49, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Jim

edit

Adding as I go... Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:42, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • both weak and disorganised.— Do you need "both"?
IMO yes. It adds a little emphasis to just how weak and disorganised the defences were, while deleting "both" makes it seem that one of the words is redundant. I will remove it if you prefer.
As long as you've thought about it, I'm fine with whatever you decide Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:57, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 160 miles (260 kilometres)... Among their cargos were over 100,000,000 litres (110,000,000 US quarts) So much wrong here. The first conversion is Imperial to metric, second is metric to US. Also, I'd query why US quart is more relevant to this article than the English quart? Also, what's wrong with using "millions" in your conversions instead of strings of zeroes?. Finally, unless the US spelling is different, it should be "cargoes". Incidentally, Battle of Bergerac has the same problems in an identical sentence.
As do three other FAs. I think that this sentence has been picked up in every ACR and FAC, or maybe it just feels like it. I have tended to go with the latest suggestion each time, and there is a TPW who keeps them consistent and/or how they prefer them.
I am honestly not that bothered. I do wish that the various reviewers were consistent, but I realise that this is Wikipedia. I count my blessings that I only get one opinion per review. I have a preference for all the zeros, as a way of preventing, possibly, a reader from glossing over how humongous a figure this was for the time. I think that I started with gallons, or maybe pints, converted to litres. What would you think of a three way conversion? (PS Three of my five paper dictionaries accept "cargos" as a British English plaural; I can't find an on line one that doesn't. That said, I am happy to go with 'cargoes' and will amend the other FAs accordingly.)
If you prefer the zeroes, that's fine with me, it's just a personal style preference, not a "must do". For the wine, the key thing is that the order must be imperial->metric, to be consistent with the other conversions. I suppose you could have a three-way conversion, although I wouldn't bother, myself. Chambers has "cargoes", but if you can justify the alternative spelling, obviously you can use it. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:57, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It had sailed but never landed, after the fleet was scattered in a storm.— perhaps better as The fleet had sailed, but was scattered in a storm and never reached its destination
Hmm. Yes, It doesn't work how it is. How about "It embarked on the English fleet, but the ships were scattered in a storm." (The never landed, never arrived bits are probably redundant.)
Fine with me Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:57, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jimfbleak, thanks for looking at this. Resonses to your comments above. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:26, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can't really see any issues in the rest of the text, so I'll change to support above, on the assumption that the conversion order will be fixed Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:57, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jim, thanks for the flexibility. I have gone with pints to litres, numerals, and cargoes. I will standardise thia across the other FAs. CPA-5, your input would be valued here. Note Jim's comments above. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:55, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm oh hello Gog, sure, why not. Personally I disagree about the imperial pints thing. First yes Britons may uses imperial pints instead of litres but that doesn't mean that the American pints should be ignored. The American pints are in general smaller than the British pints, so. Why shouldn't it be in the article if we change U.S. quarts to imperial pints? CPA-5 (talk) 21:32, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CPA-5, good to see you back in action. How would you feel about:

Among their cargoes were over 200,000,000 imperial pints (110,000,000 litres; 120,000,000 US quarts) of wine.

Gog the Mild (talk) 21:41, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hey Gog Hmm the word cargoes looks a little odd to me especially because it is tottaly the same in American English and British English it is even seen as an alternative. But if you really wanna change cargos into cargoes then it's fine IMO. Second I'll give Jim a point that an imperial unit should be first, because it'd be a little bit odd to see a metric unit before an imperial one but in the rest of the lead it is first the imperial unit instead of the metric one. Third IMO, it is weird to see two different non-metric units (imperial pints and U.S. quarts). I mean IMO if we have to go with quarts then I'd say: "Among their cargoes were over 100,000,000 imperial quarts (110,000,000 litres; 120,000,000 US quarts) of wine." if we have to go with pints then it should be: "Among their cargoes were over 200,000,000 imperial pints (110,000,000 litres; 240,000,000 US pints) of wine.". Both are correct but IMO both shouldn't be mixed because it can confuse the readers. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 16:47, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@CPA-5: Cargoes is the standard British English spelling. Cargos is US English. Some more modern dictionaries say that cargos is acceptable for British English, but the consensus is for cargoes.
What I was trying to do was go with the most appropriate and common unit for each reader. So imperial quarts are out; few British English readers will even have heard of them. (It would be worse than using decilitres rather than litres.) So my preference, and something Jim would be ok with, would be to just use pints and litres, as currently in the article. Or we could use the common units for each reader: pints, litres, US quarts - as above. Or we could go with:
Among their cargoes were over 200,000,000 imperial pints (110,000,000 litres; 240,000,000 US pints) of wine.
What would your preference be?
Gog the Mild (talk) 21:39, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So amended. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:09, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Jens Lallensack

edit

A great read, and not a single nitpick. However, I'm wondering if you have a general idea how to organize the content of the Hundred years war into articles? This article is very specialized. Much of it is context and aftermath, and only three paragraphs are on the Chevauchée itself. So I wonder why a separate article is needed here after all? What is the advantage compared with an article with a slightly larger scope? For an article as specialized as this, I would also expect to have more detail on the topic of the article, the Chevauchée, itself. Also, I would expect something about the historic sources. How much do we know, and from which sources? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:02, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jens, thanks for the feedback. This article is one of a series of five on the Hundred Years' War in Gascony 1345-46. The other four have passed FAC during the past two months. The question of the name came up at ACR, in the context of the article "taking too long to get to the point". I responded "I am happy to rename the article if you think that is called for. Several RSs refer to the whole post Siege of Aiguillon period under the catch all title of Lancaster's chevauchee, but if that misleads a reader then it can be changed." The reviewer didn't come back on this point, so nothing was changed.
The sources are more or less evenly split, and are not always internally consistent, as to whether the whole period, August-December, in Gascony should be referred to as Lancaster's chevauchee. Taking this wider definition, the article has eight paragraphs directly relating to it. I prefer the existing title, but as above "if that misleads a reader then it can be changed".
The question of the sources has also come up in an earlier FAC of a Gascon front article - see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Auberoche/archive1#Comments by Constantine for the discussion and conclusion. (I am not against discussion of sources when it is really necessary for a reader, eg see the first section of Battle of Cape Ecnomus, currently in ACR, or the second paragraph of Battle of Bergerac#Battle, FACed a week ago, but it is rarely considered necessary for military history articles.) Gog the Mild (talk) 17:36, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All right, I actually didn't get that, I assumed that the "French offensive" and "Anglo-Gascon offensive" sections are part the background and context, as they are excluded by the article's title and the definition given in the first sentence. I see the problem that the scope of the article does not become clear. And yes, I would think of a title that actually reflects the full content of the article. If such a title could be found that would be ideal, although I understand that the current title may sound much better. Alternatively, it might already get a bit clearer if you would rename the section "Gascony" in something containing the words "Background" or "Context", to be clear where the background stops and the actual article content starts? Also, the first sentence should imho make clear what the scope of the article is. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:39, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jens I have renamed and re-levelled some sections; what do you think? And how does the following sound as a lead?


Lancaster's chevauchée of 1346 is the name given to a series of offensives directed by Henry, Earl of Lancaster, in south western France during autumn 1346, as a part of the Hundred Years' War.

The year had started with a "huge" French army under John, Duke of Normandy, the French king's son and heir, besieging the strategically important town of Aiguillon in Gascony. Lancaster refused battle and harassed the French supply lines while preventing Aiguillon from being blockaded. After a five-month siege the French were ordered north to confront the main English army, which on 12 July had landed in Normandy under Edward III of England and commenced the Crécy campaign.

This left the French defences in the south west both weak and disorganised. Lancaster took advantage by launching offensives into Quercy and the Bazadais and himself leading a third force on a large-scale mounted raid (a chevauchée) between 12 September and 31 October 1346. All three offensives were successful, with Lancaster's chevauchée, of approximately 2,000 English and Gascon soldiers, meeting no effective resistance from the French, penetrating 160 miles (260 kilometres) north and storming the rich city of Poitiers. His force then burnt and looted large areas of Saintonge, Aunis and Poitou, capturing numerous towns, castles and smaller fortified places as they went. The offensives completely disrupted the French defences and shifted the focus of the fighting from the heart of Gascony to 50 miles (80 kilometres) or more beyond its borders.

Jens Gog the Mild (talk) 16:17, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, the sections are much clearer now. The lead you proposed reads very good, and assuming that the term "Lancaster's chevauchée" has been used somewhere to refer to the whole series of initiatives (as the article does), it should be totally fine. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:32, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jens. No, no; thank you. A reviewer prepared to step back and look at the big picture is most welcome. You have caused me to improve the article in ways which I would never have thought of alone.
You could open a move/rename discussion if you wish. But n source I have come across - and there are not many - uses a consistent name for this period in this theatre. The only name which any ever use is the one given to the article. (Not by me, BTW.) One could argue, quite reasonably IMO, that that is an error by the RS and that it should, strictly, only be applied to Lancaster's trip north. In which case we would have to invent our own name (such as "Anglo-Gascon offensives, autumn 1346). But without any support from RSs I uspect that we would get one opinion per participant, and I would prefer not to go there. But you would be entirely within your rights, and I would not take umbrage, so go for it if you wish. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:07, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, again, for the improvement of the lead; this was all, and more, I had asked for. Hoping to see further pieces of your series. Support. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:14, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SupportComments from Tim riley

edit

Another excellent article in the continuing series. I shall certainly be supporting, but first I offer a few very minor suggestions about the prose:

  • "commenced the Crécy campaign" – merely a stylistic point: Fowler writes that "commence" is a word used by the sort of writers who prefer "ere" and "save" to "before" and "except" (and I never see the verb without thinking of a Noël Coward line: "I just can't abide the word 'testicles'. It's smug and refined like 'commence' and 'serviette' and 'haemorrhoids'. When in doubt always turn to the good old Anglo-Saxon words".)
Apart from "ere" I am guilty of all of those. With deliberate aforethought. If you think that "commence" is wrong or infelicitous, feel free to change it with my blessing, but I prefer it.
Of course stick with your preferred wording. My comments are merely suggestions. Tim riley talk 12:27, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The duty levied by the Crown" – this will probably be correctly read by all readers, but just to be on the safe side I think I'd add "English" before "Crown".
Done.
  • "Bordeaux … had a population … and Bordeaux was possibly richer" – I don't think you need the second "Bordeaux".
I always need a second Bordeaux, but in this case will forego it.
Very good point indeed. I don't mind if I do. Tim riley talk 12:27, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "most significant landholders" – what did they signify? A pity to use a word with a precise meaning as a mere synonym of "important".
Exactly the same error as I made in Gascon campaign of 1345, and pointed out by you in just the same way. Corrected.
  • "Fortifications were also constructed at transport choke points, to collect tolls and to restrict military passage, and fortified towns grew up alongside all bridges and most fords over the many rivers in the region." – 34 words in this sentence, including three conjunctions. I think it would flow more smoothly if you made the second "and" a semicolon.
Fair point. Done. And on several other FAs.
  • "relatively frequent intervals" – relative to what?
Umm. Yes. Corrected.
  • "enormously superior" and "achieved complete strategic surprise" – having these phrases in quotation marks without saying in the text whom you are quoting seems odd to me. If you are using the punctuation to avoid the charge of plagiarism I don't think you need worry for such short phrases, and if you want to make the point that they are the ipsissima verba of some great authority it would be a kindness to say who that great authority is, as you do for the quote in the penultimate para of the Anglo-Gascon offensive section.
They are indeed the words of great authorities. I am now torn between blighting the flow of my prose by inserting their names, or removing the quotation marks and looking as if I haven't read MOS:WTW. I shall go for the second option.
  • "resistance due to lack of troops" – you are trying to say that the struggle, not the resistance, was due to lack of troops etc, but this doesn't say that, even if you think (wrongly in my view) that "due to" is a compound pronoun. "Because of" is wanted here, I should say.
I am; it isn't; it is.
  • "Lancaster personally led 1,000 men" – could he have led them impersonally?
One to leave for the philosophers I think. Changed.

Nothing of any great importance there, but I hope these few suggestions are of use. I'll look in again shortly. – Tim riley talk 09:35, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning Tim. I cannot express my appreciation for your efforts to keep what I shall very loosely term my use of English within bounds. All of your points above have been addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:12, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to support promotion to FA. Very readable, all information duly cited from a range of sources, splendidly illustrated, and evidently comprehensive. As enjoyable to review as its predecessors in the series. I look forward to further instalments. Tim riley talk 12:27, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentSupport by CPA-5

edit

Just found something.

@CPA-5: Gah! Apologies. Removed. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:22, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. There was a subsequent edit clash, but I have fixed it. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:48, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Gog the Mild: Ehm, I think there is a little misunderstanding here. You re-added the "80 kilometres" in the heart of Gascony to 50 miles (80 kilometres) or more beyond its borders. which I just removed and should been removed. Because the second "80 kilometres" (which I just removed) isn't necessary. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 16:57, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comments

edit

@Gog the Mild: Was there an image review I'm not seeing? --Laser brain (talk) 19:59, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Laser brain: If I say "yes" will you pass it? ;-) Sadly it is still awaiting one. Which is a little strange as I would have hoped that it would be fairly straight forward. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:39, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And the editor who did the image review at ACR has been MIA since February. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:42, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: Fyi, the account last edited five days ago. ——SerialNumber54129 20:54, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Serial Number 54129: Thanks for that. Good news. I would shout "hurrah", but a single edit six days ago isn't wildly encouraging. Half a hurrah for knowing that whatever is slowing the editing at least it isn't anything terminal. I was going on a conversation a week ago - User talk:Turismond#Help needed. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:24, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes; it's more, so far, raising one arm at muster at Sandwich than the charge at Poitiers. Still, the latter could only come from the former, so there's hope. ——SerialNumber54129 21:43, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit

Seems like every image has good ALT text and is properly licensed, but I am not so sure why the Grosmont image is in that section. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:29, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jo-Jo Eumerus, many thanks for this review. The article was resectioned as pert of the FAC and I missed that the image of Grosmont/Lancaster was now in a section which barely mentions him. Moved to a more relevant section. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:56, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another?

edit

Hi User:Laser_brain. Many thanks for rounding up an image reviewer. Appreciated. Given that their only request was for an image to be repositioned, which it has been, could I have permission to nominate my next FAC? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:59, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: Sure thing! --Laser brain (talk) 12:14, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 12 April 2019 [17].

Al-Mu'tadid

edit
Nominator(s): Constantine ✍ 18:24, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about one of the most (and virtually the last) capable Abbasid caliphs, and definitely an interesting figure: passionate about "women and buildings", known for his cruel and ingenious punishments and fiscal stringency, and the greatest Abbasid warrior-caliph. During his decade-long rule, by virtue of constant campaigning and adroit diplomacy he managed to stabilize the state and restore many lost territories. His reign also saw the culmination of the dominance of the Turkish military, but strangely also the start of the emergence to power of the secretarial bureaucracy. During his reign (and that of al-Muktafi, which was essentially a coda to al-Mu'tadid's) the Abbasids were truly for the last time an imperial power to be reckoned with. I've worked on this article on and off since 2013, gathering material from many sources. It passed the MILHIST ACR back in 2016, and has seen various mostly minor additions and copyedits (lately a GOCE copyedit by User:Gog the Mild) since. I am confident that the article is fairly comprehensive, but any suggestions for further improvement are, of course, welcome. Constantine ✍ 18:24, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest bumping up all maps to at least 1.3

Sources review

edit
  • Quality and reliability
  • The sources appear to be of the required standards of quality and reliability.
  • Verification
  • A sample of spotchecks reveals no evident problems of verification or close paraphrasing
  • Formatting
  • Is there a reason for the capitalization of Brill in the list of sources (Kennedy 2003, Sobernheim and Zetterstéen)? Otherwise the formatting is uniform and consistent.

Brianboulton (talk) 15:23, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Brill, IIRC, I had found this capitalized when I first started using these sources, and copied it over to the various articles after. Changed now. Constantine ✍ 10:07, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Gog the Mild

edit
  • One of the maps lacks alt text.
  • External links and the other standard FAC checks are fine.
  • There are no duplicate links.
  • I copy edited this for GoCE, which needed very little doing.
  • While copy editing I brought up several non-copy edit issues on the talk page, all of which have been satisfactorily addressed.

So, for me, the article is one alt text away from a support.

Gog the Mild (talk) 17:49, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, rather embarrassing, that. Fixed. Constantine ✍ 10:05, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have done similar. And that was all I could find to pick at. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:17, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk

edit
  • Interesting we are getting so many nominations about the Arab caliphates lately. No collusion? I'll have a look soon. FunkMonk (talk) 12:30, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "al-Mutawakkil was murdered" Do we know by who?
  • Added.
  • "the elite Turkish troops" Link to something?
  • I've linked to Turkic peoples with my previous change, and moved the link to the ghilman slave-soldiers up. Ideally there should be an article about "Turks/Turkish slave-soldiers in the Abbasid Caliphate" eventually..
  • Abbasid should be linked at first mention outside the intro too.
  • Done.
  • I wonder if the ethnicity of Ahmad ibn Tulun should be mentioned, as the rest of the paragraph that mentions him also deals with other non-Arab rebellion in the Caliphate. Maybe also mention who were Persians, and that the Zanj were African, but perhaps not if the sources don't dwell on the ethnic issue.
  • You are right that this is important, especially since Ibn Tulun was precisely from this group of Turkish soldiers who came to dominate power, and a herald of future developments..
  • "a keen horseman and took care to inspect both his troops and their mounts in person" Who said this, and does it need to be a quote rather than paraphrasis?
  • I've tried to rephrase.
  • "Eventually, in 889, Abu'l-Abbas was arrested and put in prison on his father's order" Do we know why?
  • Not known. As stated right before, the reason why the relationship between the two suddenly deteriorated is a mystery..
  • Just something you probably can't do anything about, but it is a bit confusing that the subject is referred to by (three?) different names as the article progresses. Especially since some of the names of different rulers are somewhat similar, I had to read some paragraphs over a few times. Not sure what could be done about this, since it is probably not a good idea to refer to him by a single name throughout.
  • The only viable alternative would be to refer to him by his regnal name throughout, but even in the secondary literature, when his early life is described, the kunya is very frequently used..
  • "[t]he role of 'ghazī caliph" I wonder if this term should be used and explained before the quote.
  • Rephrased and explained right before the quote.
  • "Qatr al-Nada died soon after the wedding" Do we know why?
  • Al-Tabari merely mentions that she died ("On Rajab 7, 287 (July 8, 900) al-Mu`tadid's wife, the daughter of Khumarawayh b. Alimad b. Tulun, died and was buried in the castle of al-Rusafah.", without further comment, and I haven't been able to find anything else on this..
Hi FunkMonk! On the nomination, on my part it is simply that after six years I feel I know the topic and its wider context well enough to be certain that I have not overlooked any major aspects (and Ro4444, who has an even better knowledge of the period and the primary sources, has confirmed this). I've literally been learning about the early Muslim world as I've been writing articles for WP. I've addressed the points you raised above. Anything else? Anything that can be improved, apart from and beyond FAC requirements? Constantine ✍ 16:00, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'll read the rest of the article soon. Looks spiffy so far! FunkMonk (talk) 17:52, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looking forward to the rest of your suggestions. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 19:38, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A few more comments below, but more will come as I read along. FunkMonk (talk) 14:58, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with Amr mobilizing the anti-Alid sentiments" You have not presented or linked the Alids until this point in the article body.
  • "with Amr mobilizing" Amr hasn't been linked or presented until this point either. Perhaps some text was moved around at some point without changing the order of inks.
  • Both excellent points, fixed.
  • "made contact with the Kutama Berbers" You could state where, it would be pretty far from all formerly mentioned events.
  • Added.
  • "engaged in major building activities in the capital" Anything we can show pictures of?
  • Nothing, unfortunately. Most of the Abbasid-era buildings were destroyed in the Mongol sack of Baghdad; being made of brick, they did not leave many archaeological remnants either.
  • inserted his name in a list of rebels to be executed" I would add "al-Sarakhsi's" instead of "his name" for clarity.
  • Good suggestion, done.
  • Link Mamluk?
  • Done.
  • "great detail the tortures inflicted by the Caliph on prisoners" Anything that could be briefly mentioned? Since this apparently a notable issue.
  • Added a couple of examples.
  • " at the age of either 40 or 47" The infobox says "aged 48 or 41".
  • Fixed.
@Cplakidas: Where are we with addressing these comments? --Laser brain (talk) 19:57, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Laser brain: it had slipped my attention. Will deal with them right away. Thanks for the heads up. Constantine ✍ 19:59, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Tim riley

edit

Excellent article. Two very minor points about the prose:

  • The article is written in BrE, it appears ("adviser" "centre", "maximise", "rumours") but there is an inconsistency in ise/ize endings: "maximise" but "characterized", "legitimize", "militarized" etc. If you prefer the "ize" form – unusual in BrE these days, but by no means wrong – note that the Oxford English Dictionary treats "maximize" similarly to the other "ize" words.
  • Fixed, thanks for catching that.
  • "any of his supporters who Abu'l-Abbas could lay his hands on" – this could do with polishing, it seems to me – "who" should be "whom" and "could lay his hands on" seems a touch informal for an encyclopaedia.
  • Rewritten, please have a look.

Those two small quibbles apart I have no suggestions and I look forward to supporting the promotion of this article. Tim riley talk 08:43, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tim riley, thanks for taking the time to review this. If there are any other comments or suggestions, quite beyond the requirements of FA, for the improvement of the article, please feel free to let me know. Constantine ✍ 17:02, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The article seems to me to meet the FA criteria. Highly readable, well and widely sourced, excellently illustrated and, as far as a layman can tell, comprehensive. Enjoyable and instructive: just what a Wikipedia FA should be. – Tim riley talk 19:46, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

edit
  • The vizier then tried to dominate al-Muktafi Shouldn't it be The Vizier?
  • Indeed. Corrected.
  • out of the total expenditure of 7915 dinars per day, some 5121 are entirely military Shouldn't it be "out of the total expenditure of 7,915 dinars per day, some 5,121 are entirely military"?
  • MOS:DIGITS is flexible for four-digit numbers, and it is a direct quote from the source, which does not use commas
  • Caliphate outside the metropolitan region of Iraq By MOS:OVERLINK most people know some informations about Iraq.
  • Hmmm, I am not so sure. People have "heard of" Iraq, but I wouldn't place much credence to the notion that they have any information about it, particularly in the setting of this article (as opposed to the recent past). Since Iraq in this context is quite distinct from the modern country, I've changed the link to Iraq (region), after restoring its original content. redirecting it to Lower Mesopotamia

@Cplakidas: Looks good. Cheers CPA-5 (talk) 16:37, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 12 April 2019 [18].

Tropical Depression Nineteen-E (2018)

edit
Nominator(s): NoahTalk 03:15, 8 March 2019 (UTC), Oof-off (talk) 02:25, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Tropical Depression Nineteen-E, a tropical cyclone that caused significant flooding and several deaths throughout northwestern Mexico and several states in the Southern United States. I believe this article should be featured as it has complete coverage of the subject and is of a high enough quality. NoahTalk 03:15, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit

Ping me when the above is addressed thanks. Kees08 (Talk) 08:01, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alright... I will address these on Saturday. NoahTalk 11:55, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Kees08: All images should be correct. NoahTalk 01:50, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Suppose this is for my own edification, but which satellites does the data come from, and are they all PD? My assumption is that it is PD. Kees08 (Talk) 03:12, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Kees08: The satellite for each image is shown on the base layer on the sidebar. Terra, Aqua, and Suomi NPP. The highest base layer active is the satellite data visible for said image. Also, the satellites are owned by NASA, so their data is PD. NoahTalk 03:27, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good, should be all good to go on this then. Kees08 (Talk) 01:24, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Hurricanehink

edit

Support - great work on the article! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:17, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • In the US section, it seems like you're trying to pad the prose a bit. It's just a bit on the superfluous side.
  • Tropical Depression Nineteen-E's remnant moisture also caused flooding in the U.S. states of Arizona, Texas, Oklahoma, and Arkansas after picking up moisture from the Gulf of Mexico. - don't say "moisture" twice. People don't like that word.
    changed the second mention to something else. NoahTalk 02:34, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where's New Mexico impact? If it affected Arizona and Texas, surely it also affected NM.
  • "To the north" - is this north of Thatcher, or of Arizona?
  • "A person who was walking near the Pantano Wash had to be rescued after being overcome by rising waters." - this could be tighter
  • "Near Silverbell, it was reported that 3 feet (0.91 m) of water was running over the intersection of two roads." - why do you have to mention that it was reported? Why not just say that two roads were flooded?
  • "Approximately 2 to 3 in (50.8 to 76.2 mm) of rain fell along Sahuarita Road" - this appears to be the highest rainfall in Arizona that you mentioned, so this should probably be mentioned sooner. Could you give a location other than some random road?
  • "It was also reported that 1.56 in (39.6 mm) of rain fell in Tucson." - how come you mention this specific rainfall total?
  • "saw rainfall totals of up to 18 in (457 mm)." - the "up to" is what I'm not a fan of. You mention in the infobox the specific highest rainfall total in Oklahoma, which is more useful to the reader than "up to 18 in", which is a fuzzy number that isn't real.
    Fixed most of the mistakes you pointed out, the New Mexico impact I will try to work on ASAP. Oof-off (talk) 03:25, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    were just under 16 in (406 mm). - I'm still not a fan of this. Could you just state what the highest rainfall total in Oklahoma was? Then I'll be glad to support. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:50, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hurricanehink: Fixed. NoahTalk 22:07, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to see the article at FAC, and I think it could pass without too much effort. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:19, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

edit
  • Ref 10: should give language (Spanish)
  • Ref 11: the title is given in English translation rather than the Spanish original. Any reason?
  • Ref 26: should give language (Spanish)
  • Ref 45: returns "site not available" message
  • Ref 47: ditto
  • Ref 48: returns "access denied" message

Otherwise, sources appear to be of the appropriate quality and reliability and are uniformly presented. Brianboulton (talk) 15:49, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Refs 45, 47, and 48 work fine for me. Kees08 (Talk) 00:22, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like my lack of access was a local problem. Brianboulton (talk) 09:17, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Brianboulton: All of these refs should be correct now.NoahTalk 23:08, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources look fine now. Brianboulton (talk) 09:17, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Yellow Evan

edit

Support now.

  • "Tropical Depression Nineteen-E was a weak tropical cyclone that caused flooding throughout Northwestern Mexico and several U.S. states, and is the first known tropical cyclone to have formed over the Gulf of California." pick one or the other to use as an opener. Also why is US not spelled out? seems kinda strange? YE Pacific Hurricane 00:37, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Removed the part about it being the first TC over the Gulf of California since the impact is more important. United States is spelled out as well. NoahTalk 15:24, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Tropical Depression Nineteen-E formed as the result of an area of low pressure interacting with a tropical wave. Its origins can be traced back to a tropical wave that departed from the west coast of Africa in between August 29 and 30." in what chronological relevance does the first sentence have with the second? YE Pacific Hurricane 00:37, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I just axed that first bit. NoahTalk 03:50, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Torrential rainfall affected the Baja California peninsula for a few days before genesis occurred on September 19 through the system's dissipation.[11] The National Meteorological Service of Mexico reported that Baja California Sur received heavy rainfall. The southern portion of the state received approximately 2.56 to 3.94 in (70 to 100 mm) of rain, with an isolated value of up to 4.88 in (124 mm) being reported.[9]" you can probably combine the first two sentences with the third or form its own sentence. YE Pacific Hurricane 00:37, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Combined the second two sentences. NoahTalk 04:05, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All in all, great job. Just a few minor mistakes here and there. YE Pacific Hurricane 00:37, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All of the above issues should now be resolved. NoahTalk 15:27, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Cyclonebiskit

edit
Further comments
  • Use {{|}} for rainfall totals and make sure to use proper sig figs using |sigfig=. i.e. If a value is reported as 300 mm, only have 1 sigfig for the inches conversion. Same goes for in to mm conversions. Add parameter |abbr=on for abbreviating and (in this case) use |disp=flip if the original measurement is in mm so that inches is shown first.
    • I've made these adjustments to the rainfall table, please follow suit with these changes for the prose in the remainder of the article.
      • At least one of the values didn't match the source so I've corrected it. Please double check the values to ensure they're accurate.
    • When using a range, the template can be adjusted to handle that: {{convert|50|–|100|mm|in|abbr=on|disp=flip}} for example.
    • For winds, WPTC doesn't use the convert template with values reported by RSMC's due to the original values being in knots and us showing that in mph and km/h. However, convert templates should be used for measured winds.
Corrected the only measured value. NoahTalk 10:39, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've gone ahead and reorganized and fixed up the rainfall table. When you add class=unsortable to the top column, it makes that entire column unsortable which defeats the purpose of making the table sortable. Having them organized by region is preferable over amount to reduce coding redundancy and the sortable takes care of having it highest to lowest.
    • When using numbers in a table, be sure to use {{|}} for standalone values and add |sortable=on to the convert template.

~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 18:18, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Cyclonebiskit: Should be all fixed. NoahTalk 02:08, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Cyclonebiskit: How are you feeling about the state of the article now? Any additional comments/concerns? --Laser brain (talk) 19:50, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Laser brain: all my concerns are addressed, happy to support and open the gates to promotion. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 04:21, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dank

edit
  • "Damages" means money awarded in some lawsuits. "Damage" is the word you're looking for. - Dank (push to talk) 01:24, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    In this case, damages is correct (lead and US opener). As there were multiple floods, it would be damages instead of damage in order to have quanity agreement. There were a couple instances in the Sinaloa section and one in the US section that were incorrect and have been corrected.
    Look it up in any dictionary, or look at other articles WPTC has written. This is bad enough to warrant an oppose until it's fixed. - Dank (push to talk) 03:52, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Is the rewording for those two usages better? NoahTalk 04:03, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't follow; it still says "minor damages". Do you say "precipitations"? "inflations"? "Two damages were done"? "Damage" isn't a count noun (in this context), and doesn't have a plural form. "damages" is a common word with a completely different meaning. - Dank (push to talk) 04:10, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess I missed that one. I had changed multiple earlier, but must have overlooked it. Happens after being awake for 20 hours. NoahTalk 04:13, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    No longer opposing, but please search for "damages" throughout and replace them. - Dank (push to talk) 04:20, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I ran a search on the article (someone showed me a feature for running an automated search). Should be completely eliminated. NoahTalk 04:26, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I hope what I said was helpful ... if not, don't worry about it, it's not that important. - Dank (push to talk) 12:44, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 11 April 2019 [19].

Michael Collins (astronaut)

edit
Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (discuss) and Kees08 (Talk) 19:24, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Michael Collins, the third man on the crew of the Apollo 11 mission. He orbited the moon in his spacecraft, Columbia. As he passed around the far side of the Moon, he became the loneliest man alive, with the nearest two people thousands of miles away, and out of radio contact with both them and mission control back on Earth. Later he built the National Air and Space Museum, one of the world's great museums. The article has passed an A-Class review, which included source and image reviews. A previous FAC review was archived; it received only one review. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:21, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from Factotem

edit
  • Chidhood and education
  • "...to Virginia (Stewart)..." Presumably her maiden name, but without the nee (or whatever) it popped out at me as a rather masculine original first name that was subsequently changed;
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:19, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...but since World War II started soon after he was unable." I think there needs to be a comma after "after";
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:19, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...which his father had graduated from in 1907 and his older brother in 1939." Reads a bit awkwardly to me. Consider "...from which his father and older brother had graduated in 1907 and 1939 respectively."?
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:19, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He graduated on June 3, 1952, with a Bachelor of Science degree, finishing 185th of 527 cadets in the class of 1952, the same class as future fellow astronaut Ed White." No need to repeat 1952. Maybe, "He graduated on June 3, 1952, with a Bachelor of Science degree, finishing 185th in a class of 527 cadets which included the future fellow astronaut Ed White."?
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:19, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...due to the large number of young but senior officers..." Senior officers on its own is absolutely no problem, but "young and senior" was just jarring to me. Maybe "high-ranking officers"?
    No, we are talking about field officers, majors and colonels. Deleted "but senior". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:19, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Military service
  • "After entering the Air Force, Collins commenced basic flight training..." Not sure you need that introductory clause;
    Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:19, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Collins met Patricia Mary Finnegan from Boston, Massachusetts, his future wife, in an officers' mess." Consider, "Collins met his future wife, Patricia Mary Finnegan from Boston, Massachusetts, in an officers' mess." so that there can be no stumbling over the concept that Boston, Masachusetts was his first wife?
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:19, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After Collins was reassigned to the United States..." Do service personnel get reassigned to a country? I thought they get reassigned to a unit, but return to a country.
    Changed as suggested. I have a feeling that I was avoiding saying that too many times. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:19, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Test pilot
  • Gemini 10
  • "...to calibrate photos taken in space with calibrated equipment in a lab." Is "calibrated" necessary? Would "test equipment" or something similar eliminate the repetition of calibrate?
    Re-worded.
  • Apollo 11
  • "Collins compiled a book of 18 different rendezvous schemes for different scenarios including where the LM did not land, or launched too early or too late." Had to re-read this a few times to understand it. The repetition of different is not so elegant; does it need to be stated twice? The main thing I stumbled on, though, is the list of scenarios; I read "where" to refer to a location, which confused me. Might this be better written as "Collins compiled a book of 18 different rendezvous schemes for various scenarios, including situations in which the LM did not land, or launched too early or too late.";
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:19, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...where they spent the first part of Earth-based portion of 21 days of quarantine before moving on to Houston." Earth-based portion? Can't it just be written as "...where they began 21 days of quarantine that ended after their arrival in Houston."?
    No. This was prompted by another editor's review. The days they spent in space on the way back also counted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:19, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough, but I think the sentence needs attention. There appears to be a "the" or "their" missing before "Earth-based" and there are three cases of "of" in quick succession; there must be a more elegant way of writing it. Also, it may be just me, but it really reads as if Houston is somehow not considered Earth-based. Maybe you could be more explicit about the quarantine period beginning on their return journey from the moon. Factotem (talk) 22:35, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs
  • "...but this was tiny compared with the 6,000 public affairs staff at the United States Department of Defense." That seems rather a random comparison. Why is it relevant?
    I think it is a good comparison, and it puts things in perspective. Note that Lee also thought it was a relevant comparison. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:19, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Director of the National Air and Space Museum
  • "Visitors saw Columbia in the main hall, Milestones of Flight, along with the Wright Flyer, the Spirit of St. Louis and Glamorous Glennis." Confused me because I initially read Milestones of Flight as another exhibit in the main hall, rather than the name of the main hall, which rendered the sentence non-sensical. Does Milestones of Flight need to be italicised, and would it be better reworded as "Visitors saw Columbia in the Milestones of Flight main hall...", as it (sort of) is in the image caption?
    Yes, the name of the hall was the Milestones of Flight Hall (today it is the Boeing Milestones of Flight Hall); but I didn't want to give the impression that it was out the back. Rather, the "Gee Whiz" stuff is the first thing you saw. Originally it was displayed like in the top photograph, which was taken in 2010. Subsequently it was changed to that in the lower photograph, taken in 2016, which means that you can't see inside it any more. De-italicised, and changed the wording slightly. Relying on the images to create the correct impression. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:19, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's all from me. Factotem (talk) 18:46, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Factotem: Are we missing anything here? Kees08 (Talk) 18:29, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I still think the "of...of...of" sentence could be rendered more elegantly, but is in itself not sufficient reason to oppose. Bear with me please. I'll have another read through in the next day or so and give a formal opinion. Factotem (talk) 18:42, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing fundamentally wrong as far as I'm concerned, but a few more quibbles:
  • In the Fighter pilot section, "He was safely rescued and returned to Chaumont." I'm not sure this entire sentence is necessary, but if it is retained then I'm pretty sure that you don't need to state "safely".
  • Deleted this sentence. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:33, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Apollo program section, "It also removed Collins from the prime crew of Apollo 9 and moved Jim Lovell from its backup crew to the prime crew to replace him as CMP." seems awkward. Why not something simpler like "As a result, Collins was replaced by Jim Lovell as CMP."?
    Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:33, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Other activities section, "He lived with his wife, Pat, in Marco Island, Florida and Avon, North Carolina until her death in April 2014." We already know that he married Patricia, so no need to restate her name here. Also, there's an implication in this sentence that he moved from the family home after her death. Is that intended? Factotem (talk) 10:07, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Two things here. First, the astronauts of the era had a high divorce rate. In Collins' group, leaving aside the four who died, 7 out of 10 divorced. Only Collins, Anders and Cunningham remained married. So it is worth stating that he remained married to Pat until her death in 2014. The other issue is our problem with verifiability. Our sources say he lived there until then. We don't know if he has subsequently moved. Or at leasty, we don't have a RS to say he's still there. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:33, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. My main issue is that by repeating her name, it sounds like it was another wife who happened to be called Pat, which actually goes against the idea that he was one of the few who remained married. That's just how it struck me. Factotem (talk) 20:48, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

edit
  • Primary sources: There is a lot of reliance on Collins's book Carrying the Fire, particularly in the earlier stages of the article – around half of the first 90 references are cited to this source. Relatively little use is made of other biographical material; perhaps little is available. Is there no other substantial work that could be called on? I note a biography is listed under Further reading, but that is apparently a children's book.
    After replacing a couple, I suppose the answer is maybe? The other sources do not go into the same detail he did. There are also some where he is giving his opinion, like that Dave Scott was his first choice, that are best suited as-is. I can see a couple more that I might be able to replace, do you think it is necessary? Kees08 (Talk) 03:32, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quality and reliability: Apart from the slight concern about the extensive use of the Collins book, the sources appear to be of an appropriate standard of quality and reliability.
  • Verification: I carried out a sample of spotchecks for verification and close paraphrasing. In general these checked out satisfactorily. I have reservations about one, below:
  • External links
  • All links to sources are working according to the external list checker tool
  • Formatting

Brianboulton (talk) 22:23, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Brianboulton: Do you have any rebuttals to the above? Kees08 (Talk) 18:29, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources all look good now. Brianboulton (talk) 18:38, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Balon Greyjoy

edit
  • "worst four hours of his life in the right (co-pilot's) seat of a B-52 Stratofortress flicking switches while going through the initial stages of nicotine withdrawal."
  • I would change "right (co-pilot's) seat" to just the "co-pilot's seat" and keep the link to the page. The role he was filling on the jet is more important than the physical seat he occupied (even though it is commonly associated with the co-pilot)
    Fair enough. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:29, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would remove "flicking switches" as it's not like that was his only responsibility; he was flying as a co-pilot, and his job included flicking switches, among other things.
    That's what Collins said he was doing. (He also drooled a lot.) Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:29, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Collins, Michael (1989). Carrying the Fire: An Astronaut's Journeys. New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux."

Balon Greyjoy (talk) 01:07, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit

Most images have no ALT text. They all seem to be correctly placed however. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:37, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Anything else you need here? Kees08 (Talk) 06:26, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe some ALT text? I dunno. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:44, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Alts added (because I wanted to, not because I had to :) ). Kees08 (Talk) 04:43, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK then. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:00, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 11 April 2019 [21].

Hurricane Connie

edit
Nominator(s): ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:32, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Hurricane Connie, which was part of the busy 1955 Atlantic hurricane season (already a good topic). Connie caused flooding in the United States that was exasperated by Hurricane Diane (a featured article) just four days later. Connie was a fairly routine landfalling hurricane, although it caused a notable shipwreck, and its impacts extended into Michigan and Ontario, unusual for a storm hitting North Carolina. I first got the article to GA status in 2013. I've been working on it over the past few days, and I'm proud of the work in the article. I believe it is the most comprehensive source of information for Connie available anywhere, and I believe the prose and variety of sources warrants its consideration for becoming a featured article.

BTW, hopefully another user will get another hurricane from this season featured, so we'll be one article away from a featured topic. Also, this is a WikiCup nomination. Happy reading! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:32, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

edit
  • Retrieval dates need to be in consistent format
  • Ref 3: The name of the paper is "Free Lance-Star" not "Free-Lance Star"
  • Ref 4: Check name of newspaper, which appears to be different from that given
  • Ref 7: The source is given as a newspaper, The Robesonian, but the actual source is a website, "GenDisasters.com". Compare with Ref 9.
  • You're right it's a website. I would argue "GenDisasters.com" should be in the at= value of the reference. The site is merely reporting the contents of a news article by The Robesonian.
  • Ref 12: link goes to a different article, entitled "Evacuees from Hurricane Connie Spilled Into Sea"
  • Ref 13: I can't locate the stated source article in the newspaper link
  • Ref 14: The New York Times needs italicisation. You should also add a subscription template
  • Ref 15: Where do the publisher and date details come from? They are not evident from the source.
  • The home page for ref 15 is the Weather Prediction Center. Here is the main page for the Tropical cyclone rainfall page. You can see David Roth's name on there. If you go to the file name, you can find the creation date for the image. It was updated from when I originally wrote the article, so I updated the date of when the page was made last updated. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:49, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 18: Does not link to the stated source article. It links to the same article as ref 12 - see above
  • Ref 21: The headline of the source article is given incorrectly
  • Ref 23: Returns "website unavailable" - presumably this is due to some regional factor

Otherwise the sources appear to be in good order and of the appropriate standards of quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 19:23, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review User:Brianboulton. Please let me know if I have sufficiently addressed your concerns. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:49, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All concerns addressed. Brianboulton (talk) 16:34, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit
  • File:Connie1955HATradar.png: source link is dead
I changed the image caption as suggested, and I updated the link to the image in the infobox. Thanks for reviewing User:Nikkimaria! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:52, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Review from Hurricane Noah

edit

I will be doing this review in chunks as I will not have enough time to do it all now. NoahTalk 16:13, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I now support Hurricane Connie becoming a FA. NoahTalk 23:21, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]



Lead

  • There is a page for the Eastern United States. Probably should just link to it.
  • What is a well-developed hurricane? There is no context for this.
  • "Connie first posed a threat to the Lesser Antilles, and the storm ultimately passed about 105 mi (165 km) north of the Lesser Antilles." I would avoid mentioning Lesser Antilles twice in the same sentence. Also, you could change ",and the storm ultimately passed" to 'ultimately passing'
  • "In the United States Virgin Islands, three people died due to the hurricane, and a few homes were destroyed." Is there a specific cause for these deaths? Winds, flooding, rip currents, etc?
  • Link Puerto Rico
  • "After affecting Puerto Rico, Connie turned to the northwest, reaching peak winds of 140 mph (220 km/h)." Probably should mention the pressure here as well. It wouldn't hurt to link maximum sustained winds.
  • "striking North Carolina on August 12 as Category 2 on the Saffir-Simpson scale." add an 'a' before Category
  • Link tropical cyclone
  • "The storm moved through the Chesapeake Bay region and progressed inland, dissipating on August 15 over Lake Huron when it was absorbed by a cold front." Could be reworded to "The storm progressed inland after moving through the Chesapeake Bay region, and was later absorbed by a cold front over Lake Huron on August 15".
  • Link Washington, D.C.
  • De-link the second mention of Chesapeake Bay
  • Link Pennsylvania and New Jersey
  • Link New York
  • "The rains from Connie contributed to flooding from Hurricane Diane that caused $700 million in damage" Change to ', which'
  • Link Ontario


Meteorological history

  • "The depression moved quickly west-northwestward and quickly intensified into Tropical Storm Connie." I don't like seeing quickly twice in the same sentence. I would recommend using a synonym for one.
  • "Observations from the flight, as well as nearby ship report, suggested that Connie attained hurricane status on August 4." Would recommend changing the first bolded part to 'a report from a nearby ship'. Probably should be 'suggest'.
  • "The hurricane continued to intensify as it approached the northern Lesser Antilles. On August 6, Connie passed about 105 mi (165 km) north of the Lesser Antilles." combine these.
  • "(944 mbar (27.9 inHg) is there a reason for rounding here?
  • You mention Saffir-Simpson scale too many times. You only need to state the scale once and simply refer to the system as Cat X afterwards
  • "southeast United States coast" I would change this to "southeastern coast of the United States"
  • Link Virginia
  • "steered by strengthening upper-level trough and low" Add an 'a'
  • Comma after Pennsylvania

Comments Support by Kaiser matias

edit

I'm totally unfamiliar with anything hurricane-related, but I'll give it a look over:

  • "...striking North Carolina on August 12 as Category 2 on the Saffir-Simpson scale." Should that be "a Category 2," with a definite article? I see it used later in the article, so want to know what is the proper way to go, definite article or not.
  • Considering there is a list of fatalities per region, would it make sense to include a total in the lead somewhere?
  • "About 14,000 people evacuated in southeastern North Carolina." Was this the only evacuations? If not, I'd add just a brief blurb about others: "About 14,000 people evacuated in southeastern North Carolina, while smaller numbers left..."
  • "A tropical wave developed into a tropical depression to the west of the Cape Verde islands on August 3..." I feel that the year should be added here, as its the first mention of a date in the body of the article.
  • "Observations from the flight, as well as nearby ship report..." Should be "ship reports"?
  • "...making Connie a Category 4 hurricane on the Saffir–Simpson scale." As the scale was named in the preceding paragraph, I don't think it needs to be said again here.
  • "While Connie was meandering in the western Atlantic Ocean, its potential track posed problems for forecasters." Is there any particular reason it posed a problem? It sounds like they didn't know where it would go, but is there any reason why they couldn't make a guess?
  • That's partly true. The difficulty was in the slow movement right near the coast. Forecasts have advanced incredibly since 1955, but at the time, there were no supercomputers to tell the public where the storm would go.
  • Baltimore Sun should be in italics.
  • "Due to its destructive impacts, the name Connie was retired, and will never again be used for an Atlantic hurricane." This is repetitive wording, and can be simplified: "Due to its destructive impacts, the name Connie was retired as a name for Atlantic hurricanes."
  • I wanted to emphasize what it meant to be retired, which is why it was wordy. I changed it to: Due to its destructive impacts, the name Connie was retired from the Atlantic hurricane naming list. Does that work? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:03, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not a lot that I see to clean up, and I generally understood it, which is a good sign. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:59, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reviewing User:Kaiser matias! I hope I addressed your concerns. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:03, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by 12george1

edit

The only issue I have is that some states are lacking in details. I know you don't have access to Newspapers.com, so I'll help you out a bit here.

All in all, this is a pretty good article, but I'll need to see a lot of this added before I can switch to support.--12george1 (talk) 04:26, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm done with that User:12george1! Nothing new in News Journal, added from other two sources. Added SC, Delaware, and New Jersey. I didn't add the Virginia reference - I felt it premature, considering Diane's damage a few days later. I finished adding all of these refs though, thanks for clipping them all! I didn't know about the 14 deaths in New York, I also thank you for that. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:03, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like these Newspapers.com clippings have been added where appropriate. Therefore, I am going to support this nomination.--12george1 (talk) 23:12, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 11 April 2019 [41].

The Colossus of Rhodes (Dalí)

edit
Nominator(s): Usernameunique (talk) 19:56, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Colossus of Rhodes is a minor but striking painting from Salvador Dalí’s later career. Firmly within the avant-garde in the 1930s, by the 1940s and 1950s Dalí was more interested in the world around him than the world inside him. He also had an expensive lifestyle to maintain, which was no doubt helped by the commissioning of this painting as a movie poster for a film about the Seven Wonders. The painting typifies 1950s Dalí: interested in Hollywood and the historical, taking commissions for cash, and only mildly surrealist. Indeed, the work is influenced by an academic paper by the sculptor Herbert Maryon, whose theory for the construction of the Colossus appeared in dozens if not hundreds of newspapers soon before Dalí picked up his brush.

This article uses a wide variety of sources—about Dalí, the Colossus, this painting, and others paintings in the series—to describe and contextualize this work. It is certainly the most comprehensive take published; much more ink has been expended on Dalí’s more significant oils. Nearly a year ago it passed a good article review, and after some further refining and additions, it is ready to be featured. Usernameunique (talk) 19:56, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit
  • File:The_Colossus_of_Rhodes_(Dalí).png needs a stronger FUR - for example "Not replaceable with free media because: Irreplaceable"
  • Yes - my point was that that bit doesn't really convey any information. If something isn't replaceable, of course it's irreplaceable. The question is why - this FUR needs a bit of expansion. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:30, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk

edit
  • I've linked them in the new subsection; as they were before, they weren't linked because strictly speaking the names referred to the works by Dalí.
  • I think there could be a bit more background on the ancient statue itself, for example that it was destroyed, which would also explain to the reader why theories about how it was constructed had to be made.
  • Added a subsection to "Background" detailing the history of the Colossus.
  • Similarly, the statue itself should probably be linked presented in the background section rather than in the description, since that's where it is first discussed?
  • Done.
  • "In this context the painting "does not look extremely original." According to who? Such subjective quotes should be attributed in text.
  • Good point. Added.
  • "Dalí copied the likeness of the Colossus put forth by Maryon, clearly depicting hammered plates of bronze, and showing the same tripod structure with the statue supported by a piece of drapery.[18]" This, on the other hand, could go under description?
  • My intent is for "Description" to really just be a physical description of the painting, and "Themes" to be about what Dalí was influenced by.
  • "and had a segmented construction entirely composed of numerous individual plates" Why past tense? This describes the painting and not the actual statue?
  • No idea. Changed.
  • "giving "a vaguely Surrealist touch" to Dalí's work." Again a direct quote, who says this?
  • "focus on cinema and the historical and scientific" focus on cinema, the historical, and the scientific?
  • Done.
  • "and the loosening of his grip on surrealism." His loosening grip on surrealism?
  • Done.
  • "Nor does Dalí offer a particularly original take on the Colossus, which is heavily influenced by Maryon's suggestions" You say basically the same under background, so it seems repetitive. But it probably belongs down there rather than background.
  • Removed the redundancy.
  • Anything on the circumstances of the commission itself and why they weren't used?
  • No, I looked but couldn't find anything.
  • Who made the movie?
  • "and religious" Only stated in the intro.
  • It's under "Themes": the end of World War II introduced a focus on the historical, scientific, and religious, to Dalí's work.
  • "by a hanging piece of drapery" I think it could be clarified that this was sculpted, I first imagined a giant piece of actual cloth...
  • Changed to the Colossus would have been supported on its base by a third point of support in the form of hanging drapery.

FunkMonk, thanks for your comments. I've added a subsection on the history of the Colossus and moved the discussion of Maryon's paper there, which I believe responds to the majority of your comments. Responses are above. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:43, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Ceoil

edit

The article is very strong on historical context, and especially gives insight as to why Dali painted this frankly, very poor, work at the end of his career, having moved to the States. Fascinating stuff; none the less, the "description" section is under cooked, apart from it being described as "massive" etc. Would like to see more on the colors, themes, iconography, and esp. perspective, etc, etc; maybe because to my eyes none are equal to his earlier work. Don't see any aesthetic appraisal here as of yet, although have every confidence in the nominator in this area, and look forward to supporting.

The nominator should feel quite free to revert any of my changes if viewed as preferences, or if intended meaning has been changed. Ceoil (talk) 02:38, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your detailed edits, Ceoil. I've made some changes, which I have tried to explain in the edit comments; please see what you think. As to the description, I've added another line based on a book I just ILL'd, and am due to pick up another one soon, so will see if I can add anything more. I suspect that there will not be much, however; most works that talk about this painting do so in passing (see here, for example, and a Google Translated copy of the Colossus section from book I just received), and focus less on the painting than on how it exemplifies Dalí's later works. How would you recommend dealing with this? I know Wikipedia tolerates largely-uncited plot summaries for fictional works, but am not sure if using one's own eyes to describe the basic attributes of a painting is similarly appropriate. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:24, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Usernameunique; briefly, I followed the changes while binge watching TV on Netflix. Agree with all your changes. Need to consider re sources; talk soon. Ceoil (talk) 22:29, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Given we have blue links, not sure that, by my estimate, almost a third of the article needs to be devoted to a general overview of the Colossus of Rhodes. I would trim this drastically. Ceoil (talk) 23:50, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Jumping in, I can't really agree, Ceoil... Yes when you say it like that, a third seems a lot, but I think when one reads it it does help one better understand the subject at hand. I mean lose the Caeser quote by all means, as we discuss "astride" anyway and even have a related image, but I think the rest works well and leads logically to the last para, which is obviously very closely related to the painting. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:04, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would at least, as you say Ian, loose the quote, and the claim beginning with "the others are the". Would also drop "The Colossus is among the least recorded of the seven wonders" - "There are no extant contemporary depictions; the only evidence is textual" is enough. That's the kind of thing that could be used to trim it down and make proportional to this short article overall. I do think there are structural issues overall with the page, which to be fair to the nominator, I haven't had time to think about and detail yet. Ceoil (talk) 00:33, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, those judicious trims seem fair enough. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:40, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe also such details as "Sutton Hoo helmet.[10][11]" and "On 3 December 1953" (we already know 1953) and "the Society of Antiquaries of London" are extraneous. Not opposed to shorter articles being at FAC if focused and concise. I'm gathering this page is near the sum of the available sources. Ceoil (talk) 01:01, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense all around. The Shakespeare part is definitely indulgent. My turn to turn towards the sack, so I'll incorporate tomorrow. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:15, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. The paintings for the film were made, yet went unused, is antiquated language, and this stuff is all over the article. Why not just "He produced other art works for the film, but they were not included in the final production." Ceoil (talk) 03:04, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The suggested rephrasing shifts the topic of the sentence from the seven paintings made for the film to the six other paintings, not including the one on the Colossus. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:15, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The article presents as art historical, but is too slight on such content for my taste. The majority of its content is on background detail, rather than on the painting, as promised in the article title, but barely described on reading. I have major issues with art articles being padded out with introductory paras on the mythology and histography of the subject matter and then on the artist; this is endemic on es. and de. Ceoil (talk) 23:45, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ceoil, I've incorporated most of the changes recommended earlier. The two things I've thought best to keep are the names of the other seven wonders—an article about one is incomplete without mentioning all, it feels—and the clause about what Maryon is best known for (the Sutton Hoo helmet), which is somewhat tangential, but interesting (it's how I learned about the painting). Generally speaking, I do think we have different perspectives on this article. It's unclear how restructuring it by essentially combining half of it into one jumbled section, as you suggested, would make it better, but even more than that, I feel that removing the contextual information would make the article markedly worse. The section on the Colossus was added because of a suggestion, by FunkMonk, in this very FAC; meanwhile, the sources that discuss this painting use it to typify Dalí's later career—interested in the historic and scientific, not the surreal—and so not discussing Dalí's later career would leave this article substantially incomplete. As to your last comment, if you can indeed find a source in the bibliography that is not used in the article, I would be very surprised. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:15, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not sure I suggested a jumbled section. Quite the opposite. I don’t think the structure as stands is coheriant, esp with two, as framed, general history / bio background sections opening after the lead, that as framed, could be served by blue links.Ceoil (talk) 01:24, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ceoil, your "rough suggestion for structure" suggested in this edit was to create a six-paragraph "Inspiration and themes" section which seesawed between topics, and hid discussion of the painting—the focus of this article—in the middle. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:33, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hense the usage of the word rough, and note I immediately reversed that test edit. My worry here, is that after this page, barely dyk standard painting articles can now be considered at Fac. Ingres’ portrait of Napoleon? Easy... Napoleon was a...Ingres was a ....half the article done now. My oppose stands. Ceoil (talk) 01:44, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ceoil, maybe we should ask the others to weigh in here: FunkMonk, Ian Rose, Casliber, & Brianboulton. I think the background information helps explain the painting, but I'm also not the most objective person here. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:19, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What I would point out here is we can't write what the sources don't, so if no source describes the painting in more detail, there is little we can do. And the FAC criteria do not demand this either, we can only reflect what the sources say. As for the added context, I think some of it could maybe be cut down, but I think there was too little until I asked for it. But Ceoil can of course compare the article before and after and see what is preferred:[42] If it is decided the earlier version is better, I will not oppose if it is reinstated, I only think it helps the reader, and makes the article more comprehensive, but this is of course a subjective issue. FunkMonk (talk) 10:49, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
yes as long as it’s not lost is that at least half the page is background; not a good enough ratio, imo, for an FA, which will enviablly be held up as a standard to aim for. Ceoil (talk) 02:31, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ceoil, I've trimmed a bit from "Background." Reading it over again, however, I'm a bit confused by your general objection to this section. "The Colossus" section has a paragraph about the Colossus, generally, but the second paragraph is about Maryon's theory of the Colossus; this is directly relevant to the painting, which cribs Maryon's theory. The "Salvador Dalí" section, meanwhile, has a paragraph about Dalí's fascination with Hollywood, and a second paragraph about his commission for these paintings. Both of these seem quite relevant to the painting, evincing Dalí's general reasons for wanting to paint movie posters, and his specific commission for the movie. So what, specifically, would you remove? Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 04:36, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
yes, the trimming now makes the section much more focused. Still not sure if "Salvador Dalí" is the most well chosen title for that section; it gives the impression of more general background padding, rather than as you say, "evincing Dalí's general reasons for wanting to paint movie posters".
  • Changed to "Dalí and Hollywood".
  • his popular 1930s surrealist movement heyday - It wasn't "his" 1930s surrealist movement - "The peak of his popularity during the 1930s surrealist movement"
  • I agree that this language—which you inserted here and here—is problematic. I have reverted it to my earlier wording.
  • In the lower right is signed "Salvador Dalí / 1954, "is signed" sounds very old fashioned; "The lower right had corner bears the signature...."
  • Reworded: In the lower right Dalí signed and dated the work "Salvador Dalí / 1954".
  • his loosening grip on surrealism - his move away from - its not that he had an intellectual hold on it even back in the day
  • "his move away from" does not appear in the article. Are you suggesting that that phrasing replace "his loosening grip of surrealism"? If so, no problem with that.
  • A piece of drapery hangs around the waist of Helios and from his left arm - "around his waist and left arm"
  • Reworded: A piece of drapery wraps around the waist of Helios and hangs from his left arm,
  • What is a "segmented construction entirely composed of numerous individual plates"
  • How would you rephrase? It means lots of (relatively) small, individual bronze plates stitched together into a whole. It is also seen in the image of the painting (which I wish could be larger), and alluded to earlier: Made of hammered bronze plates less than 1⁄16-inch (1.6 mm) thick, Maryon said, the Colossus would have been supported on its base by a third point of support in the form of hanging drapery.
  • The end of World War II introduced a focus on the historical, scientific, and religious to Dalí's work - The cause and effect is left vague here, ie you dont say why.
  • Reworded to give WWII less credit for the transformation. Per the source, "after the end of the Second World War a newfound interest in scientific, religious and historical subject-matter meant that the authenticity of Dalí's exploration of the subconscious began to drain away, to be replaced by something far more calculated in effect. Moreover, after 1940 a new banality often entered into Dalí's work".
  • a 1954 ink-on-cardboard work - Rather than "work" which is vague, maybe "composed with ink-on-cardboard".
  • Do you mean "a work composed with ink on cardboard"? That would still have the word "work", but in any event, I think the "ink-on-cardboard" modifier adequately illuminates the otherwise vague word "work".
  • Compared with Maryon's paper, wrote the scholar Godefroid de Callataÿ, the painting "does not look extremely original". Wot. This is hard to parse on several levels; not least because the source its self seems confused or at least hyperbolic - "extremely original" seems like promo guff. Also " wrote the scholar Godefroid de Callataÿ" sounds dated, as if very old sources were used.
  • Reworded the tense ("writes" rather than "wrote"). I think de Callataÿ's is just going for understatement.
  • Are all the listed sources used as foot notes.
  • Have taken liberties in trimming a bit further, mostly as per above. Anyways, Support, an interesting article to have taken on, esp. the revealing sections on Dalí in hollywood. Ceoil (talk) 23:22, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ian

edit

As a bit of Dali fan (as much for his involvement in Un Chien Andalou and L'Age d'Or as for his paintings, admittedly) I'm hoping to find time to recuse from coord duties to review -- consider this a placeholder till then... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:44, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ian Rose, I look forward to it. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:56, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Couple of comments later, time to hit the sack now after my ce... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:20, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is one of a series of seven paintings created for the 1956 film Seven Wonders of the World, each depicting one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World. -- do you think we could lose the repetitive "each depicting one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World"; sure it leaves no-one in any doubt but I think it follows that if you're creating seven paintings for a film about the Seven Wonders...
  • That's mostly there to add the link to the Wonders (which also appears in the body). I've changed it to each depicting one of the eponymous wonders, but can just remove if you think that's still too obvious.
  • In 1955 he also executed a similar copy, Walls of Babylon -- do we mean "another version of Walls of Babylon"? If so, simpler to express that way I think.
  • Done.
  • Helios raises his right hand to shield his eyes from the sun that he is the god of -- I wonder (pun unintended) if we can lose that dangling "of"; "Helios raises his right hand to shield his eyes from his domain, the sun" or something like that?
  • Reworded. Helios raises his right hand to shield his eyes from the sun over which he reigns
That's about it prose-wise. Obviously a minor work in Dali's catalogue but not as bad as all that I think -- there is at least nice irony in the sun appearing more powerful than its god at this moment. Article seems comprehensive, and I'll take Nikki's image review as read. I wouldn't mind someone else checking sources but may be able to if no-one else does for while. Well done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:20, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review, Ian Rose. Responses are above. It's definitely not one of his more interesting paintings, but it's quite nice to look at—moreso than his others in the series, I think. And much as it has been said to exemplify a later-career lack of creativity on Dalí's part, it is interesting to see how he incorporated a sculptor's theory of the Colossus into his own depiction. --Usernameunique (talk) 00:56, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Quite a few changes since my last copyedit/review; no concerns for the most part but I did feel constrained to tweak a few things here and there. I'm certainly leaning support but I guess I'd like to see how Ceoil feels about the current version so we can all agree on the final cut. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:20, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, ready to pile on with support. Cheers, 23:44, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Cas Liber

edit

Taking a look now...

The Colossus of Rhodes was a very large statue... - not fond of "very large" here, "monumental"? or put in the purported height?
Agreed. (It was originally "massive," and then changed in a copyedit above.) Have changed to "monumental."
Dalí's most important works are dated before 1940, when he was preoccupied with the subconscious and the nature of perception - "most important" is subjective, maybe "best-known"?
Changed to "most recognized." I don't think "best-known" quite encapsulates the point, which is less about how other people identify his works than about how the works are considered to fit into, and advance, artistic movements.

Otherwise reads well. Agree with Ceoil that the description section is a little light, but then again if there is no source elaborating then you can't really do much. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:14, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Casliber. Responses are above. Agreed that "description" is somewhat short, but I've added everything I've been able to find that describes it. --Usernameunique (talk) 00:48, 17 March 2019 (UTC) Fix ping: Casliber. --Usernameunique (talk)[reply]
Ultimately, its a tentative/weak support from me. It reads well, but a little bit problematic that under half the prose relates to the work itself. However, if there is no more on the description then that is not actionable, and I'd not remove any of the context as the context is about right I reckon. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:53, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

edit
  • Spotchecks not done
  • The sources appear to be of the appropriate standards of quality and reliability, and are formatted consistently. You might add that the Badoud source language is French. Brianboulton (talk) 23:07, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

edit
  • The reproduction ia not very good. Would it be possible to use the better one at [43]?
  • Do you mean the quality, or the resolution? Unfortunately due to fair-use restrictions, we're limited to a small image. I chose the one in the article because of the colors, which are brighter than the one you link to.
  • I meant the resolution, although that may be due to the larger size. The image you use has brighter colours, but probably not more realistic. The Dali Foundation image is likely to be better and the clouds look to me the wrong colour in the image you use. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:47, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The image in the article was copied from here, which is of reasonable resolution. Dalí does seem to have painted some clouds similarly (see, e.g., here, and it would be hard to tell which image is closer to reality without seeing the painting in person. The one you point to also has a watermark (bottom center), which I'm not wild about.
  • "was donated to its present location in the Kunstmuseum Bern." Donation to a location sounds odd to me. I would say donation to the museum.
  • "stood by the harbour of Rhodes for more than half a century in the third and fourth centuries BC" Fourth is wrong. The wiki article on the statue says that it was constructed in 280 BC and my 1973 Britannica says that it stood for 56 years until destruction in c. 224.
  • Whoops. Fixed.
  • It seems too off topic to list the other wonders in the background section. An alternative would be to link them below as Dali's paintings e.g. "of the Temple of Artemis" instead of Temple of Artemis.
  • Done.
  • "In his ninth-century AD Chronographia, Theophanes the Confessor recorded that its ruins remained until 652–53" As Theophanes was writing 150 years later perhaps "according to him" rather than he recorded.
  • Changed to "he wrote."
  • "The paintings for the film were made, yet went unused." This sounds a bit clumsy. Maybe "The paintings were not used in the film."
  • Changed to The paintings were ultimately not used for the film.
  • In the discussion of frauds in the last paragraph I am not clear whether you are referring specifically to lithographs of the Colossus or of his works as a whole.
  • The sources discuss Dalí's lithographs generally, not specifically referencing those of the Colossus of Rhodes (except for the first sentence, Lithographs replicating The Colossus of Rhodes are also frequently offered for sale.). That said, the fact that you can buy 202 lithographs of this work at once suggests that they are subject to the same problems as Dalí's other lithographs. I've also looked at a few books on his lithographs, and didn't see specific mention of those of the Colossus.
  • Done.


@FAC coordinators: The comments above have been fully addressed, and nothing is outstanding. Unless you have further requests, I think this is ready to move forward. Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 16:08, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 4 April 2019 [44].

Worcestershire v Somerset, 1979

edit
Nominator(s): Harrias talk 11:46, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One of the most bizarre incidents in the history of cricket occurred in 1979, when Somerset captain Brian Rose chose to declare his team's innings after one over, manipulating a loophole in the rules which meant they couldn't suffer a heavy defeat and be knocked out of the competition. Needless to say, it didn't go down well ("It's not cricket!) and Somerset were subsequently thrown out of the competition. I think this is a really interesting subject for an article, and hopefully you'll agree. It's been subject of both a Good article review and a Peer review, and now I submit it for your thoughts. Harrias talk 11:46, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Dweller

Smashing article. Lack of illustration is a shame. Could [[:]] help? Personally, I'd consider splitting the last section into what happened in the immediate aftermath and therafter. There are also parallels to this in other sports, might be worth thinking about how to handle them. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:57, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dweller: Thanks, I've split the final section as suggested, though I struggled with the headings. Hopefully what I've settled on works? I'm trying to find an image; unfortunately the fair-use image rules wouldn't allow us to use that one of Atkinson. I'm hoping to get a free image of Brian Rose, which would work well, but we'll see how I do. Otherwise, like Sarastro suggests below, I'll probably stick one of the ground in. Are there are parallels that particularly spring to mind for you? Harrias talk 11:14, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds a good way forward on the photos. Try this Barbados_4–2_Grenada_(1994_Caribbean_Cup_qualification). Probably POV to include in article but maybe see also? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:09, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't included a specific link to that, as reading around the site a bit (getting caught in a "Wiki-black hole") I've come across so many different occasions. I have however added a link to Match fixing in a new See also section, which I think works better. Harrias talk 21:52, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support – I was one of the peer reviewers; the article was in good shape then, and has since got better with some excellent stylistic polishing. I think the article meets the FA criteria. George Orwell, who was famously faddy about double negatives, might have boggled at "not dissimilar" but I think it's OK. No other drafting points this time round and I am happy to support its promotion. Tim riley talk 23:06, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind words Tim; the double negative has been removed now through other copy-edit work. Harrias talk 09:55, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
...and that he thought there would be repercussions if they went ahead [with the plan] - bracketed bit can be dropped without losing meaning
Rose defended his actions, claiming that he "had no alternative", - be good if dequoted, such as "Rose defended his actions, claiming that he had no other option,"

otherwise a good read and fulfilling FA criteria. Support Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:09, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Casliber:, both suggestions have now been made, thanks for having a look. Harrias talk 09:55, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • The intro you've written here sounds better than lead section. The article is about an incident, but the lead starts directly with details without introducing the incident.
    @AhmadLX: I've reworked the lead a little bit, how is it now? Harrias talk 11:23, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are so many quotes, 20 I could count. Many of them, like "improper", "wholly indefensible", "had no alternative", "support the team whatever their decision", are unnecessary and can be described without quotes.
    Trimmed. Harrias talk 11:50, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aftermath section discusses change of laws of the game after this incident and other similar incidents. They are important but are absent from the lead, which should be brief representation of all important details of the article.
    Added the law change at the moment, but I will probably rewrite the lead completely. I just need to reset my head on it at the moment, as I'm too zoned-in on what's there right now. Harrias talk 11:50, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Not dissimilar" suggests that the two incidents weren't very similar either. But the details show they were very similar. AhmadLX (talk) 04:47, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Last point has been addressed by other copy-editing, I'm looking to address the rest. Harrias talk 09:55, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead seems good to me now, other points addressed; Support. AhmadLX (talk) 18:08, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Sarastro: I'm recusing as coordinator as I can't resist this one and I've been promising to look at it for ages. I've copy-edited but as usual feel free to revert anything. Just a few points to consider, none of them too crucial. Sarastro (talk) 13:21, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm very uncomfortable using Cricket Country as a source. It will pass RS comfortably enough but I'm not sure it's high quality enough for FA; the author of that article also has an unfortunate habit of basing his writing on wikipedia articles or match reports from other sources. I suspect most of what he writes is available elsewhere, and it may be better sticking to more established sources.
    I assume that it was just inferred from the scorecard, given that it isn't that hard to work out. That said, I was uncomfortable basing part of the match report on the scorecard alone. I've added the scorecard as a supporting reference alongside Cricket Country, how do you feel about that? Harrias talk 09:55, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    In all honesty, I think you would be perfectly justified in just using the scorecard. That's all Cricket Country has done. I'd still prefer it removed altogether and just using the scorecard as I don't consider it a high enough quality source. Especially as it's just based on the scorecard. Sarastro (talk) 13:12, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, removed. Harrias talk 11:23, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, I'm not sure we can really make a link between this and the underarm incident. I realise that Martin Williamson makes the same link in his article, but I don't think the two events are really comparable. If you wanted similar incidents, there were a few incidents in the 1930 Championship where Yorkshire similarly bent the rules, led astray by Bev Lyon... but without an article making this link explicit, I don't think we can do it without a bit of OR.
    Honestly, I disagree. As I draw upon in the article, both Arlott and Frith actively discuss a hope that this incident would be the end of captains putting winning ahead of the spirit of the game, and it is (to me) a pretty clear parallel. Harrias talk 09:55, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Between you and Ian, I seem to be horribly outnumbered here. The sources agree, so it's fine to keep in. I just think that it's a real stretch to connect them as Martin Williamson does. It's a shame there's nothing that connects some of these unsporting incidents a little more directly. There's probably something out there somewhere, but I don't know of anything. Sarastro (talk) 13:12, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with a few points above: an image or two would be nice. Maybe one of the ground? But I doubt we could really justify using an non free images as there isn't really one person with whom this is associated.
    I agree that we can't use a non-free image. I would ideally like one of Brian Rose; I'm in the process of sounding out a couple of possible sources, but we'll see what comes of that. I'm not against a picture of the ground, but the oldest image we have is from 2006, which is not going to reflect the look of the ground in 1979 particularly well. Harrias talk 09:55, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it would be OK. Presumably the pavilion is the same? Sarastro (talk) 13:12, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, we could maybe expand the lead slightly; and perhaps the quotes could be trimmed as we don't really need them all.
    Trimmed some quotes out, still need to work on the lead properly. Harrias talk 11:50, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does The Cricketer have any opinion on this? We quote from it a little, but I wonder if it passes judgement at all?
    Added a little. Harrias talk 11:50, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find it extraordinary that more people haven't written about this, given that some of the participants in the game aren't exactly shy in expressing opinions. But I've looked, and there's nothing. Other than the issues noted here, the sourcing is otherwise impeccable.
    I did find a bit more in Roebuck's autobiography actually, though it contradicted some of what I already had. I've incorporated this, and hopefully addressed the contradiction suitably? Harrias talk 11:50, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Why am I not surprised that he tried to claim the credit for the idea? But that's perfect. Sarastro (talk) 13:12, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source formatting is absolutely fine Sarastro (talk) 13:21, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Once these little points have been looked at, I'm more than happy to support. When I've a little more time, I'll do a spot check of sources too. Sarastro (talk) 13:21, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • @Sarastro1: Thanks for taking a look. Quick question for you; both ESPNcricinfo and CricketArchive list Holder as bowling a maiden over, but there is a no-ball listed. My understanding is that a no-ball negates it from being a maiden? Clearly I have to follow the sources irrespective, but it strikes me as odd? (Maybe it was a more recent change that extras count against the bowler in this way?) Harrias talk 11:50, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      I can't remember when exactly the rule changed, but no balls and wides weren't added to the runs conceded by a bowler until after this, some time in the 80s I think. It meant that you could bowl a maiden over with wides and no balls in it. Ping me when you've finished with the lead. Sarastro (talk) 13:12, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sarastro1: Interesting stuff, every day is a school day! I've rewritten the lead slightly to add a bit more in, and hopefully address things in a better manner. Harrias talk 11:23, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Ian -- Like Sarastro, I just have to recuse as coord, good thing there's three of us! At this stage I've looked through the article once without copyediting, and it read quite well, but I'll go through again as soon as I can and ce where I think it'll help.

  • My first point though is that I have a different perspective to my friend and colleague Sarastro re. the underarm incident -- perhaps it's because I'm an Aussie but even before I finished the lead I was comparing the two, and wondering if and when it'd be mentioned. I haven't looked at the referencing yet but my feeling is that if it can be reliably sourced then it's fair to put it in. Anyway I'll go through the article in detail when I can. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:17, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I know when I'm beaten! Sarastro (talk) 13:12, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Walked through again now, copyediting as I went -- I eliminated the "improper" quote mentioned above, and "not dissimilar", and of course am happy to discuss my edits if any concerns. I didn't find the article too quote-heavy, the main thing for me is that those used are attributed in-line, which I believe they are.
  • Sourcing-wise, I think in general I'll be happy to defer to Sarastro and others more expert than I re. cricket articles. I did spotcheck the two citations related to the underarm incident, and the first at least seems to buttress my contention that it's reasonable to mention it here (assuming Williamson is considered a reliable source naturally) as he discusses both in the one article.
  • Summarising, I'll park things here for now and try to return if the prose changes in response to other reviewers' suggestions, but overall it still looks pretty good to me. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:17, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose: Just reviewing for readiness here—are there any further remarks from you or do you plan to revisit? --Laser brain (talk) 15:16, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Tks Andy -- in part I was waiting to see if we got consensus about a new name for the article but I think that may have petered out; I'll give it the once over again now that a few other reviewers have had their say and see where we come out... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:13, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I know how tough it is on a nominator when the changes you make on one reviewer's advice are disagreeable to another reviewer but unfortunately that's the case here. I found the original lead quite adequate, setting the scene in the first sentence or two and then telling us the controversy, rather than jumping right in as we do now. Further, I notice the sentence To avoid suffering a heavy defeat that could eliminate them, Rose worked out... has been changed to the passive it was worked out. We also have In contrast, Viv Richards, Joel Garner and Ian Botham were all very vocal in their support ... -- unless the cited source highlights the situation, I would call In contrast editorialising. I'm happy to see some quote fragments paraphrased, but apart from that I'm afraid it looks like one step forward and two steps back since I last read the article. Now I could have a go at tweaking the last-mentioned points but I think we need to find consensus re. the lead first (let alone the article title, if that is still under consideration). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:18, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@AhmadLX: Any chance you could take a look at Ian Rose's comments and see if we can find a middle ground? It seems silly for me to be too reactionary, given that you hold pretty opposing points, and without some compromise down the middle, I'm unlikely to please you both. Harrias talk 10:59, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I respectfully disagree with Ian regarding the first point. He sees it subjectively; he knows the detail already and as such sees first para as unnecessary stuff. Casual reader, however, would come to the article knowing little in advance. Article title is not descriptive, so the reader would expect to know the topic from intro sentence. From original version of the lead, it is unclear what the article is about, unless you are halfway through the lead. To me, the current version of the lead appears to be logical summary of the article: introduction & importance is established in the first para, detail in the second, aftermath in the third. I have no problem with other points he mentions. Thank you. AhmadLX (talk) 14:03, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose and Laser brain: Any advice on how I can proceed? Harrias talk 10:47, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As I've recused coord duties here, I'm speaking purely as a reviewer. First of all, I'm afraid Ahmad has assumed wrongly -- I'd never heard of this incident before reading the article and hence, rather than seeing it subjectively, I'm the casual reader of which they speak, which is precisely why I believe the original lead that set the scene and then described the controversy was the better one. As to how to proceed, perhaps we could ask the other reviewers to weigh in re. the lead's form. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:01, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Harrias: Seems we are stuck here. Okay then, you can restore original lead if you want. I won't change my support. Thanks. AhmadLX (talk) 12:23, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Tks Ahmad, that's very gracious -- Harrias, did you want to act on this re. the lead? I'm happy to tweak those points in the main body that I highlighted on 19 March... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:37, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks both. Work has been a nightmare this week, but I'll take a look at this later today. I am still alive! Harrias talk 11:27, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose: Okay, I've reverted the lead back to more or less its original form. I've tinkered a little bit, which goes only with the "Rose worked out..." to "it was worked out" switch. Basically, reading around the sources a bit more, I realised that it wasn't clear that it was Rose who came up with the plan, so I had to soften the language slightly. I removed "In contrast" as it was superfluous anyway. Harrias talk 20:09, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose: Any follow-up comments on the latest revisions? --Laser brain (talk) 12:12, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Tks for the ping Andy -- I've tweaked a little but I believe my comments have been dealt with so ready to support. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:29, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by 213.205.240.200

This article is all about an incident, so IMO the title should reflect that; something like Worcestershire v Somerset Incident or Worcestershire v Somerset Cricket Incident or ODI Declaration Incident Somerset? Somerset declaration controversy sounds cool ;)AhmadLX (talk) 15:40, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If further disambiguation is considered necessary (I'm not convinced that it is) then I would suggest Worcestershire v Somerset, 1979 Benson & Hedges Cup. I am personally not a fan of titles such as "xxx controversy", but I'm generally happy to follow any consensus. Harrias talk 18:56, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

edit
  • Ref 8 shows a subscription template, but the Cricketer article is available from the link. The same applies to ref 17.
  • Ref 14 supports the statement: "The same thing happened in Watford, where Glamorgan and the Minor Counties were due to play." A minor issue is that play did actually start at Watford, where four balls were bowled, whereas "The same thing happened" implies that rain prevented any play at all. More to the point, however, is the irrelevance of the statement. Unless I'm missing something, what happened at Watford had no bearing on the Worcs v Somerset game, and the detail appears to be mere padding.
    • Had that game gone ahead with a result, Somerset would have had a better idea of what result they would need. It's tangential, but the suggestion across the sources is that the fact that Glamorgan could secure a big win against the Minor Counties was on the players' minds. In terms of it being "The same thing"; both games had no play on 23 May, the four balls bowled were on the second day, but I agree that the source provided does not support this; I will find an alternative. Harrias talk 11:07, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 22: The Daily Mail is not considered to be a high quality, reliable source.

Spotchecking reveals no issues. With the exception of the DM the sources meet the standards criteria for quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 19:36, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Brianboulton: Thanks; fixed two, need to check the other. Harrias talk 11:07, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference avweek1998a was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Featured_log/April_2019&oldid=894377972"