Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/April 2020

< 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) 30 April 2020 [1].

Midland Railway War Memorial edit

Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:50, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've been away for a while with real life keeping me busy. I'm still busy, but I've decided it's time I moved Wikipedia and my war memorials project back up my priority list. Just bear with me if it takes me a day or two to reply! :) This particular war memorial is in the English Midlands city of Derby (barely 10 miles from where I used to live), which was largely built by the Midland Railway. The railways were the largest corporations ever seen at the turn of the 20th century, employing hundreds of thousands of people between them. The Midland alone released 23,000 men to the armed forces, 2,833 of whom never came back. Their names are listed on this grand, but sadly these days overlooked, memorial. The article passed an A-class review at MilHist just over a year ago and I think it's up to the standard required for a star but all feedback is welcome. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:50, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild edit

Nb. I intend to use this review to claim points in the WikiCup.

Putting down a marker.

  • No alt text.
    • I'm ambivalent on this, as I'm not sure what alt text would add that the caption doesn't but happy to take advice.
Personally I always include alt text, but it is optional. (In my view this is a disgrace, but there you go.) So if you don't see the point, you are fine.
  • There are a couple of duplinks.
    • Sorted.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:22, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I kicked the tyres on this pretty thoroughly at ACR, so hopefully there is not a lot for me to pick at.

  • "The cenotaph is surmounted by a recumbent effigy of a soldier—covered by a coat and resting on a catafalque—and is decorated with lion heads at the corners of the catafalque" It seems odd to have the catafalque mentioned within the dashed section and its decoration outwith.
    • I've tweaked it but I don't love the new version either (I was going for concision in the lead) so open to further tweaking.
How about working up from the bottom? 'On either side of the cenotaph is the Midland's coat of arms, enclosed in a laurel wreath. The cenotaph is surmounted by a catafalque with sculpted lion heads at the corners. On the catafalque is the recumbent effigy of a soldier, covered by a coat. Lutyens anonymises the soldier by lifting him high above eye level, allowing the viewer to believe it could be somebody they knew.'?
That seems sensible. Done, with some re-wording.
  • "including Midland station" Should there be a definite article? Should it be 'Station'?
I don't agree over the "the", but it's not a big deal. Put "derby midland station" into Google: in the first 50 results there were 48 "S"s to 2 "s"s.
"The station" would be correct, but not "the Midland station" in the same sense that "the Central station" would sound odd in the case of (eg) Southampton Central. As for the lower case "s", I don't give a monkey's personally but the WP convention is set out at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (UK stations) (where, coincidentally, a Midland station is one of the examples given).
Well, well: if there is a policy, there is a policy. (But living within walking distance of the place, I can assure you that, sadly, nearly all local readers will doubt your grasp on English grammar. Eg, note how it is spelt in two foot high letters across the front of the place.)
I can see both sides of the argument, but it applies to every station (there are nearly 3,000 on the National Rail network alone!) and I can also see the advantage of consistency! :)
  • "At the end of the war, 2,833 men from the Midland had been killed, their names listed on the war memorial." Would that be better as 'By the end of the war, 2,833 men from the Midland had been killed: their names are listed on the war memorial'?
    • If you prefer. :)
  • "many based to a greater lesser degree on" → 'many based to a greater or lesser degree on'?
    • Done.
  • "The artist Fabian Peake created a memorial there in 2018" Fabian Peake redirects to Mervyn Peake - who died in 1968.
    • I know. It's a silly redirect if you ask me but I'm guessing somebody thought it was better than a red link. I've never heard of him if I'm honest, but the Guardian piece makes him sound notable and he certainly has notable relatives.
Er, that doesn't explain why the article's link directs a reader to an entirely incorrect destination. It seems to me - I am open to persuasion - that either Fabian is notable enough to support an article, in which case he should be red linked in this article; or he isn't, in which case there shouldn't be a link.
I agree with you, but I don't have the subject knowledge or source material to draft an article. I had intended for it to be a red link, not realising it was a redirect. We could delete the redirect (in the hope that the red link would encourage somebody to write the article) or unlink it here, but I'm not sure if either leaves the reader better or worse off.
Red links are absolutely fine - my last two FAs and my current FAC all have red links. Delete the ridiculous and inappropriate redirect and we are fine.
Done. Hopefully it'll turn blue or somebody will decide he's not notable, but I agree a red link is probably more likely to encourage that.
  • "treat the metal elements of war memorials with SmartWater" I assume that you mean all war memorials? I which case 'treat the metal elements of all war memorials with SmartWater' may add clarity.
    • I don't know about all war memorials. To treat every war memorial even just in England would be quite an undertaking! It refers to war memorials in general.
As you have written it, the first clause of the final sentence comes across as really vague, but maybe that is me. Leave it be.
If you think of a more elegant form of words I'd welcome suggestions, or feel free to just be bold if you prefer.
Ah - me and my big keyboard! Referring to the source, how about 'The theft prompted an initiative to treat the metal elements of all Derbyshire war memorials with SmartWater, a product which allows metal to be identified with an ultraviolet light'?
That works. Done.

That's all I could find that I haven't already picked at. A cracking little article. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:34, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much, Gog! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:38, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My further penny's worth. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:25, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Once more, Gog! :) 19:46, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unto the breach. Two text suggestions. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:48, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dear friend, once more! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:00, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Or close the wall up with our English dead. A nice piece of work. Good example of being concise while still covering everything. Supporting. But do keep your eyes open for a RS with different plan measurements to HE's. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:14, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Comments from Gerbis edit

You are very right to say that this is a sadly overlooked cenotaph. This is a remarkable work and deserves that you brought it to our attention. Thank you for that. You also presented many interesting historical facts particularly around the unveiling and the involvement of the families, and I find it interesting that the names of the fallen are given without rank. With the generalities about listing and conservation area you’re going a bit overboard, imho, also the later company fusions are a bit borderline but you rescued it by referring to other memorials. All in all, with surrounding data you’re doing alright.

But you are leaving large gaps in other very important areas:

  • How did Lutyens get involved?
  • Was there a competition?
  • What did the railways want Lutyens to do, i.e. what was the brief?
  • Was this particular shape established from the outset or did the design go through stages?
  • Do preliminary drawings or models exist? They must have been produced but are they now lost?
  • "reminiscent of classical architecture" is a bit vague.

There are also quite a few factual errors. I can see that you know a fair bit about railway companies but I fear that you don’t fully understand what a cenotaph is – and that is your topic here.

Even if it incorporates a Tomb of the Unknown Soldier or another real body buried at the site, all war memorials are cenotaphs to all the people remembered but not buried at the site. This has nothing to do with their shape or a figure of a soldier being depicted. To create a cenotaph in purely abstract, architectural forms is the great achievement of Lutyens at Whitehall. Up to that moment, cenotaphs usually had some figurative element or symbol like the Christian cross if they went beyond mere inscriptions. So, if you say "Although generally described as such, the memorial is not strictly a cenotaph as the sculpture at the top is a human figure rather than an empty tomb" you’re wrong, and if you read that in Amery as your reference suggests, he doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

A few more things:

  • You mention a number of facts in the introduction which you simply repeat in the main text without any further detail.
    • Can you give examples? It's inevitable to a certain extent but I've tried to cut out straight repetition.
  • The second paragraph in the chapter "Architect" ("London's Cenotaph was...") is close to a tautology.
    • I've reworded it a little to make it clearer.
  • What does the small step have to do with children? I doubt that it has, but if it does you need to reference it. I'd rather expect that the stepped up area is where you place wreaths.
    • That's straight from the source (and supported by others).
  • "ecumenical shapes" – I have no idea what that’s supposed to be.
    • I thought it was fairly self-explanatory: shapes and designs that don't relate to any particular religion or sect (eg no Christian cross or Jewish star. But leave it with me and I'll think about spelling it out.
Please do. This is not clear at all. If you just put what you wrote here in reply it would already be much better.
Done.
  • "Lutyens also uses it to draw attention to the details on the pylon, connecting the beauty of the structure to the memory of the dead soldier." – no idea what you mean by that.
    • Could probably do with some rewording. Leave it with me; might need to go back to the source.
yes, please
Done.

Finally, purely for readability, I would like to see the publication year in shortened references as it makes a difference to know if you’re referring to a contemporary source of the period of construction or later publications.

Sorry this all sounds pretty ruthless but these are things I’d like to know about this memorial and you’re not saying. I think that you have done some good work here but I don’t think it’s anywhere near the required quality for a featured article. Gerbis (talk) 11:43, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The disadvantage we have with company war memorials, rather than public works, is that some of the detail you're after either wasn't recorded at the time (because nobody thought it was important) or has been lost in the intervening century, bearing in mind that the company has been amalgamated, nationalised, then broken up and privatised in that time. You'll note that I've cited works on architecture, biographies of the architect, and histories of the town and the company so it's not a lack of research. In some cases we get chapter and verse on how Lutyens was appointed; in others we get next to nothing. Lutyens was the architect of his day for war memorials and everyone wanted him but unless you had some prior connection (like a lot of the small villages he did memorials for), you had to have a healthy budget—something the major railway companies certainly had. For this one's closest sibling all we get is that they approached Lutyens because he was the "fashionable architect" and that's only because the board managed the project themselves instead of delegating it and their minutes survived. As for "cenotaph", I don't think that's a factual error. It's sourced direct to a distinguished architectural historian writing for the Arts Council of Great Britain (because Amery explicitly makes the connection to this memorial in particular, whereas others discuss it in general terms), and the literal meaning of the term is "empty tomb". Your definition is much broader, but even if we go that, this particular war memorial is not an "empty tomb" (unlike the one in London, for example, which has a coffin at the top, as opposed to an effigy). Other replies inline. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:05, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for explaining a few things. I absolutely understand that there might not be any documentation about Lutyens' involvement and I'm certainly not accusing you of not doing enough research. You should, however, preempt questions like mine by saying from the outset that there is no documentation and no previous design stages are known. That makes it clear.
My definition of a cenotaph isn't much broader, that's what the definition of a cenotaph is: "Cenotaph. A monument to a person or persons buried elsewhere." That is the full dictionary entry in The Penguin Dictionary of Architecture by Fleming, Honour, Pevsner, 4th ed. 1994. Could you give me a quote of Amery's explanation why this is not a cenotaph in the true sense? As I said, even if there is one person buried there, it is still a cenotaph to all the others mentioned in the inscription and not buried there. A stone figure of a soldier is an effigy not a buried person.
Children: You have a source for it, that's great. Please reference it so you're safe. I still believe it's not a step but a plinth, given its height and the function of prolonging the pedestal's plinth - and one doesn't step on a plinth (n.b.: despite often being used interchangeably today, a plinth in architectural vocabulary is not the same as a pedestal but (Fleming, Honour, Pevsner again) "the projecting base of a wall or column pedestal" - Lutyens would have known that). But that's not an argument I need to have with you since you have a quotable source. I'd be curious if you could point me to the other sources that support this claim, just out of personal interest. We're looking at the 1920s when duty, discipline and decorum are the motivating factors, not a late 20th and 21st century sensibility which allows children to crawl around everywhere - and they couldn't step up in a dignified way because the step is way too high for small legs. It would be interesting if Lutyens really had an educational function for children in mind, i.e. an adult lifting up a child and pointing out names.
see also inline Gerbis (talk) 15:06, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On "cenotaph": Amery says This is not a 'cenotaph' as it is not strictly speaking an empty tomb. Going through some of the other books, Alan Borg 's War Memorials discusses the use of cenotaphs in antiquity for about half a page in the context of an empty tomb, then comes close to your definition by saying In the 20th century, and especially after the construction of the Cenotaph in London, the word has become synonymous with any memorial that was not itself an actual sepulchre; Jay Winter in Sites of Memory, Sites of Mourning says a cenotaph is, literally, an empty tomb, and by announcing its presence as the tomb of no one [Whitehall's] became the tomb of all who died in the war. Neither is cited here because neither has anything to say about this particular memorial but they're both sat on my shelf and have been used for previous articles in the series (this will be something like the 17th FA in the series). The child step is taken straight from the NHLE entry, otherwise I'd have agreed with you that it's a plinth for placing wreaths etc. More in the morning. :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:49, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerbis: I think I've addressed everything as best I can. I could go into more detail about ecumenicism and the "beautiful death" with Lutyens' agnosticism and the influence theosophy had on him, and his of use of classical-style architecture rather than graphic realism (the obvious contrast being the Royal Artillery Memorial) but I think that would be getting beyond the scope of the article and beyond the sources, which don't discuss it in great detail in relation to this particular memorial. If you think something's still wanting I'm happy to discuss further. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:53, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • A few final thoughts on this
Children: Please add a reference/link to the source in the text.
Ecumenical shapes: I think what you really want to say is that Lutyens avoided religious symbols. Your link to "Ecumenism" explains what ecumenical means, i.e. a Christian movement towards unity, but I can't see how "shapes" come into this. A key word in ecumenism is Christian - and this narrowing down to Christianity by using for example a cross is exactly what was avoided.
Classical architecture: I think this should be separated from religious symbolism. Lutyens used the architectural language of classical architecture (rather than e.g. gothic), that's one fact, and he avoided religious symbols, that's another but different fact. If you wanted to express (and I don't know if you do) that he used classical style architecture instead of religious symbols, that would need some seriously deep and solidly referenced explanation.
Graphic sculpture: what is that? Do you mean figurative sculpture as in e.g. a relief with battle scene or a mourning figure? Gerbis (talk) 12:07, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Children" is referenced, at the end of the paragraph as with almost everything except direct quotes; I don't think the claim is sufficiently extraordinary that it needs a reference right next to it. I've tweaked the prose to use the term "figurative sculpture" as you suggest. Give me a couple of days to go back to the books on classicism and ecumenicism and I'll see if I can come up with something more coherent. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:16, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting that I haven't forgotten this. I've got a bit more I want to add from Carden-Coyne and Hussey about classicism first. I should be able to get to it this evening or tomorrow. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:30, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerbis: I've been back to the sources and rewritten those few sentences. Could you take another look when you have minute? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:41, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds much better now. Gerbis (talk) 09:16, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

Nikkimaria, Ealdgyth - Have had a go at adding alt text. The wording could probably be improved as this isn't my forte. The Source review's done (see below). KJP1 (talk) 10:34, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM edit

I looked this over a year ago when it went through Milhist ACR, so don't have a lot to add. A few comments:

  • link East Midlands in the lead
    • Done.
  • in the lead, "within sight of the station" which station?
    • Clarified.
  • "within sight of the railway station" again
    • And again.
  • move to link to cenotaph to first mention
    • I know that one's a little weird. I want a link there because that's where it's directly relevant (it discusses the definition of the term, so a link to the relevant article is helpful). Would you suggest I put a link on the first mention as well, or instead?
  • was/is it used for commemorative events?
    • Other than the dedication and re-dedication mentioned, I haven't found anything in the sources

That's all I could find to nitpick about. I'll add that I don't find the oppose convincing, particularly given Harry's response regarding the specifics. No sources have been provided for the assertions made, and it is not surprising that the information about the planning process for the memorial is sparse. That is also the case with memorials in Australia. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:03, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67: Much obliged. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:32, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Peacemaker67: Believe I've addressed everything. :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:47, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:36, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support by WereSpielChequers edit

Hi Harry, good to see you around again. Nicely written. Re Gerbis's points, if such things can be sourced then it would be good to add them, but if they can't be sourced then no matter. What I think could be done is some more detailed photos/crops of the unknown soldier, the lions and the wreath as mentioned in the text. Crops of File:Midland Railway War Memorial, Derby 10 (cropped).jpg might do the trick. A photo of the plaques would also be worthwhile, but the ones I zoomed in on had insufficient detail. ϢereSpielChequers 19:12, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, WSC. You're right, some more detailed photos would be handy. I struggled with which photos to include in the article when I was writing it as, frankly, none of them are brilliant and there's limited room. Most of them are mine but I took them with a fairly basic camera seven years ago. These days even a decent smartphone would take better pictures. Perhaps Gog the Mild might be able to take some better pics if he's passing by any time soon? As for the extra details, I got in touch with the Midland Railway Study Centre; they weren't able to shed any more light, though they did point me to The National Archives. They have some documents relating to the Midland but it's not clear if there's anything relevant in there. I've put in a request to see if there's anything about Lutyens or the memorial but the documents aren't digitised and TNA's find and copy service is out of action until further notice because of the Coronavirus. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:25, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try and snap some of the detail next time I am down that way. I can't vouch for their quality though. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:53, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've checked the Geograph but they don't have anything better than the ones already imported. I assume the National Archives check is connected with the trip to Kew that I've already promised you? In any event, can't see that happening for a while now. ϢereSpielChequers 14:59, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Indeedy. TNA is closed to the public for the foreseeable future. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:33, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentSupport by Zawed edit

A nice tidy article, and certainly worth being FA. Just one comment really:

  • From the lead: It commemorates employees of the Midland Railway who left to fight in the First World War and who died while serving in the armed forces. Is there a way to rephrase to avoid the relatively close usage of "who"? Also I don't explicitly see the basis for this statement in the body of the article itself. Zawed (talk) 07:54, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Zawed: Thanks very much for taking a look. I've tweaked that sentence. What do you think? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:28, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's good, have added my support. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 07:43, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note edit

@Gerbis: what are your current thoughts on this? And did we get a source review and I'm just being blind and not seeing it? --Ealdgyth (talk) 14:55, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

see above Gerbis (talk) 12:07, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5 edit

Hi Michell, I hope I'm not disturbing this nomination's streak here. Just wanna see if I can help before it can be promoted.

  • of a conservation area and a grade II* listed building Is it normal to have an asterisk here?
    • Normal isn't quite the right word. There are hundreds of thousands of grade II listed buildings in England and Wales, only a few thousand grade II*. I have made a slightly more specific link that hopefully clarifies things for any reader who wants to know more about that specific grade. Hope that answers that part of your query. ϢereSpielChequers 06:23, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, that's an official designation (pronounced two-star).
  • The Midland had its headquarters in Derby I might not be a native English-speaker but "the Midland" sounds a little bit odd to me. Why not drop the article or is there a good reason why not?
    • It is a little unusual but it's how the company was generally known.
  • almost 23,000 men for war service, a loss of 30 percent of its workforce I mayn't be British but shouldn't it be "per cent"?
    • Possibly. I don't care one way or the other, so done.
  • companies began employing women on a large scale for the first time I believe a hyphen between "large" and "scale" is needed.
    • No, not in this context. Only when the two words form a compound adjective.
  • who had joined the armed forces by that date. Within a week of the United Kingdom declaring war on Germany Maybe pipe Germany to the German Empire?
    • That would be overlinking and an Easter egg.
      • Hm, that's look something new to me and I'm always asking to nominators to link former countries. I believe former countries should be linked even the most common country's pre-successor should be linked because in those years sometimes centuries everything within has changed. By MOS:OVERLINK only everyday words or major topics shouldn't be linked. I don't believe most people would know that before Nazi Germany or even beyond the Weimar Republic there was a German Empire and should be linked at first mention.
        • But "Germany" is a widely understood term. The historical entities that made up Germany are not relevant to this article. And it's still an Easter egg so doing as you ask would actually be against the FA criteria. I would expect a link on the word "Germany" to go to Germany, not to German Empire or anywhere else.
          • I'll give you a point the current Germany is indeed widely known. But the German Empire is kinda relevant here (at least for me). At the time the UK declared war on Germany, Germany was much bigger than modern-day Germany. People like youths or even younger are not interested in WWI (while her sister WWII got the bigger spot) and mostly don't know the history in the background. Okay yeah sure the German Empire is more common than let's say the Natalia Republic. If you don't like the name "German Empire" then you still could change it to Imperial Germany? By MOS:OVERLINK "However, try to be conscious of your own demographic biases – what is well known in your age group, line of work, or country may be less known in others" I believe that the German Empire is one of those less known (former) countries which many people would surprise these days.
            • But it would still be an Easter egg, and more detail than we need in an article about a monument in Derby.
  • designing country houses for wealthy clients and later built much of New Delhi Because this is a FAC I believe you should add "in India" to clarify all readers where it happened.
    • I believe most people know where New Delhi is.
  • greater or lesser degree on Lutyens' design Not "Lutyens's"?
    • No. Per the MoS.
        • May I ask you where in MOS 'cause I couldn't find it?
        • Come to think if it, I've been away for a while and can't remember where I read it, but "Lutyens'" appears in 16 (I think) previous FAs and has never been challenged.
          • In the apostrophe's article states "Many respected authorities recommend that practically all singular nouns, including those ending with a sibilant sound, have possessive forms with an extra s after the apostrophe so that the spelling reflects the underlying pronunciation. Examples include Oxford University Press, the Modern Language Association, the BBC and The Economist.[24] Such authorities demand possessive singulars like these: Senator Jones's umbrella; Tony Adams's friend; my boss's job; the US's economy. Rules that modify or extend the standard principle have included the following: If the singular possessive is difficult or awkward to pronounce with an added sibilant, do not add an extra s; these exceptions are supported by The Guardian, Yahoo! Style Guide, and The American Heritage Book of English Usage. Such sources permit possessive singulars like these: Socrates' later suggestion; or Achilles' heel if that is how the pronunciation is intended." which is vague; everyone can say it's awkward or difficult to say. (Which isn't in my view.) Of course this isn't a MOS guideline and as far as I know there is no one.
            • I think I'll keep it how it is. OF those examples, it's probably closer to "Achiles'" than any other.
  • the memorial consists of a 10 m (32 ft 10 in) high cenotaph with rounded sides in the centre of a 2 m (6 ft 7 in) high screen wall Those units should be written fully 'cause this is a compound adjective.
  • Done.
    • You forgot the second compound adjective.
      • Done.
  • 7 metres (23 ft) by 3 m (9 ft 10 in) deep I believe "metre" here should be abbreviated.
    • Not done, but made consistent with the preceding measurement.
      • Why not? By MOS:UNITNAMES "In prose, unit names should be given in full if used only a few times, but symbols may be used when a unit (especially one with a long name) is used repeatedly, after spelling out the first use" I always look at how big the article is, if it has more than 30,000 bytes than I always count 3 short full written units like metres and feet. If it's bellow that number then I assume 2 short full written units are enough; this is also the third fully mentioned metre here.
        • Mainly because I dislike abbreviations in formal prose. But I've changed the second set to use abbreviations.
  • The memorial was built by J Parnell and Son Ltd and cost £10,309 (1921) Okay I have here a couple of questions. First who/what is J Parnell and shan't he/it has a full stop after the "J"? Second is there a link for both person and company? As last can you link the British pound here?
    • It's the name of a company and it doesn't have a Wikipedia article. I don't believe the full stop is necessary. Linking GBP would be overlinking.
  • on 15 December 1921 while the Right Reverend Edwyn Hoskyns Excuse me? Shouldn't the article be capitalised?
    • I don't know what you mean, but the formatting is correct as-is.
      • The title's article uses "The Right Reverend", shouldn't the article here be capitalised?
        • No. Not in the middle of a sentence. I even went and double-checked and The Reverend#Usage says When the style is used within a sentence, the is correctly in lower-case.
  • Hmm, sounds legit.
  • wishing to visit the memorial after its unveiling.[19][14] Maybe re-oder the refs here?
    • Done.
  • part of a national collection of Lutyens' war memorials Not Lutyens's?
    • No, as above.
  • The memorial was damaged in 2010 when several of the bronze plaques This event is relatively new, so is there at least a months?
    • I think that would be recentism.
      • It is more recent than the rest of the article; both the lead and the body don't give us a month. Is there a policy here on Wikipedia which mentions exceptions for months or days?
        • The date is not relevant to the event, and the exact date of the rededication is given two sentences later.
  • The plaques were restored by Network Rail and the Railway Heritage Trust at a cost of £18,000 Do we have links for those organisations?
    • NR is linked above; the RHT doesn't have an article.
  • and hundreds more employees had volunteered Not sure why but shouldn't we have here an "of" after "hundreds"?
    • That would be ungrammatical.
  • on the pylon by making the viewer look up Merge "look" and "up".
    • No. "Lookup" is a completely different term.
  • I also do not think BBC News and Historic England should be repeatedly linked; looks to me as overlinked.
    • This is fine in the references section because each reference should stand on its own.
  • Ref 27 is a PDF without a page number but I thought we always should use pages in PDFs?
    • It's five pages, of which two are full-page images. Well within a reasonable range for verifiability.
  • Why are the metric units here primary instead of imperial? By WP:METRIC "UK engineering-related articles, including those on bridges and tunnels, generally use the system of units that the topic was drawn up in" I don't believe back in the day the memorial was drawn up in metric units. The UK needed another 50 years before she realised she has to adopt metric units as co-official units.
    • Because they're sourced to Historic England (the government body responsible for documenting and protecting historic structures), who give them in metric.
  • I'm not really seeing how that's legit but I'll give it a pass.
  • protection from demolition or modification; grade II* is reserved for "particularly important buildings of more than special interest" and is applied to about 5.5% of listings By MOS:PERCENT we only should use the symbol per cent at scientific/​technical articles, and in tables and infoboxes which does not look like this sentence is in.
    • Done.
  • The memorial stands on Midland Road, within sight of Midland station Isn't "stations" here part of a proper noun? And add here "Derby" too.
  • The memorial was designated a grade II* listed building in 1977 No day and month are mentioned while the infobox says so; looks like OR to me. I also believe the lead also needs the date of this sentence.
    • If that looks like OR to you then you don't know what OR is. The date is not important in the history of the memorial, it's just the date of a bureaucratic decision. It takes less than 10 seconds to verify it from the link immediately below. Clearly not OR.
      • Maybe the date isn't important the history of the memorial but it's odd to see the detailed date in the infobox and not in the body nor lead (but that's not important right now). I've found this at MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE which states "When considering any aspect of infobox design, keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored). The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. Of necessity, some infoboxes contain more than just a few fields; however, wherever possible, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content. Avoid links to sections within the article; the table of contents provides that function." it states summarising I don't see a summarise in the infobox from the body about this date. And probably after FAC it would be changed by someone who doesn't know (or follow) the FAC progress but still know this policy or just add it because it's odd to look at in their opinion. Especially at TFA; I don't see the point here to not adding the date but could me of course. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 23:43, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've added the date to the prose. Not because I think it's an improvement but because I don't think it's worth arguing about.
  • I might be new here (in this topic) but may I ask you why we use "Reference no.: 1228742" in the infobox? It's also only mentioned in the infobox which is once again OR to me.
    • The entry number on an official government list, linked to its entry on that list, where the entry number is given right at the top, is OR? Are you winding me up?
      • I'm not saying it is OR, I only asked you 'cause I'm new in military memorials you know.
  • Can you also convert the Roman letters in this sentence "Close-up of the dates inscribed on the memorial" in one of your images? (I do not believe everyone knows especially youths what the year is.)
    • Done.
  • commemorated on the LNWR's war memorial outside Euston station in London Stations is not a proper noun here?
    • No. As above.
  • The artist Fabian Peake created a memorial there in 2018 2018, that's only 1–2 years ago? I wonder when exactly I'm now really curious when exactly it happens?
    • I'll give you that. It does say "on the centenary of the armistice", but I suppose not everyone immediately thinks of 11 November.

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 22:23, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some done. Replies inline for others. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:12, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi HJ I have counter-replied your responses and had my check-up and found some more comments for you (don't worry I only make a review and a check-up not more). Be safe and cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 12:02, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, it looks fine for me, support. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:02, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Nick-D edit

After family war memorials, I find company memorials to be the most moving memorials of the world wars: they're a stark reminder that most of the military personnel who fought in these wars were civilians who were mourned by their colleagues afterwards. I'd like to offer the following comments, all on labour issues:

  • "Around a third of the company's workforce left to fight" - given that a fair few (the majority?) would have been conscripted, I'm not sure about "left to fight" here given this implies they joined the military voluntarily
  • "also gave up large numbers of their employees for military service" - were the workers the company's to allocate to the military? (I'm not sure how labour was managed in the British war economy, but it seems unlikely that railroad companies had much say here)
  • "The Midland released almost 23,000 men for war service" - as above, did the company actually have a say over whether its workers who were classed as non-essential joined the military or were conscripted? Nick-D (talk) 08:49, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nick, thanks for having a look. The railways were considered essential to the British war effort so although they employed huge numbers of people, many of the employees weren't liable to conscription. Many of those who left did so voluntarily pre-conscription. In fact, the Midland decreed that employees intending to join the forces had to get permission from management in order to stem the loss of skilled workers. I take your middle point though, and I've rephrased slightly. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:15, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That looks good, and I'm pleased to support this nomination. Nick-D (talk) 11:32, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note (again) edit

Ealdgyth - Happy to pick up the Source review, it's got more than enough Supports. I could also try writing the alt text, if Harry's not available and that's the only thing standing in the way of promotion. The Source review will be done by this afternoon. KJP1 (talk) 09:15, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kevin, if you think you could write some alt text that would be useful, that would be amazing. It's something I struggle with as I've heard feedback from users of screen readers that the alt text written by Wikipedians can be less than useful. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:52, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

Bibliography
  • Boorman, Derek (1988). At the Going Down of the Sun: British First World War Memorials - is he this Derek Boorman? In which case you could authorlink him, as you've done with Granet/Hussey/Pevsner. Although I have an odd feeling I've asked this question before?
  • I don't know is the honest answer. The notes on the dust jacket of At The Going Down of the Sun don't quite match and make no mention of him being a lieutenant general. It's possible, but I wouldn't want to link him without being certain.
  • Pevsner, Nikolaus; Hartwell, Clare; Williamson, Elizabeth Ann (2016). Derbyshire - being uber-picky, Williamson doesn't have her middle name, Ann, on the front cover or the title page of my copy. And the publisher location should be New Haven and London.
  • The middle name doesn't add anything, so gone. As for publisher locations, surely we just use the headquarters locations? Otherwise the location field would be huge for a book by OUP, for example.
  • Skelton, Tim; Gliddon, Gerald (2008). Lutyens and the Great War - should this appear in the Citations, 10 & 13, as Skelton & Gliddon, as per Simmons & Biddle, Cite 5?
  • I've always cited it as just Skelton because the research is his; Gliddon just wrote the introduction.
Citations
  • Cite 24 - It might help readers if the title of the memorial could be included in the citation, as it is in Cites 6 & 9. Oddly, it is just titled "War memorial", but I'd probably call it "War Memorial Euston Square", as per the address.
  • Done.
  • The on-line sources all work and all support the text.
  • I've checked the off-line sources I have, Amery, Hussey, Pevsner, and they're used appropriately. Fully confident, given the pedigree, that the ones I don't have will also support the text.

The above are all minor nitpicks. The Sourcing is fine. KJP1 (talk) 09:56, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Kevin! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:31, 26 April 2020 (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 Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 30 April 2020 [2].

Tropical Storm Zelda (1991) edit

Nominator(s):  Nova Crystallis (Talk) 02:40, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the last storm of the 1991 Pacific typhoon season. As a severe tropical storm, Zelda did a significant amount of damage to the Marshall Islands, without causing any deaths in the country. This is the first FAC I've ever taken part in, apologies if I did something I wasn't aware of. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 02:40, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Epicgenius edit

I'm going to leave some comments later. Ping me if I don't comment back here in 3 days. epicgenius (talk) 16:25, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Epicgenius: Nova Crystallis (Talk) 19:24, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a first comment. Do you need to put "northeastward", etc? epicgenius (talk) 21:02, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More comments

  • Zelda soon weakened into a tropical storm on December 2 - I don't think we need "soon" since this is implied.
  • and it continued to track the storm until it crossed the International Date Line again on December 7. - what's the first "it" and what's the second "it"? This needs to be clarified.
  • Zelda caused significant damage to the Marshall Islands. Operations at Kwajalein Missile Range were disrupted severely. - these two short sentences can probably be combined. "Zelda caused significant damage to the Marshall Islands, and operations at Kwajalein Missile Range were disrupted severely" for instance.
  • No deaths or injuries were reported - can this be placed earlier?
  • President George H. W. Bush - you should clarify that this is the US president.

I will review the rest of the page by tomorrow. epicgenius (talk) 19:29, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • A tropical cyclone formation alert soon followed from the JTWC - might want to have "from the JTWC" right after "alert".
  • it became a tropical storm at 0000 UTC on November 28 for JTWC - can something "become" a tropical storm for JTWC? I assume this means the JTWC classified this as such.
  • the small size of the storm, poorly organized outflow, and the lack of visible and infrared image pairs for analysis. - the poorly organized outflow
  • at 1200 UTC of November 29 - on November 29?
  • Six hours later, JTWC reported the storm has reached the peak - be mindful of tense, since this is present tense, but the last sentence was past tense. Also, this seems to be a similar wording to the last sentence, which ended with "reached its peak".
  • By December 1, the storm began to weaken and turned northeast. On December 2, JMA reported the storm had weakened to 100 km/h (60 mph).[2] The storm weakened below typhoon strength on 1800 UTC of the same day, with winds of 110 km/h (70 mph).[5] - "weakened" is repeated three times here. I recommend you change at least one of these.
  • The low-level circulation detached from the cold front, and JTWC issued the last warning of the year.[1] - which happened to be for this tropical storm?
  • it stopped tracking just past the International Date Line - the storm or the JTA?
  • Kwajalein Missile Range caught stronger winds than expected from the storm, - "stronger winds than expected" is fine, but this sentence feels like it needs more punctuation or rearrangement.
  • Other islands in the nation had their water contaminated by saltwater - I don't get this. Do you mean freshwater?
  • $98,000 (1992 USD), $1.518 million (1992 USD) - instead of doing this, I guess you can use {{inflation}}.

These are all my comments for now. By the way, I would like to claim points in the WikiCup for this review. epicgenius (talk) 22:24, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Epicgenius: Thanks for the review. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 22:53, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I support this page for promotion now. epicgenius (talk) 23:10, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by JavaHurricane edit

Will post shortly. JavaHurricane 15:04, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@JavaHurricane: Take your time, finish other reviews that you claimed first. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 08:00, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think I can do it now. JavaHurricane 11:34, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Severe Tropical Storm Zelda was the last storm" - storm --> tropical cyclone and appropriate wikilink.
  • "and caused damage to the Marshall Islands on November 28." - Change to "that caused damage in the Marshall Islands on November 28."
  • In the next line, mention that Zelda formed from that LPA.
  • No requirement to mention that the JTWC named it as Zelda in the lead, that normally goes in the MH.
  • "It reached a peak of 80 kn (150 km/h; 90 mph) according to the JTWC, and 60 kn (110 km/h; 70 mph) according to the Japanese Meteorological Agency (JMA), with a barometric pressure of 975 hectopascals (28.8 inHg)." Use hPa and either knots or kn. Also it is Japan Met, not Japanese.
  • I'm not changing it because of previous reviews below. Shortened the JMA part though. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 15:57, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The tropical storm traveled northwest, then northeast." - No context and can be excised.
  • "while the JMA declared the storm to be extratropical the next day and continued to track the storm, until it crossed the International Date Line again on December 7." - storm occurs twice, change to "[...] and continued to track it until it crossed the IDL"
  • Changed to "track until it".
  • Damage in the Marshall Islands or damage to?
  • Second sentence of second para could open with "However, " to stress the contrast.
  • Bush allowed FEMA to assist in what?
  • Have we already transitioned to using interactive maps? Better use the static ones till the IDL problems are addressed.
  • "A tropical cyclone formation alert from the Joint Typhoon Warning Center (JTWC) soon followed." - Keep it simple: "The JTWC soon issued a TCFA on the system." Also, no need to mention the JTWC's whole name twice as it was mentioned earlier.
  • One reviewer said I should type out JTWC for a second time, and I wouldn't shorten TCFA without mentioning the whole name first. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 15:57, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add the fact that it was the JTWC that upgraded Zelda to a TY.
  • From the note in para 1: "Sustained 10–minute winds are about 1.14 times the amount of 1 minute winds." Isn't it the opposite?
  • "as it turned slightly northwest, something they did not expect" - simply put, "as it unexpectedly turned to the northwest."
  • "On the same day, President of the United States George H. W. Bush, through the Compact of Free Association, declared a major disaster" - What was declared a major disaster? Or is it a disaster area?

That's all from me. JavaHurricane 09:41, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@JavaHurricane: Thanks for the review. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 15:57, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome! Changed to support. JavaHurricane 16:30, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Lead and infobox state a 1-minute sustained figure of 150 km/h, but I don't see that number in the text
  • What value is used in the source(s)?
  • For the 1-minute value, 90 mph converted would be 144.828 km/h, so rounded would be at 145 km/h. There has been discussion about this before. Might be easier on my part to hardcode the value in the prose to 150 km/h. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 00:46, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just realized I did that several years ago for the lede. Might as well change it for the meteorological history. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 00:49, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you explain why, if the sources support a value rounded to 145, we're hardcoding 150? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:24, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Nikkimaria: I had to do a bit of looking it up myself. So I think this is why. The value was converted from the original value (80 knots) to mph and km/h, 92.06 mph and 148.15 km/h respectively. Since all values would be rounded by five, the values would be 90 mph and 150 km/h instead. If the convert 90 mph to km/h, it would show 145 km/h, which is why we're here. This is basically what KN2731 said in the thread above, just more applicable here. Now, do you want to also show the values in knots for the article, or just stick with the hardcoded values? Nova Crystallis (Talk) 02:41, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the original value in the sources in knots or in mph? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:47, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria:, there is a presedence of not including knots because the vast majority of the population is unaware of what it means. This is simply a way to keep the article simplified and with less "jargon". Every other article does not include knots as a unit of measurement for this reason. NoahTalk 03:45, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I get that, but "simplified" should not mean "wrong" - we need the article to reflect what the sources actually say. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:09, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest the article should first present the unit in knots, per the warning centers, and add a note (like the JMA note) for what the conversions are - 1 knot = 1.15 mph = 1.85 km/h. Most articles don't use knots, because the public rarely uses knots, it's a scientific/nautical term. Also, as for the 1-min value, make sure you're converting it from the original knots. 80 knots = 92 mph = 148 km/h. That's why 90 rounds down to 90, and 148 km/h rounds up to 150. I hope that helps understand the confusion Nikkimaria. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:04, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I added the knots onto the conversions, so it shows all three types (knots, km/h, and mph). Nova Crystallis (Talk) 16:33, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Hurricanehink and Nikkimaria: I also linked the knots article, where there is a table of conversions. Anymore concerns? Nova Crystallis (Talk) 19:16, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN1 uses the PDF pagination, but the document itself has pagination that is different - suggest either using the document pagination or specifying in the citation that you're using PDF pagination. Also what's led you to select that particular group of authors?
  • Changed the page numbers, and the group of authors were listed under ATCR staff on page ii. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 00:31, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why cite specifically the ATCR staff when the report generally has a much longer list of credits? Is there a section attribution I'm missing? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:34, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ATCR staff were the editors for the report and created the graphics for it. Everyone else in the JTWC staff were TDOs (Typhoon Duty Officer), TDAs (Typhoon Duty Analyst), or some other type of analysts. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 16:33, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN7: don't see the bulletin mentioned at the given link, where are you getting that from?
  • FN13: source link has authors credited
  • Be consistent in whether you abbreviate state names. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:42, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN15 has a different date format
  • Be consistent in whether you include locations for reports. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:08, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5 edit

  • Severe Tropical Storm Zelda Severe shouldn't be bold.
  • I would disagree because that's the technical full name of the storm from the JMA. If you need an example, Cyclone Chapala passed FAC with its full name bolded. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 19:04, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not an expert in storms, but what I know is the full name should always be bold in the lead and if that's official by the sources, then it can stay like this.
  • quickly strengthened to 65 knots (120 km/h; 75 mph) km/h and mph shouldn't be linked.
  • with a barometric pressure of 975 mbar (28.8 inHg) Maybe link bar and inHg also maybe write mbar fully first because I have no clue what it is. Is megabar?
  • Should still be written fully here.
  • percent of homes were destroyed in Ebeye Add "Island" after Ebeye.
  • Per MOS:TIME all the 24-hour clock times should have a colon.
  • later on the depression, naming it 31W We need a convert here of watt, a space between 31 and watt also is needed and link watt too.
    • (Comment from another reviewer) The literal name is "31W", or at least that's what I got from reading this article. This has nothing to do with watts. epicgenius (talk) 19:03, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • on November 28 by JTWC, with winds of 35 kn (65 km/h; 40 mph) Reckon to link knots here and write it fully once.
  • Zelda vs Zelda. I'm not sure which one we should use?
  • Former for when the agency names it for the first time, latter for every other use of it. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 19:25, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Zelda intensified into a typhoon at 1200 UTC on November 29 near the Marshall Islands --> "Zelda intensified into a typhoon at 12:00 UTC that same day near the Marshall Islands"? The date is here unnecessary.
  • pressure reading of 990 mbar (29 inHg) Link both units and write mbar fully once.
  • Still should be written in its fully form.
  • something they did not expect "They" is meant to be JTWC?
  • I though this article was written in American English? Because per this, calling organisations "singular they" is more common in British English.
  • JMA isn't introduced in the body itself (in the first note it is but not all the readers look at the notes).
  • Unless you want to mention both agencies in their full name in the body again. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 20:05, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Normally I'd recommend but because it's pretty small it doesn't matter that much.
  • Remnants of the storm moved inland into northern British Columbia by December 8 How do we know these remnants are not part of the storm?
  • You read the newspaper article, where it says "The remains of typhoon zelda crossed Inland into northern be late Sunday spreading heavy snow to the coastal passes with lesser amounts over northern BC and southern Yukon." I'm pretty sure the newspaper says the remnants are part of the storm. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 19:33, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Zelda also produced a pressure of 990.1 hPa (29.24 inHg) What's hPa? Maybe write it fully per MOS:UNITNAMES and link it too.
  • In Ebeye, 60 percent of homes made Maybe add "Island" as a little introducing and change "In" to "On".
  • Coral reefs were also damaged when the storm came nearby Heavily or slightly damaged?
  • The United States Army engaged in cleanup and repairing Should be "clean up" per Ngram
  • I'm not an English teacher but if "cleanup" has another meaning then I wouldn't ask that again.
  • criticized the response of FEMA as the funding Introduce FEMA here.
  • aid via United Nations Disaster Relief Organization (UNDRO) on December 18 The UNDRO was formed on 19 December thus a day after the request and doesn't match with this date? Well at least the article says that to me.
  • The OCHA formed on December 19, and UNDRO is the predecessor of OCHA. UNDRO existed on December 18, the day it published the report. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 19:12, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • about $98,000 (1992 USD, equivalent to $178,547 in 2019) Unlink US dollar here per this is also too common look at MOS:OVERLINK.
  • UNDRO, United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), and Australia Australia here is an MOS:EGG
  • 10 minute winds are about 1.14 times the amount of 1 minute winds This is a start of a sentence per MOS:NUMNOTES We should try to avoid using figures at the start of a sentence. also it should be "10-minute" because of compound adjective.
  • 1 minute (in the notes) vs 1-minute (in the infobox)?

I think that's it for me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 11:20, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CPA-5: Thanks for the review. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 20:07, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks good to me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:22, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Yellow Evan edit

  • "A disturbance formed near the International Date Line," what kind of disturbance? YE Pacific Hurricane 03:11, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "For other storms of the same name, see Typhoon Zelda." why the hatnote given the title explicitly is in the year (hence no confusion)? Shouldn't the dab page be moved to the See also with the markup <non-wiki>Other tropical cyclones named Zelda</non-wiki>? YE Pacific Hurricane 03:11, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Joint Typhoon Warning Center (JTWC) reported that the depression had reached tropical storm intensity near the Marshall Islands on November 28, thus naming it Zelda. Near the country on November 29," so it was near the country both days or? Also link to tropical cyclone naming somewhere near there. YE Pacific Hurricane 03:11, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In late November, a circulation was generated near the International Date Line by westerly winds." First off, circulation should probably link to low pressure area here rather than atmospheric circulation. The westerly wind bit seemed a bit simplistic, cuasing me to inquire about this further. Looking at the JTWC ATCR, the wording used is "Westerly winds along the equator associated with the onset phase of the El Niiio phenomenon helped to generate a weak cyclonic circulation near the international date line in late November." I'd just change this to "Westerly winds near the equator – associated with an ongoing El Niño event – assisted in spawning a weak area of low pressure in late November 1991 near the International Date Line. YE Pacific Hurricane 03:11, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It was included in the Significant Tropical Weather Advisory at 06:00 UTC on November 25." what is that? Either add to Glossary of tropical cyclone terms por do what I do and just say the JTWC started tracking the system at that time. YE Pacific Hurricane 03:11, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do you not put "the" before JTWC/JMA in the MH but you do in the lead? YE Pacific Hurricane 03:11, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Zelda also produced a pressure of 990.1 hPa (29.24 inHg), which was the lowest pressure recorded on Kwajalein at that time.[12] " how does a storm "produce" pressure? Just saw a pressure was recorded on Kawjalein. YE Pacific Hurricane 03:11, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Zelda bought heavy rain and 70 mph (110 km/h) winds to Southeast Alaska.[14] " why US units? YE Pacific Hurricane 03:11, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "allowing federal funding to be sent to Arno, Aur, Kwajalein, Lae, Lib, Namu and Ujae islands" shouldn't there be a "the" stuck in here. YE Pacific Hurricane 03:11, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Yellow Evan: Thanks for the review. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 04:54, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

  • Image is appropriately licensed, but needs alt text and perhaps a location in the description
  • Map data seems to be appropriately sourced. Could the lines be made thicker (or made into a ranged box) to not mislead readers? Caption also needs to state general location. SounderBruce 05:24, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Made the lines thicker. Not changing the description, as it is standardized across the project, and the map is interactive and displaying the location. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 05:32, 28 April 2020 (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 Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 30 April 2020 [3].

Mercenary War edit

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 22:51, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The First Punic War ended after 23 years with a Carthaginian defeat. Still a great power, Carthage arranged to pay off its army and ship its members home. One botched attempt to shortchange the troops later and the army was blockading Carthage and its African vassals had risen in revolt to join the mutineers with 70,000 volunteers. The war was fought with unusual savagery, even for the time. I believe that this horrific tale is to FA standards, but I trust in the community to point out the myriad ways in which I am mistaken. All comments gratefully received. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:51, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

Images are all free + relevant but I have concerns about some of the sourcing.

Umm. Yes. Ideally we need good secondary RSs. This may take a while. Leave it with me.
@Buidhe: sourced. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:49, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Other comments
  • I have concerns about the relevance of comments on Polybius' reliability on the First Punic War, because technically this isn't part of the First Punic War. It may be that RS are heavily reliant on Polybius' account for this conflict, but since we aren't citing him directly, I don't think it's necessary to discuss his reliability in detail.
Re the first point - guilty as charged. That's me reading what I want to read, not what's there. Now tweaked to reflect his work on this war.
Re the second point, I understand your view. I am inclined too disagree with it, but not too strongly. However, see Peacemaker's response to your point below and my comments on it.
  • The background section seems to be split between actual background and the revolt that became the Mercenary War. You might consider reorganizing to add a section on the mutiny specifically.
Good idea. I have made it a sub-section of Background. Does that work?

buidhe 04:56, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Buidhe and apologies for taking so long to respond. Your "other comments" addressed. I will get my teeth into proper sourcing for those images and ping you once I have. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:01, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk edit

  • I was slightly too late for the GAN party, so now I'm here, will review soon. Some starters below. FunkMonk (talk) 08:24, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • First Punic War is duplinked in the intro.
Fixed.
  • I think the Polybius image could have a more descriptive caption. Like, "Polybius is considered the most reliable source etc."
Done.
  • Maybe the caption of the recreation image could have some added context, such as "at a convention in country x" or such.
Done.
  • Carthage and Rome are both linked twice early in the article, but to two different articles each.
The first time Carthage is mentioned as a city it is linked to Carthage; the first time it is mentioned as a state it is linked to Ancient Carthage. Similarly for Rome - Rome and Roman Republic. I had hoped that which was which was clear from context, although I have occasionally added pointers.
  • "and Matho, an African dissatisfied with Hanno's attitude" African is a very unspecific term compared to the other terms used, why not specify Berber as his article does?
Cus throughout the article I have avoided using Berbers, Numidians, Libyans (who don't come from modern Libya), Phoenician settlers, Carthaginian colonists, Libyphoenicians[!] - other that when using them technically to describe troop types. It would require a dense paragraph of explanation for little gain to a reader, IMO. I strongly suspect that most would read each as interchangeable. I believe that using Berber instead of African would detract from, rather than add to, an average reader's comprehension. However, I see that I have similar for Navaras, so I suppose I have set a precedent. Done.
Sounds right to me ;-). And I have just been picked up for linking Corvus to Corvus. It was meant to be a red link. Fixed.
@FunkMonk: thanks for stopping by and for the input. Your various comments all addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:01, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "No details of the battle survive" You redlink the battle though, but is there any chance a battle without information will ever have an article?
I have it on my to do list. When the mood takes me I shall rattle off the half dozen stubs needed to turn most of the First Punic War red links blue. If I pad the background and aftermath, this one may even get past stub status.
  • Link Polybius in his image caption?
Done.
Thanks again FB. Both done. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:48, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks FunkMonk. Harrias's asides at GAN had me giggling. Nothing to do with FAC, but I thought that you might enjoy them:
  • "The Carthaginian authorities decided to instead wait until all of the troops had arrived and then attempt to negotiate a settlement at a lower rate." Well, this doesn't seem a recipe for disaster at all. Sit an army inside your city, and then try and screw them over. No review comment here. Unless I'm reviewing their tactics, in which case I might start looking for that quick fail template again.
  • "The pay dispute had become a full-scale revolt threatening Carthage's existence as a state." I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you.
  • "When it arrived its members also mutinied, joined the previous mutineers, and killed all of the Carthaginians on the island." Well, of course they did.
Gog the Mild (talk) 12:37, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5 edit

Will have a look in the coming days or later today. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 10:02, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • It lasted from 241 to late 238 or early 237 BC and ended with Carthage suppressing both the mutiny and the revolt. The infobox and this sentence don't match with each other.
I'm rubbish at checking inherited infoboxes. Thanks. They do now.
  • based on several, now-lost, Greek and Latin sources Unlink Latin.
Done.
  • Link talents.
Done.
  • the Carthaginian general Hanno was leading Add "the Great" Next to Hanno; we should introduce him a little bit.
Introduced.
  • Theveste (modern Tébessa, Algeria) 300 kilometres (190 mi) south-west --> " Theveste (modern Tébessa, Algeria) 300 km (190 mi) south-west"
Done.
  • Libyans provided close-order infantry equipped with large shields Wrong link?
Cheers.
  • Numidians and Berbers provided light cavalry Numidians were Berbers; maybe add "other" next to "and".
Fair point. Berbers deleted.
  • North Africa had indigenous African forest elephants at the time Wrong link; should be "North African elephant"'s link.
No it shouldn't. Some scholars argue that the North African elephant was a sub-spices of the forest elephants - which would still make them forest elephants. But most don't and my sources which mention it all describe them as "forest elephants".
  • they were relocated to Sicca Veneria (modern El Kef) 180 kilometres (110 mi) away --> "they were relocated to Sicca Veneria (modern El Kef) 180 km (110 mi) away"
Done.
  • 20,000 troops marched to Tunis, 16 kilometres (10 mi) --> "20,000 troops marched to Tunis, 16 km (10 mi)"
Done.
  • Is it Gesco or Gisco?
The sources differ, I am going with Gisco. Now standardised.
  • threatening Carthage's existence as a state.[42][30] Re-order the refs here.
Done.
  • Rome for protection, which was refused.[51][52][48] Re-order the refs here.
Done.
  • who suffered losses of 8,000 men.[53][54][30] Same as above.
Done.
  • with 10,000 men commanded by Spendius Spendius who?
The Spendius introduced earlier as "Spendius, an escaped Roman slave who faced death by torture if he were recaptured ... [was] declared general".
  • Pinned against mountains and with their food exhausted, the rebels ate their horses, their prisoners and then their slaves That's disgusting.
True. I did mention that "the war was fought with unusual savagery, even for the time."
  • Tunis and marched 160 kilometres (100 mi) south --> "Tunis and marched 160 km (100 mi) south"
Done.
  • prepared an expedition to seize both Sardinia and Corsica Why Corsica? I understand that they wanted Sardinia but were there also mutinies?
  • In both notes 3 and 7, we should use abbreviations for kilogramme, fully write long tons and link long tons as well.
Done.
  • In the image "File:Troupes carthaginoises Arverniales 2012.JPG" we should write "re-enactment" per Ngram.
Done.
  • Is it Mathos or Matho because Matho's link goes to Mathos?
Same guy. Spelt "Matho" in my sources.

That's it I believe. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 10:43, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks CPA-5. Your usual eagle-eyed job. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:40, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks good to me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 17:41, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM edit

This article is in good shape. I have a few minor comments:

  • I disagree with Buidhe regarding the sources explanation, I think with these ancient wars, this sort of information is necessary to explain where we got the accounts from originally
@Buidhe: Note Peacemaker67's comment above. I incline towards his view, as we have discussed elsewhere; without it being a complete dealbreaker. Possibly the pair of you could reach a consensus? Maybe discuss it in a separate section so others could contribute. Or flag it up on the MilHist discussion page? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:30, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "on Sicily, Hamilcar Barca" needs a comma after Barca
Done.
  • "Most of the Carthaginian infantry" this would only be the Libyans, as the Gaulish and Spanish mercenaries were not trained for close-order work.
Yes, the Libyans - and Carthaginian citizens when present, who also fought in the phalanx - "The majority of these foreigners were from North Africa". But I see your point; as we have the information, why not communicate it. How is "The close order Libyan infantry, and citizen militia when present, would fight in a tightly-packed formation known as a phalanx."
  • perhaps mention in the lead that the original force from Sicily was 20,000 strong
Good point. Done.
  • for stratagem link Ruse de guerre
Neat. Done.
  • maybe a note for Hannibal that he isn't the famous one?
Done.
  • hyphenate "largescale" as a compound adjective?
Done.
  • link crucifiction?
Done. (You may get a dissenter, depending on who else reviews.)
  • link Hannibal Barca
Done.

That's me done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:03, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Peacemaker67, I seem to have got off lightly on this one. Your comments all addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:30, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:35, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

- spotchecks not done

  • Infobox gives a rebel strength of 90-100k - where is the higher number coming from?
I inherited the infobox and clearly didn't check it closely enough. "100,000" removed. None of my sources mention this. Which is not surprising, because the primary sources don't either.
  • Be consistent in whether you include locations for books
I now am.
  • Miles: is this citation to the US or UK edition?
UK. Drat. Location corrected. And I will start into the eight other articles with the same error.
  • Tipps issue should be 4, "4th Qtr" is the date
Fixed.
  • Do any sources give estimates of Carthaginian strength or casualties?
With the exception of the Battle of the Bagradas River none of the sources I have checked - which I think is all of the RSs - venture a guess, or even discuss it. I assume because there is nothing much in the primary sources to base a guess on. (Which there isn't.)

Nikkimaria (talk) 23:24, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria, many thanks for going through that. Your comments all addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:01, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Wehwalt edit

Support An interesting read, though I don't know much about the subject matter. A few comments.
  • Sources are not all consistently formatted. Collins could use a location, the second Hoyos source differs in ISBN formatting than the others.
Collins location added at 18:59.
Hoyos: the second Hoyos source is a journal article with a JSTOR. The third is a different book from the various references to articles in A Companion to the Punic Wars, which all have the same ISBN.
I'm referring to Truceless War, for which you give the ISBN as 978-90-474-2192-4. The other books have three digits, than one, then four, then four, then one.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:41, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is Stanford University Press in Stanford, California? Apparently today it's in Redwood City. Of course it may have been different in 1996.
"Stanford, California" is what it says on the title page. No mention of Redwood.
  • "lenience" wouldn't leniency be more commonly used?
Done.
  • "the early 3rd century BC, and lasted for 23 years, from 264 to 241 BC." This doesn't strike me as particularly early in the century.
True. I can't imagine what I was thinking of. Fixed.
  • Gisco or Gesco? It seems tied, 3-3.
The sources tie as well. and there isn't an article on him to break the tie. I resolved this in favour of Gisco with an 18:40 edit; it must have been while you were picking up the discrepancy. I need to write the article!
Wehwalt: Article now written. A bit rough and ready, but I will tidy it up. I also found a source calling him Gesgo - spare us. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:41, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:19, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that Wehwalt, I hope that you enjoyed it. And very good of you to support before I addressed your comments, for which many thanks; I don't know how I get so much sloppiness into so few words. All now resolved, although you might want to check the Hoyos ISBN. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:21, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from HaEr48 (support) edit

  • Note: planning to claim review as part of wikicup
  • Where does 90,000 in the infobox come from? Can't find the same number in the article body
"the Carthaginian army of 20,000 men from Sicily" ... "an additional 70,000 men according to Polybius".
  • The appearance of "Carthaginian victory" and "Roman annexation of …" together in the infobox seem jarring. Suggest qualifying "Carthaginian victory in Africa" and probably merging the Roman annexation in the same part of the infobox.
First part done. I am not sure that I understand your second suggestion; do you mean list the territorial changes under a heading other than "Territorial changes"?
My suggestion is like this, let me know what you think. I think it's better to present it as "two halves" of the result, rather than listing one result and one territorial change which seemed like the opposite. I hope I make sense. I self-reverted my suggestion above, so if you agree please reinstate. I can totally understand if you disagree though. HaEr48 (talk) 23:42, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that that might be what you meant. I don't object as such. But I do worry that it will give a reader the impression that the whole of the war was between Rome and Carthage; after all, every other article involving both involves them fighting each other. Yet it seems unreasonable not to include this information. How would you feel about something like 'Opportunistic Roman annexation of Sardinia and Corsica'? To give a bit of a feel for the nuances.
@Gog the Mild: Good point. Yeah, that would clarify the nuance, and IMO it wouldn't matter too much which heading it goes to. Let's do it. HaEr48 (talk) 12:14, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@HaEr48: Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:18, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should Sardinia and Corsica be part of "Location"?
Well, obviously I decided not. The infobox is a summary. But I am open to persuasion that I have over summarised.
  • Suggest giving years of key events in the lead. e.g. year when Hamilcar Barca was given command, as well as since when "the war was pursued with great brutality"
Good idea. Done.
  • "So much so, that before the full 20,000 had arrived they were relocated ...": I don't get the "So much so" here. Is the implication here that it's bad for them to appreciate civilization?
No. The implication is that the locals found 20,000 soldiers with time on their hands difficult neighbours. Reworded to be clearer.
  • "Rome pointedly declined to take advantage of Carthage's troubles". This is given without explanation, but later I find out one is given (quoted from Richard Miles) in the #Truceless War section. Maybe move it up?
Well this may be over-simplifying a complex, and largely unknown situation. Eg Hoyos says "the atmosphere of goodwill that developed between the two powers ensured that the Sardinia mercenaries appeal to Rome later on was turned down". And, in a different work "It is hard to explain the Romans volte-face in 237 [regarding] Sardinia". Other modern sources, like Polybius, just report the facts. But what the heck, Miles id the definitive modern work on Carthage and it's an attributed quote, so done.
  • Spendius was reinforced by an additional 15,000 men from the siege of Utica, which the rebels had renewed: If the siege was renewed, how come new soldiers became available?
They were drawn from the besieging force - I have tweaked to make clearer. (To OR, possibly at some risk of weakening the siege, but feeling that dealing with the new threat of Hamilcar was more important.)
  • Navaras linked in the article is redlinked, but there is a Naravas article with a matching description. Which one is a typo?
That is odd. I changed it when I was told above that "Navaras links to Indian aesthetics.." (Which it did when I double checked.) Checking, that should be "Navarasa", but see here. I think that the redirect needs deleting. What do you think? Or I could rename the Numidian leader's article?
@Gog the Mild: Is the Numidian's leader name actually Navaras or Naravas? If it is the former, yes we should rename Naravas. HaEr48 (talk) 23:26, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@HaEr48: It never ceases to amaze me how long and hard I can study something and still see what I expect to see, rather than what is there. Thank you. Resolved. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:05, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, I can understand :) I have trouble remembering the right spelling of Battle of Gegodog myself, hehe. HaEr48 (talk) 12:14, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "every Carthaginian citizen of military age": Males only, or did all females join the army too?
Females weren't citizens. (In any culture of the time.) If I insert 'male', which I have no problem with, I will need to remove "citizen", which may lead to a net loss of comprehensibility to a reader.
  • The last 2 sentences of #Sardinia probably belongs in #Aftermath?
I am not sure that it doesn't cause unnecessary repetition, but done.
  • Is it possible to elaborate more on the Hoyos and Miles quote, on why they think the war so politically enduring/profound politically? Is it related to the rest of the paragraph (seizure by Rome, rise of the Barcids), or is it related to the upcoming Second Punic War, or do they mention some other reason?
Oof! Difficult to summarise. If pressed it may be easier to remove it. I have had a go.
  • Note 8 is probably redundant because the relevant info is given in the last sentence of that paragraph.
It is, removed.

In general very well written and easy-to-follow article. Appropriate historical context and detail is given. Appreciate the little details such as the composition of Carthaginian armies, or the reason for Rome's lack of intervention. Well done. HaEr48 (talk) 02:55, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HaEr48. Thanks for the review, and for the summary comments. I hope that you enjoyed it. Your comments above are all addressed. A couple with queries. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:44, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I enjoyed the article, and happy to support based on the content and clarity, as well as your excellent responses to my feedback. Thank you for working on this and other articles! HaEr48 (talk) 12:24, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi HaEr48, thanks for the support and even more for the insightful comments. I appreciate your taking the time to go through it. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:16, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Query to the coordinators edit

@FAC coordinators: Given the progress above, could I have permission to throw my next one at the wall? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:21, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, go ahead. --Ealdgyth (talk) 13:53, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note edit

Ealdgyth Gog the Mild (talk) 02:40, 30 April 2020 (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 Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 30 April 2020 [4].

Hurricane Humberto (2019) edit

Nominator(s): 🌧❄ϟ TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) and Juliancolton 22:14, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Hurricane Humberto, which temporarily disrupted relief efforts in the Bahamas in the wake of Hurricane Dorian before causing extensive wind damage on Bermuda back in September 2019. After working with Juliancolton, we believe it meets the standards of a featured article, and we look forward to addressing your concerns and completing a successful nomination. Thanks! 🌧❄ϟ TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 22:14, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support/Image review from Hurricanehink Kinda a nitpick about the satellite images, but the image description has one date format, while the date itself is a different format. Otherwise, all images are fine to use, with proper sourcing and valid permission, as well as alt-text. The storm track map doesn't have alt text, your call if you want to do that, but since you have the others... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Also, I reviewed the article for GAN, and I was very impressed with the writing of the article (and its comprehensiveness for such a recent storm). I'm happy to support this article. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:41, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comments, and more generally for all your help in improving the article through meticulous scrutiny of content and style. I've edited the Commons file descriptions for date uniformity, and added the storm path alt text, as suggested. Sincerely, – Juliancolton | Talk 01:29, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Infobox gives a damage figure of $25 million. However, the text specifies that this was damage in Bermuda alone. Were there no damage costs elsewhere?
  • The See also section states that "Hurricane Fabian (2003) [is] the most recent tropical cyclone to cause fatalities in Bermuda" - this seems like something that ought to be cited
  • Be consistent whether authors are listed first or last name first
  • Be consistent in when/whether you include publication locations
    • This is still not consistent. For example, you include Miami for the National Hurricane Center in FN8, but not in FN7. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:09, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • The (thoroughly unnecessary) location has been removed from ref 8. That field is now uniformly absent. – Juliancolton | Talk 02:38, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Press release" is not an author
  • Be consistent in whether you list "staff writers" as author - for example FN17 has a similar attribution but doesn't include that in the citation
  • Press agencies like AP should use |agency= not |author=
  • FN34 is missing date. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:02, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I have addressed all your concerns. The $25 million figure from Bermuda stands for the cyclone as a whole since it principally affected that island. Thank you for your review! TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 18:30, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from TheAustinMan – this article is well-written and succinct. I'll likely be supporting this article's FA candidacy following resolution of the following qualms I found, most of which are minor:

  • Some description of what a major hurricane is, either by link or by footnote, would be useful for readers. A few wikilinks in the article could be moved to their first appearances, such as Florida. A few other links may be in order such as the §tilt section of the trough article, tropical depression, maximum sustained wind, among others.
  • From page 5 of the TC report, it appears that the buoy mentioned in the article registered a 96 kt wind. This is properly stated in the article as converting to 110 mph, but the resulting 177 km/h conversion is derived from the 110 mph derivation, not the 96 kt value as reported (=178 km/h). Consider unit conversions being consistent with the originally reported data values in the article, supplementing that with a footnote where necessary.
  • Do we know why the trough became negatively tilted? This seems to occur without impetus in the meteorological history section.
  • It's said that although (or equivalently, despite), the disturbance didn't have a closed center of circulation, the NHC initiated potential tropical cyclone advisories. This suggests that the initiation of advisories was contrary to some protocol, but wasn't the potential tropical cyclone advisory issued because it didn't have a closed center of circulation? Some sort of explanation explaining what a closed center of circulation has to do with a tropical cyclone would inform the reader on the connection here.
  • It should be specified whose northeastern quadrant is being referred to.
  • Minor nitpick of changing trough which contributed to trough that contributed
  • I'm confused as to what is meant by a more orderly storm center, and the advisory discussion referenced isn't aiding me in that.
  • I don't see any mention of 84°F (29°C) sea surface temperatures in the cyclone report.
  • The article says that a reconnaissance mission on the evening of September 18 was the basis of Humberto's upgrade into a major hurricane, but this is not noted in the cyclone report that's referenced in that sentence. Perhaps another advisory discussion should be cited in that line; the discussion cited in the next sentence over is from the morning of September 17 so that could be a little confusing.
  • The hurricane's winds "reach" certain values, and not the hurricane itself, so the phrase it reached maximum sustained winds may need some tweaking.
  • Where is flight-level in relation to the dropsonde measuring the 159 mph winds? Presumably the dropsonde is descending most of the time.
  • I don't see Andros Island being excluded from the northwestern Bahamas in the cyclone report.
  • The article says that Humberto's close passage of the Bahamas had the effect of interrupting the distribution of emergency supplies, but the linked news article only says that it threatened to do that, not that it happened.
  • I'm not sure if the downing of only a single large branch is worth generalizing to the level of some tree damage for an entire county. Are there any other sources for the effects of Humberto in Duval County?
  • Probably worth specifying above sea level for the elevated Maritime Operations Centre station mentioned in the Bermuda impact section.
  • The impact section says the hurricane's Bermuda damage exceeded $25 million, while the lede and infobox suggest that it simply did $25 million in damage. —TheAustinMan(Talk ⬩ Edits) 18:58, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the helpful and thorough review, TheAustinMan. I've added an additional citation to support the exclusion of Andros, rephrased the indirect Bahamian impact, and removed the mention of tree damag in Duval County; that lone downed branch is the only related LSR, so it's likely not worth mentioning. I know some other changes have already been made – TropicalAnalystwx13, could you briefly chime in on which points you've addressed/what still needs to be done? Thanks both, – Juliancolton | Talk 18:09, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I took the liberty of going through bullet-by-bullet and fixing everything that hadn't been tended to. The only suggested change I opted not to implement was an elaboration of why the trough became negatively tilted. It's an intrinsic part of the longwave trough life-cyclone and I feel that delving into jet streak dynamics and vorticity advection would be well beyond the scope of this article. – Juliancolton | Talk 02:37, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks good on my end. Excellent, concise effort on the article, which looks good to go for FA. TheAustinMan(Talk ⬩ Edits) 02:52, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prose review by Factotem edit

Meteorological history

  • "...while northern portion..." missing "the"
  • "These convective bursts, largely driven by diurnal cycles, led to the development of a broad surface low on the morning of September 12,[1] as the disturbance turned north-northwest..." Pretty sure the comma after September 12 is unnecessary
  • "While progressing over sea surface temperatures around 84°F (29°C),[5] Humberto intensified over the next day." I found this sentence awkward, mainly for the replication of the word "over". Maybe reword to "While moving above sea surface temperatures of around 84°F (29°C),[5] Humberto intensified over the next day."?
  • "The hurricane acquired a large eye..." "Acquired" makes it sound like it found an eye. Wouldn't "developed" work better here?
  • "A reconnaissance aircraft investigated the hurricane during the evening of September 18, and data from that mission was used as the basis for upgrading Humberto to a Category 3 hurricane around 00:00 UTC on September 17." Not sure "investigated" is the right word here. You could maybe simplify the sentence as "Data from a reconnaissance flight during the evening of September 18 was used as the basis for upgrading Humberto to a Category 3 hurricane around 00:00 UTC on September 17." Also, was the upgrade really applied restrospectively or is there a mistake with the dates here?
  • "This upgrade arrived..." makes it sound like the upgrade was some sort of entity. Better "This upgrade was made..." or "This upgrade was applied..."?
  • "However, these values were recorded in two-second intervals..." -> at two-second intervals.

Preparations

  • "A tropical storm watch was first issued for Bermuda at 21:00 UTC on September 16 and ultimately upgraded to a hurricane warning 24 hours later" Unless there were some intervening changes in watch/warning, that "ultimately" is not necessary.
  • There were intervening changes. The normal escalation sequence is TS watch → TS warning → HU watch → HU warning, but my personal feeling is that listing each change can be rather prosaic and gratuitous. The most important benchmarks, IMO, are the first advisory, the highest level, and the final discontinuation. Should this be made more clear? – Juliancolton | Talk 16:25, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Then no, fine as is. Factotem (talk) 16:40, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ferry service was suspended..." If there was only one ferry service, shouldn't that be "The ferry service was suspended..." or, if more than one, "Ferry services were suspended..."?
  • "The government opened its only official hurricane shelter in the Cedarbridge Academy, with 30 support staff from various agencies and accommodations for up to 100 people; individuals who lived on boats or who felt unsafe in their homes were encouraged to take advantage of the facility." Using "with" as a conjunction is, I believe, not good English, and this long sentence can, I think, be made easier to digest by breaking it into multiple sentences. Something like, "The government opened its only official hurricane shelter in the Cedarbridge Academy. It was staffed by 30 people from various agencies and provided accommodations for up to 100 people. Individuals who lived on boats or who felt unsafe in their homes were encouraged to take advantage of the facility." To my old world eye, it should be accommodation, not accommodations, but ignore if that's a US spelling thing.
  • Nitpick: "Governor John Rankin placed 120 members of the Royal Bermuda Regiment on standby,[15] while ambulances and Bermuda Electric Light Company (BELCO) crews were pre-positioned in strategic locations across the island." That "while" should really be an "and", but if the two events were concurrent then "while" is not technically wrong.

The Bahamas

  • "However, Humberto's proximity to the disaster area did have the effect of briefly closing small airfields while distribution of emergency supplies was underway." "However" is not necessary. Were aircraft using those airfields still in the air, as this sentence implies? If not, you could maybe simplify this sentence to "Humberto's proximity to the disaster area briefly closed small airfields, halting the distribution of emergency supplies.
  • I'm struggling a bit with this line. The initial construction was very close in essence to your suggestion, but another reviewer suggested it may not have faithfully represented the source material. We know that airfields were closed, and we know that those same airfields were being used during this period to accept emergency deliveries, but I'm having trouble finding a source that plainly lays out "Humberto disrupted distribution of supplies." I've tried to rework the sentence once more. If it's too weaselly, I have one last idea. – Juliancolton | Talk 16:25, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I copy-edited this a bit myself. Understand the problem being faithful to the source, and your change was fine except that "have the effect of" was unnecessarily wordy when you could have simply written "caused", which is what I changed it to. Obviously, if this introduces meaning that is not supported by the sources, then by all means change it again. Factotem (talk) 16:40, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

United States

  • "...21 bathers were rescued from the rough seas..." The definite article is not necessary here (...21 bathers were rescued from rough seas...")

Bermuda

  • "Powerful westerly winds were by far the most severe aspect of the hurricane in Bermuda." I don't think "by far" is necessary here
  • "...before hurricane-force winds overspread the islands." Overspread sounds odd to me. Maybe "spread over"?
  • "...the highest waves in the seas off the territory's northern coast were analyzed near 42 ft (13 m)." The source does indeed mention "NOAA OPC wave analysis", but then goes on to talk of "recorded maximum seas". I think recorded is a much better word to use than analyzed, which brings to my mind people taking samples and peering through microscopes.
  • In the second paragraph, you mix 10-minute, one-minute and ten-minute. You should be consistent. Strictly speaking, per MOS:NUMNOTES, you should avoid mixing letters and numbers for comparable values, though the example given in that guideline is within a single sentence, whereas you're spreading these out across different sentences, and "1-minute" somehow doesn't look right to me.
  • "These intense winds caused extensive damage, particularly to trees, roofs, and power lines, with the worst effects concentrated in western areas." Not entirely sure of my ground here, but it appears to be another case of "with" used as a conjunction. You could write this as "These intense winds caused extensive damage, particularly to trees, roofs, and power lines; the worst effects were concentrated in western areas."
  • "Humberto left more than 27,900 electric customers..." Do you mean "electricity" customers here?

Aftermath

  • "...the Royal Bermuda Regiment assisted governmental agencies in removing debris from roadways to reestablish safe road travel." Why not "government", without the "al"? Why "roadways" and not simply "roads"? More important, you don't need to state "to reestablish safe road travel" - why else would they clear debris from roads?
  • "As BELCO crews repaired electricity infrastructure..." repaired the electricity infrastructure?
  • "A small number of outages persisted 10 days after the storm's onslaught." I don't have the impression that there was an "onslaught" Can't you simply write "after the storm"?
  • "...remained blocked for up to several weeks." Is the "up to" necessary?
  • "...damaged structures received temporary protection with the use of tarps." Why not simply write "damaged structures were temporarily protected by tarps."?

A few issues above, but generally I found the article clear and easy to follow. Factotem (talk) 12:58, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Factotem, thank you for your thorough and very constructive review. Your suggestions have helped tighten up the prose here and will no doubt serve to improve my future work as well. I've implemented most of the edits as suggested, and left two comments above, where I'm not exactly sure how to proceed. Regards, – Juliancolton | Talk 16:25, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome. Support on prose. Factotem (talk) 16:48, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Coord note - is @Nikkimaria: satisfied on the source corrections? --Ealdgyth (talk) 13:59, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One item pending above. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:09, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've responded. – Juliancolton | Talk 02:38, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Should be good to go. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:23, 28 April 2020 (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 Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 27 April 2020 [5].

Racer's hurricane edit

Nominator(s): – Juliancolton | Talk 02:56, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a multi-faceted hurricane that proved one of the most severe of its time. It's among the earliest storms for which we have anything resembling a comprehensive record. Along its 2000+ mile track, it ensnared meteorologists, tossed ships ashore in droves, inundated barrier islands, and, as its last act, caused one of the great maritime tragedies of the 19th century. Using a variety of both contemporary and modern sources, I've created what I'm certain is the most comprehensive story ever told about this fascinating storm. With thanks to my long-term mentor Hurricanehink for his multiple reviews during the three-year improvement process, I humbly submit the article for FAC's consideration. – Juliancolton | Talk 02:56, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

==== Oppose by JavaHurricane: ==== I'm sorry Julian, but this article is not in a good shape. Hence, I must oppose.

  • "Racer's hurricane was a destructive tropical cyclone that had severe effects [...]": "destructive" and "severe" seems somewhat redundant to me. I would suggest changing "had severe effects" to "affected" or "impacted".
  • "It takes its name from [...]": change to "The hurricane is named after [...]".
  • "[...] the storm first affected Jamaica with flooding rainfall and strong winds [...]": what is "flooding rainfall"? Change to "heavy rainfall".
  • Flooding rainfall is when rainfall causes flooding. I like the current writing more than having to say "The hurricane produced heavy rainfall on Jamaica, causing flooding". Julian writes with appropriate brevity. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:33, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "[...] it slowed to a crawl [...]": could we use a better term than "crawl"?
  • "[...] it emerged into the Atlantic shipping lanes off the Carolinas by October 9.": change to "[...] on October 9".
  • I disagree with this one. The "by" was chosen to reflect the paucity of sources. It's tough to know the exact date/track when it was almost 200 years ago! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:33, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The effects of the tropical cyclone were far-reaching." A very ugly sentence in my opinion. I would advise changing it to "The tropical cyclone caused heavy damage (throughout/across) its path."
  • "[...] faced hurricane conditions for several days, [...]": could be changed to "was affected by [...]"
  • "Many towns along the Texas shoreline were inundated by storm surge, which flooded the coastal plains for many miles inland." This sentence could be restructured as follows: "The hurricane's storm surge flooded the Texan coastal plains for many miles inland, inundating many towns."
  • "[...] a water level rise of 8 ft (2.4 m) [...]": Could we simply use "storm surge" instead?
  • " Storm surge and wind damage extended into Mississippi and Alabama, but to a lesser degree of severity." Sentence could be restructured for a better reading experience.
  • "[...] which had a dramatic encounter with the hurricane [...]": "dramatic" is unencyclopaediac and should be axed.
  • The MH is well-written, and I don't have any problems about it. Good job!
  • "Haiti and the southern shores of Cuba also experienced the storm." Rewrite as "The hurricane also impacted Haiti and the southern coast of Cuba."
  • "[...] the storm produced an 8 ft (2.4 m) storm surge on Lake Pontchartrain [...]": A storm surge cannot be produced "on" a lake. Please use another term, like "along the shore of".

These are the concerns that I could identify in my first reading. If I find any more, I will post them below. -- JavaHurricane 08:08, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with nearly all of these suggested changes. – Juliancolton | Talk 14:25, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have struck out all of my concerns as it seems that they are being considered as "technically wrong" and are not being addressed as to why they are wrong except in the two cases where Hink has taken the pain of explaining the problems. -- JavaHurricane 15:01, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
JavaHurricane, I hope that you will consider reinstating your review. Hurricanehink's responses are very much correct, and if given the opportunity I'd like to address the remainder of your concerns one-by-one. – Juliancolton | Talk 16:31, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Juliancolton, a small question: can we add a reference to the fact that this is in the pre-HURDAT era? -- JavaHurricane 03:51, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How's that? – Juliancolton | Talk 04:05, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good! -- JavaHurricane 04:07, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support/Image review from Hurricanehink edit

Thanks for the shoutout Julian. I respectfully disagree with some of Java's comments. I came here because I've been watching Julian's edits to the article, and was hoping this would go up on FAC soon. I did a review before Julian nominated it, and I found the prose engaging.

  • The first image is in the public domain, as the author died back in 1888. The track map is also public domain, as it's from the Weather Prediction Center. lastly, the map of Texas was from the 1830s (good find), so that's good to use.

Therefore, I'm happy to support the article's candidacy. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:43, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the image check, and, once again, for your prior reviews. In the interest of transparency, I have replaced the attractive but rather unhelpful Texas map with what I believe to be a simpler, more informative illustration. It is the work of a Wikimedia Commons user. Best, – Juliancolton | Talk 16:31, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The new image checks out, it's good to use. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:34, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Hurricane Noah edit

I will review the rest of this in due time, but one comment as of now..

  • Could you please add alt text to the images? NoahTalk 15:04, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the reminder. I've added my best alt text, which admittedly may require some refinements. Looking forward to any further suggestions for improvements, – Juliancolton | Talk 16:31, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The hurricane crossed the northern Yucatán Peninsula on October 1, passing near Mérida and Sisal in Yucatán before proceeded west-northwestward across the Gulf of Mexico." I believe it should be before proceeding. NoahTalk 21:46, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and continued eastward parallel to the northern U.S. Gulf Coast." Is it just me or should there be a comma after eastward? NoahTalk 21:46, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would link landfall somewhere in the article. NoahTalk 21:46, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed as suggested. Thanks for looking! Please let me know if you have any other concerns. – Juliancolton | Talk 13:28, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Farmers reported up to a third of their sugar cane and cotton crops lost." There should be some kind of verb before lost. NoahTalk 17:07, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the 220-foot (67 m)" abbreviate foot. NoahTalk 17:07, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Drive by comment

JavaHurricane is right about at least one thing, the use of "dramatic". It's an opinion not a fact that it was dramatic, obvious WP:EDITORIALIZING. You could axe or change to "described as dramatic" or something to that effect. Furthermore, the word "dramatic" is only in the lede and not even directly cited to any source—therefore possibly constituing original research. buidhe 09:01, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I removed that phrase based on these objections. It seems to be a matter of fact that nearly capsizing twice, having your masts blown off, and losing two men overboard would count as a "dramatic" experience – and there's no evidence that "dramatic" is inherently unencyclopedic, a stock market crash being a "a sudden dramatic decline of stock prices", for instance – but I won't die on this hill. – Juliancolton | Talk 13:28, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Awful_wreck_of_the_steam_packet_Home.jpg is missing a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:39, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Nikkimaria: I don't have the particulars, as this is among Currier's more obscure works, but Schurre's "Currier & Ives prints" relays that the print was listed for sale and run as an extra in The Sun "more than two years" before Currier's breakthrough Lexington print in 1840... that would make this contemporaneous with the hurricane. The Currier and Ives current-event lithographs were generally published or offered for sale within a few days of the breaking news, to capitalize on public interest. – Juliancolton | Talk 21:43, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie edit

I copyedited as I read through; please revert anything you don't like.

  • The image of the track is nice to have, but the resolution is horrible (and I see that the source is no better). Not a requirement for FAC, but it doesn't seem like it would be that hard to redraw this with a decent resolution, so that the dates are more readable.
  • I agree. I'll see what I can do about mocking up something a little nicer. – Juliancolton | Talk 15:14, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the hurricane approached northern Tamaulipas and southern Texas, it slowed to a crawl and turned sharply northeastward. Looking at the track, wouldn't it be more accurate to say "reached" instead of "approached"?
  • I've made it more clear that it made landfall. – Juliancolton | Talk 15:14, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Due to the tight pressure gradient between the storm and the expansive high pressure area centered over the Ohio Valley, damaging winds extended far to the north of the hurricane's track. Since we haven't mentioned the high pressure area before, shouldn't this be "an expansive..", rather than "the"?
  • American meteorologist William Charles Redfield concluded in 1846 that the gale over the eastern U.S., which he had been studying: suggest "that the gale in late 1837 over the eastern U.S"; but even that gives the reader the initial impression that it's a different storm, before correcting it. I know that's how Redfield thought of it initially as well, but would the sources support recasting this in something like this form: "The part of the storm's track across the northeastern U.S. was thought by Redfield to be a different storm, until in 1846 he concluded on the basis of Reid's work that it was a continuation of the track of Racer's hurricane."?
  • Since the cyclone occurred outside the purview of the official Atlantic hurricane database (1851–present), some details about its history are uncertain. I don't really follow this thought. After looking at the linked article, it seems the database was not assembled till the late 20th century, so why would it make a difference to the amount of information known about this hurricane? If you're implying that there is data available that the NHC might add to HURDAT if Racer's hurricane were to be included, then sure, but why would they have access to information about an 1837 hurricane that nobody else has access to? And if that's not the case, then why does it make a difference that the hurricane's not in the database?
  • It may not be so much that the NHC has info nobody else does – although it's very likely they do – but more that the experts would be able to use their models and methodologies to synthesize an authoritative, final-say reconstruction of the track. Based on existing sources, we can't say, for instance, exactly when it hit Matamoros, or how strong it was at its peak – these are questions HURDAT would answer with precision (even if false precision; verifiability over truth and all that). That said, if the line in question raises more questions than it answers, I have no objections to removing it; it was only added recently upon the suggestion of a previous reviewer who is intimately familiar with hurricane climatology. – Juliancolton | Talk 15:14, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, that explanation is interesting enough to add, even if just in a footnote. Can you source it without OR? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:01, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This work seems the closest to what I'd like to say, although I'm not sure about reliability – how do we feel about citing textbooks for this sort of material? – Juliancolton | Talk 15:30, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems fine to me. I will have a bit more time to look through the source this evening but I don't see a problem with it if it supports what you want. I love the term "palaeotempestology"; I have a reference on palaeoclimatology but never thought to check it for this sort of thing. Now I look it does have a chapter on the use of historical records, but nothing on palaeotempestology. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:53, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • On further review, the publisher (InTech Open Access) is blacklisted as a predatory publisher by multiple organizations. I'm starting to run out of ideas for viably sourcing this footnote. (And yes, paleotempestology is as much fun to say as it is to learn about! As it happens, Jo-Jo Eumerus just recently put a tremendous amount of work into that article for its run-up to GAN. It's worth the read.) – Juliancolton | Talk 03:17, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(I know this ping isn't technically about this FAC, but anyhow) I don't think this footnote can be sourced. It's more the lack of a source - the absence of the Racer's Hurricane in the HURDAT database - that underpins this footnote. But I don't think we can use the lack of a source as a source for a footnote, under WP:OR. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:36, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The problem I originally had was that I couldn't understand the connection between the first and second part of the sentence. I think if we can't come up with a source that supports the thought, it should be cut. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:26, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
← I went ahead and removed the HURDAT mention. Jo-Jo's "lack of a source" comment is important, I think; at the most basic level, the only purpose of that line was to tell people about the absence of a particular source. So what? There was no tropical cyclone report either, although the implications are the same: there's less, and less precise, info. I think that a better HURDAT article would be able to answer some of these questions more broadly, so make it a priority to recruit the help of some editors more familiar with that project. – Juliancolton | Talk 14:08, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the settlement known then as Port Pontchartrain: suggest a parenthetical "(now part of New Orleans)", or perhaps a footnote.
  • If the Enterprise and Cumberland were lost along the Outer Banks, and 90 lives were lost with the breaking up of the SS Home, it seems implausible that only 105 lives were lost in total. Are the Enterprise and Cumberland not included in that total?
  • Added a bit more detail about these two wrecks, which together resulted in only one death, happily. – Juliancolton | Talk 15:30, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • legislation was eventually passed requiring commercial vessels to carry enough life preservers for all passengers: that's an interesting tid-bit. Any chance of a link (even a red link) to the relevant legislation? If Fraser doesn't specify, you may not be able to either, of course.
  • Linked to the relevant law and slightly re-framed the implication that Home was directly responsible for its passage. I think Fraser and some of my other modern sources have overstated the connection... the Coast Guard names it as one of several tragedies leading up to the 1838 steamboat safety act, but not a pivotal moment all its own. – Juliancolton | Talk 15:30, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Glad you could get more details; I think that's a nice touch of colour. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:53, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is in excellent shape; just a few points above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:02, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the helpful review. Some points addressed so far; a couple more to tend to this evening.– Juliancolton | Talk 15:14, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Perhaps the best hurricane article I've read here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:23, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's very gratifying to hear, thank you! I find that 19th-century storms lend themselves to more engaging storytelling. The lack of minutiae and stiff analytics that come with modern-day meteorology is as much a freedom as a handicap. – Juliancolton | Talk 16:31, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That does sound plausible. This article reads like a narrative, rather than a collection of facts, and I think if you were burdened with all that data you'd have had a harder time making that happen. Still, a very well-written article, and a pleasure to read. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:24, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from TropicalAnalystwx13 edit

I ran through this article a while back and expressed my concerns then. The prose is excellent as always. This article represents the best source for information on the hurricane in its totality either online or in literature. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 21:05, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the support, and more importantly for your help in fine-tuning the article prior to its arrival at FAC! – Juliancolton | Talk 15:31, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note edit

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Check alphabetization of Sources
  • Fine, I'll conform to your alphabet, if it's that important... :) – Juliancolton | Talk 02:47, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wordpress is a platform not a publisher
  • Changed to |website= and author is now publisher. Is this appropriate? – Juliancolton | Talk 02:47, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No - if you absolutely want to include Wordpress you can do it using |via=, but it's really not needed. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:07, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN31: given title is not a title. Same with FN33
  • I had trouble finding guidance for these two cases where there are no apparent headlines or titles. Is it title=None ? – Juliancolton | Talk 02:47, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have a couple of options: you could use something like [untitled] (note single square brackets) in the title field, you could use the first few words of the piece followed by an ellipsis, or you could do a descriptive title as recommended by some external style guides (eg MLA). Nikkimaria (talk) 03:07, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, opted for the second choice, which seems the most elegant to me. Thank you! – Juliancolton | Talk 03:17, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Date ranges should use endashes
  • I believe I eradicated all offending hyphens. – Juliancolton | Talk 02:47, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. I went ahead and figured the source review was good since the corrections were minor - if @Nikkimaria: thinks they weren't taken care of, I trust Juliancolton and Nikkimaria to resolve the issue on the talk page of the article. --Ealdgyth (talk) 14:31, 27 April 2020 (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 Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 27 April 2020 [6].

MAX Red Line edit

Nominator(s): Truflip99 (talk) 16:48, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The MAX Red Line is the second-busiest line in Portland's MAX Light Rail system and the region's only airport rail link. After commencing service nearly twenty years ago just one day before the September 11 attacks, it now carries over 20,000 riders per day between the cities of Beaverton and Portland, and Portland International Airport. Having successfully gone through GA and DYK nominations, as well as numerous read-throughs and copy edits, I feel the time is right to nominate this article for FA. Truflip99 (talk) 16:48, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Epicgenius edit

Placeholder comment. So far, this looks good, but I will look at this more in depth later. epicgenius (talk) 16:57, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lead:

  • The MAX Red Line is a light rail service in Portland, Oregon, United States, operated by TriMet as part of the MAX Light Rail system. It serves 26 stations in the cities of Beaverton and Portland, running predominantly east–west. - this has a minor contradiction. I'd rather you mention Beaverton in the first sentence. E.g. "The MAX Red Line is a light rail service within Beaverton and Portland in Oregon..."
    • I may have modeled this off of the Red Line (Sound Transit): The Red Line, formerly Central Link, is a light rail line in Seattle, Washington, United States, and part of Sound Transit's Link light rail system. It serves 16 stations in the cities of Seattle, SeaTac, and Tukwila, traveling 20 miles (32 km) between University of Washington and Angle Lake stations. -- Would it be better to reword it to: It serves 26 stations between Beaverton and Portland...?
  • it then splits to an exclusive, 5.5-mile (8.9 km) segment, - I can somewhat see what an "exclusive segment" is, but is there a better wording?
    • Done. I've omitted "exclusive".
  • It is the second-busiest service in the MAX system, carrying an average of 22,530 weekday passengers in September 2019. - Do you mean "passengers per weekday"?
    • Done
  • owing its quickness to - generally, "owing to" is unwieldy and should have a more appropriate wording like "because of".
    • Done
  • TriMet plans to further extend service west to Fair Complex/Hillsboro Airport station in Hillsboro, among other improvements, by 2024. - I'd rather you mention "improvements" first. E.g. "TriMet is planning several improvements for the line, including a further extension west to Fair Complex/Hillsboro Airport station in Hillsboro by 2024." Alternatively, if the extension is the main improvement being highlighted, you can reword it that way. epicgenius (talk) 15:55, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

History

  • 6 to 14 million passengers between 1990 and 2000 - six to fourteen million, per MOS:NUMERAL.
    • Done
  • Was the Port of Portland the agency responsible for the expansion?
    • Indeed.
  • This project also provisioned for a future - Typically, either something is provided for, or has provisions for.
    • Done
  • In 1994, parking lots were operating at 90 percent capacity as projections fell short of demand - I'd mention the lack of demand first, before the 90 percent capacity.
    • A bit of a misunderstanding. Reworded it. Hopefully it's more clear. --Truflip99 (talk) 01:44, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clark County, Washington, and Clackamas Town Center - this looks like it is not a serial list as it's talking about only two places. But the placement of the commas make it appear that way. Would "Clark County in Washington" work?
    • Done -- Agreed.
  • Part of the agreements authorized Bechtel to design and build a 5.5-mile-long (8.9 km) light rail extension to the airport - do you mean "A part of the agreements"? "One part"? The beginning of this sentence sounds strange.
    • Done
  • in December 1997.[22] In October 1998, - I wouldn't go with dates right next to each other in adjacent sentences
    • Done -- However, I'm not familiar with grammar rules against this, especially for prose that's written chronologically and with dates that are paramount... It would be amiss not to say when (at least in wikipedia), but at the same time, the lack of variety would be tedious.
  • $182.7 million - conversion?
    • Done
  • I'd split the first paragraph of "Funding and construction" section into two paragraphs, probably because each of these sentences is so short.
    • Done
  • 6 new rail cars - "Six new rail cars"
    • Done
  • Can you briefly expand the description on Metro (Oregon regional government) in the end of the first paragraph? I didn't know it was a regional government until I hovered over the link.
    • Done
  • owing to - "because of"
    • Done
  • limited to twenty parking spaces at Gateway Transit Center and several others along Airport Way - how were these impacted? Eliminated or added?
    • @Epicgenius: Based on my reading they were eliminated, as the sentence was referring to impacts from the line's construction. I considered commenting on that but thought it was understandable. It could definitely be clearer though.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 23:49, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done -- yes, they were eliminated.
  • Bechtel began end-to-end testing in March 2001, followed by TriMet in July - So how did the end-to-end testing go about? Did each contractor have different rolling stock?
    • Done -- TriMet rolling stock
  • In 2000, TriMet named the new MAX service to the airport the Red Line to differentiate it from the established service between Hillsboro and Gresham - this sentence probably needs some reorganization or punctuation, e.g. "the 'Red Line'" (note that you would also have to put quotes around the "Blue Line").
    • Done
  • after which TriMet introduced 272–PDX Night Bus, which operates in the late night and early morning hours when the Red Line is not operating.[44][45] - I feel like this is going on a tangent from the original point of the sentence, which is that the Red Line replaced a bus service.
    • Done -- split
  • deploy two-car consists temporarily for the first time - I'd go with "temporarily deploy", because "temporarily for the first time" just sounds wrong. Or you can reword it another way. Was this temporary deployment only for holidays?
    • Done -- this was only done in that instance, until September 2005.
  • no-transfer airport connection - this is probably just another term for a "one-seat ride"

More later. epicgenius (talk) 23:09, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, more comments:

  • one-seat option from Portland International Airport to ten additional stations on the Westside MAX - I find this to be clunky. Is TriMet adding these stations as brand-new stations, or is the one-seat airport service being extended to ten existing stations?
    • Done -- they are existing; Corrected.
  • If the project is approved, construction is targeted to begin in 2021 and finish by 2024 - when is the approval expected to be?
    • Done -- I omitted that, it's already approved by TriMet. Just needs FTA funding.
  • In 2020, TriMet will temporarily close Portland International Airport station from March 29 to May 30, and again from August 30 to November 4, - What is the status of this? Have the closures started yet?
    • Done -- Updated.
  • Near Rocky Butte, the line enters a tunnel beneath the northbound lanes of the freeway and exits on the median. - I think "surfaces on the median" or "emerges on the median" would be better, since "exits" can be quite confusing.
    • Done
  • two segments of the Airport MAX extension are single track. - This has a grammatical error; use "are single-tracked" or "consist of a single track".
    • Done
  • On July 24, 2019,[72] TriMet announced the permanent closure of the Mall stations, as well as a one-year pilot closure of Kings Hill/Southwest Salmon Street station, in an effort to speed up travel times. The closures took effect on March 1, 2020.[3] - I think this can be condensed. The announcement dates are not likely to be relevant at this point, since the stations are already closed.
    • Done
  • For the "Commenced" column of the station table, can the dates be referenced?
    • I'm not sure how to do this effectively without overref'ing it. My thought was the links to the station articles would suffice. Suggestions?
      • I was asking a general question. If there are already sources in the prose section of the article, then I think it is fine. epicgenius (talk) 21:32, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Columbia Area Transit" is a red link. While that would otherwise be fine, I don't think we generally include red links in featured articles.
    • I can make a stub this week.
  • Its trains operate for approximately 22 hours per day from a headway of 30 minutes during the early mornings and late evenings to as frequently as 15 minutes for most of the day - I think "from a headway of..." is weird in this context. I suggest "with headways ranging from..."
    • Done
  • From Monday to Sunday, - "seven days a week" perhaps
    • Done -- Each day
  • last three trains turn into eastbound Blue Line trains - should "trains" be "trips" in this context? It would be difficult to be imagine physical trains "turning into" something.
    • Done
  • Cascade Station - is this the same as Cascades station? If so, capitalization has to be consistent.
    • They are not the same, actually
  • In 2008, Cascades station recorded an eight-fold increase in traffic, from 250 passengers per week to 2,000.[81] By 2010, this number had increased to 6,000.[82] - is there a way to combine these sentences?
    • Done -- does a semi-col work?
      • Sure. 21:32, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

These are all the comments I have for now. epicgenius (talk) 19:45, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - I think all of my major comments have been resolved, except for the red link. But if you will make a stub for that, it should be fine. Given how long this review has turned out, I should mention that I will be claiming points in the WikiCup for this review. epicgenius (talk) 21:32, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius: Thank you! That red link has been addressed. --Truflip99 (talk) 05:08, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Twofingered Typist edit

I have made some minor copy edits which I believe leaves the article meeting FA criteria. The content looks good. Twofingered Typist (talk) 20:18, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Drive-by comment: "Its trains operate for approximately 22 hours per day from a headway of 30 minutes during the early mornings and late evenings to as little as 15 minutes for most of the day" – 'as little as' is misleading and possibly POV. Consider removing it or replacing it with 'as frequently as'. 2c Nutez (talk) 14:08, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Kew Gardens 613 edit

Like Epicgenius, I will look at this more in-depth later. Here are a few comments

Lead:

  • The extension began construction in 1999 and was completed in just under two years due to the exclusion of federal funding and the utilization of existing public right-of-way. Maybe it is just me, but it seems to me that to a typical reader, that the fact that project was sped up by excluding federal funding might be counterintuitive. I understand the reasoning, and know that the lead is supposed to be a summary of the article, but it seems a bit off left unexplained here.
    • Done
  • Amid strong westside ridership on the Blue Line, Red Line service was extended west to Beaverton Transit Center in 2003. You should establish that the Red Line was being extended along an already existing line.
    • Done

Background and partnership agreement:

  • In 1975, during the preliminary design phase of Interstate 205 (I-205), Portland city planners recommended... Do you know the agency or agencies the city planners were working for? If you could find that information, it would be useful to include in the article.
    • Done -- the source doesn't state which agency rather who (the city's chief transportation planner), which leads us to assume it's PBOT (or its 1975 equivalent). But since this isn't expressly stated, I went with a less-but-still ambiguous approach.
  • In 1986, regional transit plans The citation indicates that Metro was behind the plans. I would mention that to make clear to the reader that these were official plans done by a government agency.
    • Done.
  • with construction projected to begin around 2010. I just want to make sure this is right. In 1986, the plan projected the line to be completed in 2010, and later it was accelerated to open in 2001?
    • Yes, that is correct.
  • was defeated by Clark County voters in 1995. It would be helpful to mention the margin of the defeat.
    • Since this is talking about a different line, I believe it exceeds the scope of the topic and would prefer to omit it. --Truflip99 (talk) 20:51, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In late 1996, Bechtel initiated discussions This is abrupt, and I think it would be useful to explain what Bechtel is and why they solicited the proposal.
    • Done
  • The project was accelerated with the establishment of a public–private partnership, which eliminated the need for Federal Transit Administration (FTA) funding I think it would be useful to note that the timeline was also sped up as an Environmental Impact Statement would not have to be completed, as the project was not using federal funds.
    • EIS was still processed however. This source (p. 82) states that lack of FTA funds was the central factor that allowed it to be fast-tracked. --Truflip99 (talk) 20:51, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Funding and construction:

  • Additional costs raised this total to $182.7 million. What are these additional costs?
    • Done
  • Under U.S. federal regulations, the Port of Portland was able to fund only the portion of rail located within its property, with approval from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Was this a Passenger Facility Charge? If so, I would mention that and link to Airport improvement fee.
    • This is mentioned later in the paragraph with that link included.
  • funded by $30 million in bonds I am just being curious here, but were these bonds from a voter iniative, a local government, or somewhere else? Thanks.
    • Article isn't very detailed about this, but perhaps I can track it down...
  • over the freeways Is this referring to multiple highways? If so, what highway in addition to I-205? You should mention them instead of just saying freeways.
    • Done
  • owing to the I-205 Transitway I would change this to "owing to the already constructed I-205 Transitway" or something like that.
    • Done
  • Much of the extension was built over public right-of-way. Besides the highway right-of-way, were any other rights-of-way used for the project? If so, they should be mentioned.
    • Done

Opening and later extension:

  • Upon opening, the Red Line terminated at the Library and Galleria stations in downtown Portland, where its trains turned around at the 11th Avenue loop tracks. Had these loop tracks already been in place? Were any modifications made so this station could be a terminal for Red Line service?
    • They were laid as part of the original line in the 1980s.
  • C-Tran moved its service Make clear that C-Train is a bus operator
    • Done
  • On September 1, 2003, Red Line service was extended farther west using the existing Westside MAX tracks Upgrades are being made to extend Red Line service to Hillsboro. Was any infrastructure constructed to enable this extension of Red Line service in 2003?
    • I'm not entirely sure about this one, actually. @SJ Morg: could you possibly point me in the right direction for this? --Truflip99 (talk) 21:42, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just to make sure we are all on the same page: The extension to Hillsboro and the 2003 extension are two entirely different things. The 2003 extension, from downtown Portland to Beaverton TC, did not require any additional infrastructure; the entire "extension" (of service) was along existing Blue Line tracks, and at Beaverton TC, the third track (on which Red Line trains began terminating and laying over upon implementation of the 2003 service extension) and connecting switches were all built in the 1990s as part of the Blue Line project. There was also already a break room for Red Line operators at the new terminus, since Beaverton was already a large TriMet transit center. No new infrastructure was needed. In contrast, the current Red Line extension plan, if approved, will require new infrastructure at both its west end (Fair Complex) and especially on its eastern section (around Gateway). SJ Morg (talk) 06:21, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Great. I do recall seeing a Beaverton TC rendering with three tracks in a late 1980s news article. I failed to mention this in that station's wiki article. Anyway, the answer to the question is no. Thanks, SJ Morg. --Truflip99 (talk) 06:43, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Future plans

  • This section needs to be expanded to provide additional information about the project, which TriMet calls the A Better Red project. The project's $200 million cost and TriMet's application for an FTA Small Starts Grant should be mentioned, in addition to the improvements to be made as part of the project, including signaling and switch upgrades and the construction of crew facilities at the new terminal. You should also note the changes at the Gateway Transit Center in more detail. This document provides a lot of important information.
    • I plan to add more detail to this once the final design is out. It would be premature to cover it in detail only to see huge changes. Some changes added.
  • You should also note the history of the plans. The plans, according to this link were first drawn up in the 2013 Westside Service Enhancement Plan. This should be mentioned, in addition to pertinent details.
    • As comment above.
  • I would also note the announcement made four days ago that the Portland Airport station would be closed for two months to accommodate work at the airport. I happened to see this in yesterday's Progressive Railroading newsletter which showed up in my inbox.
    • Done -- thank you for that! I didn't even see this announcement due to all the covid articles.

Stations

  • The closures took effect on March 1, 2020. You have a source from when the changes were announced, but you also need a source to indicate that they actually took place on March 1st.

@Truflip99: This article is exceptional, and I look forward to hearing your responses. I will look at references and images later.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 18:30, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kew Gardens 613: Is there anything else you would like me to address? --Truflip99 (talk) 23:00, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Kingsif edit

Leaving this here while I review it. If sources haven't been particularly examined, I'll do that. First note that, though the many Oregonian sources are generally inaccessible, I have had to look over some from here for a GA source review, and they turned up fine (no OR, no copyvio, it is RS) - so I won't look over these on assumption that the same standards have been met. Kingsif (talk) 17:38, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Source 2 (2 downtown...) isn't the best source for the number of stations and closures, since it doesn't say how many stations there are (there's a link in the infobox, but with a different number...), and though the link is about closures, it doesn't establish what lines nor the dates (could double up with a source saying that those stations are indeed on the red line, but if there's a single source with the info that might be better)
    • Done I've supplemented this with the rail map ref, which shows all stations but doesn't show the temporarily closed station. So I will keep that additional ref. --Truflip99 (talk) 19:25, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure what source 10 (Case Study...) is being used to cite - it's used once, and that statement is in the other source attached. Unless I'm missing something?
    • Done It's used for the 6-14 mil. passengers claim. I added a page number (the doc's page number not the pdf)
  • Source 14 (Airport Max) doesn't mention the location, as far as I can see
    • Done "... plans included an accommodation for a light railtransit station near the baggage claim area." -- The arrivals hall (pick up area) and baggage claim area are next to each other; I added this to the prose. --Truflip99 (talk) 19:25, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • A few things to look at already, tell me if I'm missing something in these archive pdfs before I check the rest :) Kingsif (talk) 16:23, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's now a cite error at ref 73: Cite error: The named reference station-closures-2020 was invoked but never defined
    • Done -- I have replaced it :)
  • Could you add page numbers for Ernico, Sheri (2012). Considering and Evaluating Airport Privatization (page 36?) - I found the info, but it would help others if they have the actual book and not a searchable web version
    • Done -- thanks for the catch
  • Archiving of sources looks good. There's some books I'd have to go to a library for, however...
    • Yes. This has been my pet peeve about transit-related sources. Often, a source is only available in that locality. --Truflip99 (talk) 21:44, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kingsif (talk) 21:34, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Truflip99: I have no issues with the prose, images, etc. While suggesting an additional source review when physical books are available to someone, I give this a provisional support (also noting that I'll be claiming this for WikiCup) Kingsif (talk) 15:06, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:06, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Truflip99 (talk) 19:25, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support by David Fuchs edit

Prose comments forthcoming.

  • Images:
  • References:
    • Spot-checked statements attributed to sourced to refs 2, 3, 4, 5, 33, 45, 46, 53, 60, 74, 76, 83, and 84.
  • Ref 2 is used to support Transfers to the Yellow Line are available at the Pioneer Square stations and Rose Quarter Transit Center, while transfers to the Green Line (beyond the shared Eastside MAX alignment) and the Orange Line can only be made at the Pioneer Square stations., but my reading of the map is that there's no stops shared between the lines.
    • They are transfers to nearby stations, but transfers nonetheless. I've clarified it.
  • I didn't spot issues with plagiarism or close paraphrasing.
  • References all appear to be from reliable sources; primary sources from operating company or sources to trade journals and the like appear to be used appropriately.
    --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 16:47, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments! --Truflip99 (talk) 00:32, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@David Fuchs: Is there anything else you would like me to address? --Truflip99 (talk) 23:00, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prose:
    • The airport expanded rapidly in the 1990s as traffic increased from 6 million to 14 million passengers between 1990 and 2000—this is a bit unclear to me whether they're referring to 6 to 14 million annual passengers, or an aggregate (so 8 million trips in the ten-year period.) If the latter, rewording to be clearer would be good.
    • Otherwise, article looks solid. I did a very minor copyediting pass, and I'm happy to support. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 16:51, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have clarified it. Thank you for the review! --truflip99 (talk) 17:54, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Hurricanehink edit

I came here from my FAC Cyclone Chapala, hoping you might do a review in return for not my article, but one of the four other tropical cyclone related articles.

Gladly! --Truflip99 (talk) 20:26, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the first sentence has too much in it, and suggest the "operated by Trimet" should be its own sentence. I suggest the first one be "The MAX Red Line is a light rail service in Portland, Oregon, part of the city's MAX Light Rail system." Your call though
    • I prefer to retain current format, as it has been accepted by the GA reviewers of all the other GA MAX articles.
  • "as traffic increased from six to 14 million passengers" - I think there's something in WP:MOSNUM that both numbers should be the same format if they're in close proximity. Maybe even reiterate that it's not literally "six" by saying "6 million to 14 million passengers"?
  • "Anticipating this growth, the Port of Portland embarked on a 20-year, $300 million phased expansion project in November 1991" - I read that as the Port having an expansion project. I had to open up the article for the Port to realize it was the owner of the airport. Maybe explain the Port as the owner role here?
    • Done. I think it is well understood that "Port of [city]" is often an American city's airport operator, so I will compromise with specifying what was being expanded
  • "After long deliberations, agreements were made between Bechtel, the Port, and local governments." - this is a bit vague. When was the agreement? You earlier mentioned the former transit employee helping on the project, but you don't go beyond that incorporating local governments' role. Did the city of Portland give its approval, just like the Port did?
    • Done, and added refs. I use "local governments" because the jurisdictions are overlapping (Metro, city, and TriMet) --Truflip99 (talk) 20:26, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "$125 million (equivalent to $183 million in 2018 dollars)." - you didn't mention the current USD in the previous paragraph. Also, why not 2019 USD? Or 2020 even? (because 2020 isn't over yet, I'd imagine)
    • If you are referring to the $300 mil figure -- that amount is there to be helpful, but I consider it beyond the scope of the article (as it's about the airport) and therefore I don't think it needs to be expanded upon. The 2018 dollars uses the inflation template.
  • "The final 2.9 miles (4.7 km) along I-205 was covered by local jurisdictions." - does that include the city of Portland and other areas? Or just the municipal government?
    • City, Metro, and TriMet. Does it need clarification?
  • "Starting March 29, 2020, Portland International Airport station will be closed through May 30, and again from August 30 to November 4" - is this still on track?
    • Yes. We won't really see any updates until after May 30, typically.
  • Should you add that "3:30 am" is local time?
    • No, I think it is well understood in this context.
  • Any updated annual ridership since 2015?
    • Unfortunately, no. TriMet provides monthly figures regularly. The yearly are often provided in infrequent fact sheets.

The article is rather good. My issues shouldn't be too difficult to address. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:48, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricanehink: Is there anything else you would like me to address? --Truflip99 (talk) 18:11, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your replies and your edits, I'm happy to Support now! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:01, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note edit

@Ealdgyth: I believe so. Prose, refs, licenses, MOS, etc. have been addressed. I am satisfied with the article. --truflip99 (talk) 15:44, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Argh - sorry, meant to ping @Kew Gardens 613: as they said they were planning to return... --Ealdgyth (talk) 23:48, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ealdgyth: Just a heads up -- I've reached out twice on separate occasions and have not gotten a response to this post but he remains active to address his many GANs. --truflip99 (talk) 00:07, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ealdgyth and Truflip99: Sorry about that, with tons of GAs and papers to write for school I had not gotten around to replying yet. Yes, all my concerns have been dealt with!--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 10:55, 26 April 2020 (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 Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 27 April 2020 [7].

John W. Beschter edit

Nominator(s): Ergo Sum 15:44, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a Luxembourg Jesuit who became a missionary to the rural United States, and did a brief stint as president of Georgetown University. Ergo Sum 15:44, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil edit

Sources are all high quality, their formatting is grand. Images are free. 1264 words, which is a bit short, but given the subject matter and the breath of sources used, seems very likely to be comprehensive. Note A needs a ref. Ceoil (talk) 16:53, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ceoil: Doesn't it already have a ref? Ergo Sum 17:42, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ugg my eyesight isn't what it used to be. Anyway, have read through and made a few trivial tweaks...Support on prose and sources. Ceoil (talk) 17:44, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Epicgenius edit

I will take a look at this. I intend to claim points in the WikiCup for the review.

  • Beschter was the last Jesuit pastor of St. Mary's Church in Lancaster, as well as the pastor of St. John the Evangelist Church in Baltimore, in addition to being a priest at several other German-speaking churches in Pennsylvania. - Lancaster is in PA but Baltimore is in MD. I think the latter should be made clearer. Otherwise we get the impression that Baltimore is in PA, based on the end of that sentence.
  • His ministerial work was punctuated by a time as master of novices - so he served as a "master of novices" in between his ministerial work?
  • in the Duchy of Luxembourg,[a][4] of the Austrian Netherlands, a part of the Holy Roman Empire.[5] - this looks strange because of the number of commas in the sentence. I'd consider rewording this, but have no suggestions so far.
    • I've cleaned up the sentence a bit. Ergo Sum 20:06, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • while in Lancaster County.[5] - should it be specified that this is in PA?
  • His second-most immediate predecessor, Francis Fitzsimons, was an Irishman who could not speak German, which ruffled the German majority of parishioners. Fitzsimons was quickly replaced by Herman J. Stoecker, who was not proficient in English, to the consternation of the Irish congregants. - This is fine as is. However, I was thinking an optional way to present this info is to swap these two sentences, so it's clear that Stoecker's predecessor was Fitzsimons.
  • By 1818, Beschter had fallen ill, and became involved in disagreements with Bishop Michael Egan of Philadelphia,[1] and so took up residence in Georgetown in Washington, D.C.[2] - I don't think the second comma (after "ill") is necessary
  • Devitt1911, p. 243 - There should probably be a space between "Devitt 1911" in this reference, unless there's a good reason
  • He defended the Jesuit Superior General, Luigi Fortis', appointment of Polish-born Francis Dzierozynski in 1820 as socius, consultor, and admonitor to Charles Neale (the mission superior for the United States), which vested Dzierozynski with broad authority. - this is another strange wording. I would suggest "He defended Jesuit Superior General Luigi Fortis' appointment ...".
  • His selection came as a surprise and was met with opposition by the Anglo-American laymen, who claimed Beschter was not fluent in speaking or writing in English[30] (despite the fact that he was competent enough to preach in English);[31] they further asserted that he had no knowledge of the operation of a college. - This is also technically fine, but normally I would suggest splitting it into different sentences.
  • and counted 45 enrolled students. - is this more than in the previous years?
    • The source suggests so, but without reading through the whole book, I can't find what it was prior to that. Ergo Sum 20:13, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is all the commentary I have. epicgenius (talk) 19:35, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Epicgenius: Thanks for your comments. Ergo Sum 20:14, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Another great article, as always. Can I interest you in taking a look at my own Featured Article nomination? You don't have to do so if you don't want to. epicgenius (talk) 20:16, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie edit

I'll copyedit as I read through; please revert anything you disagree with.

  • Upon his arrival in the United States, he was admitted to the Society of Jesus on October 10, 1807. Saying "Upon his arrival" makes it sound as though he was admitted on the same date that he arrived, but that seems unlikely. Would this be better as "On October 10, 1807, after arriving in the United States, he was admitted to the Society of Jesus"?
    • Rephrased to clarify the timeline. Ergo Sum 03:38, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Our article on novitiate refers to a period of training, not to an institution. Is this a flaw in our article, or is there a better link?
    • It appears to be an slight inaccuracy in the novitiate article. Novitiate, especially in the Jesuit context, can refer both to the institution where the novitiate years are spent if it is a standalone institution (much more common in the past) or to the period of training itself. I can't say if the same is true for other religious orders. Ergo Sum 03:39, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • By 1818, Beschter had fallen ill and became involved in disagreements with Bishop Michael Egan of Philadelphia, and so took up residence in Georgetown in Washington, D.C. Why "so"? Is there an implied "and had to leave his post" in the middle here?
    • The source suggests that he left as a result of both his illness and his disagreements with Egan. Is this not conveyed accurately by the sentence? Ergo Sum 03:41, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      I think what's bothering me is that you say "took up residence" elsewhere, not "left". I figured you had to mean that he left, but it doesn't actually say that; I wondered for a moment if he could have remained in his post at Frederick, but taken a new residence elsewhere. Making it "and so left his post, taking up residence" would fix it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:09, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've rephrased. I think that should remove any ambiguity. Ergo Sum 15:16, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • On account of the tercentenary of Martin Luther: "on account of" is a slightly colloquial phrase. And it's not clear what it's the tercentenary of -- I'd guess the Ninety-Five Theses? Could we make this something like "The tercentenary of Martin Luther's proposal of the Ninety-Five Theses fell in 1817, prompting the publication of..."?
  • Is there a possible link for "gradus"? Or could we get a footnote explaining it?
  • assuming office on March 31 of that year: To me, "winter of 1829" means the winter of 1829-1830, but here it appears you mean 1828-1829. I didn't figure this out till I saw he was succeeded in September 1829; I think this should be clarified.
    • I've removed reference to the season. 1829 should be sufficient, since it is quickly followed by the exact date. Ergo Sum 03:56, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      I think you also need to remove "late in", otherwise the ambiguity remains. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:09, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • That year, Georgetown opened St. John's Literary Institution as an offshoot in Frederick, which was placed under the charge of John McElroy, and whose cornerstone was laid on August 7 of the previous year.: I'd avoid using "whose" for inanimate objects. How about "On August 7, 1828, Georgetown laid the cornerstone of St. John's Literary Institution, an offshoot of the University; it opened the following year, under the charge of John McElroy."?
    • I don't know if it makes good reading to split up the sentence here. In any event, "whose" is technically a correct possessive form of "which", notwithstanding the dissent of some modern grammaticists. I do love a good grammar discussion. Ergo Sum 04:01, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, it's one of those things I avoid because it causes arguments, not because I think it's always wrong. Struck, since it's a matter of opinion. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:09, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It appears Beschter was only president for five and a half months. Was he simply finishing Feiner's term of office, or was there some reason he was replaced so quickly?
    • I'm not entirely sure; I can't find a ref that indicates he was just finishing out his predecessor's term, but it's possible that was the case. Ergo Sum 04:02, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Beschter returned to the Brandt Chapel at Paradise, Pennsylvania, which continued to be a mission of Conewago, where he lived out the remainder of his life: I'm not clear whether this means he lived out his life in Paradise or Conewago. From the next sentence I think it must be Paradise, but it would be helpful to rephrase this to be clearer.

These are minor points, and I expect to support once they're dealt with. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:12, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: Thank you for your comments. I believe I've responded to each. Ergo Sum 04:17, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support. All looks good now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:47, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

- spotchecks not done

  • What makes German Marylanders a high-quality reliable source?
    • I don't think there's anything wrong with it. But, regardless, I've tracked down the original source, and replaced it with that. Ergo Sum 03:04, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN4: the county is the publisher in this case
  • Check alphabetization of Sources
    • Fixed. Ergo Sum 02:43, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Looks like Reily is still misplaced?
        • Quite right. Fixed now. Ergo Sum 19:33, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Archived links and retrieval dates aren't required for book convenience links
  • Curran: it appears that what you've included as a subtitle is actually the volume title
    • I'm not sure about this. Every reference I've ever seen to it has been to it in the format I've listed. The "Academy..." bit is the name of the volume, but I've never seen it appear on its own without the "Bicentennial..." part in front of it. That's also the format I've done for 7 other FACs. Ergo Sum 02:45, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Checked Worldcat, KVC, Ottobib - none include it as part of the title, just as the volume title. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:18, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Is this not the worldcat entry? Moreover, every book review I've seen (a couple examples: 1, 2, 3) include the bicentennial part in the title. That's also the name that is officially listed by sellers (e.g. 1, 2). Just to avoid any confusion, some of the results that come back are for the second edition of the book, which was published as part of a tripartite series, and the individual book titles don't include Bicentennial. The 1993 edition anticipated subsequent volumes, but those were never published (until being reworked as the 3 part series 20 years later); I think that makes the volume title part and parcel with the title of the work, no? Ergo Sum 19:29, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why does Devitt 1932 include page numbers in Sources and Devitt 1933 does not?
    • Added pages to the 1933 ref. Ergo Sum 02:47, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Häberlein: provided ISBN doesn't match that at the provided link
  • How does Lee meet WP:SCHOLARSHIP? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:58, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's a doctoral dissertation. According to bullet point 3 at WP:SCHOLARSHIP, doctoral dissertations that have been published, as this one has, are reliable. Ergo Sum 03:13, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's not what point 3 says. Does this particular thesis meet any of the points listed there as "If possible"? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:39, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • It doesn't appear that the "if possibles" are requirements. Either way, it was supervised by a subject matter expert (the dissertation advisor) and appears (I'm not positive) to have gone through peer review (see here: ProQuest 3403480). Since the link in the article is to the original dissertation, I can swap it out for the ProQuest one, if that is better. Ergo Sum 15:03, 19 April 2020 (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 Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 25 April 2020 [8].

Manchester United F.C. 9–0 Ipswich Town F.C. edit

Nominator(s): Harrias (talk) and The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 13:26, 31 March 2020 (UTC), [reply]

A dark moment in my soul. Everything Manchester United touched seemed to fly into the net. A record-breaking match which stood the test of time, only having been equalled earlier this season. The article is about as comprehensive as it gets and has seen attention from both sides of the divide so hopefully that's reflected in the tone too. A co-nom between me and Harrias, I commend this article to the community. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 13:26, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Support from Cas Liber edit

Taking a look now....

  • I must say I am not thrilled about the opening sentence (which is prety long), but I can't see an alternative so I can't consider this an actionable issue....will think on this some more.
    Split. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 13:38, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah that is better. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:33, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add a descriptor for Cantona (wasn't captain yet though...was he...)
    I added some description. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 14:09, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It'd be good to place the game in context with a postscript...e.g. "Ipswich continued their crap season and ended up bottom at season's end" sorry, just seen it in body. Debating whether one line in lead would be good.
    I added a couple of words into the lead. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 14:09, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Very little to complain aobut overall. Will look again later Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:28, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Casliber Hi, and thanks for those comments. I've done my best to address them, hopefully to your satisfaction. I look forward to any additional thoughts you may have. Cheers, The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 14:09, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Orrright then....I think it is all-good on comprehensiveness and prose. Can't see anything actionable so.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:33, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from JennyOz edit

Hi again TRM and Harrias, I'm getting less caught up by terminology, you'll be glad to hear! Here are my comments suggestions and innocent questions...

  • Mark Hughes - is wlinked twice in lede
  • were second-from-last. - hyphens necessary, or second last? Guessing this is football terminology?
    • Removed the hyphens. Just a more common construction in the UK than second last. Harrias talk 09:57, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the corresponding fixture - is that their first meeting, ie, they meet twice in a season? Just asking, no change needed.
  • Portman Road ground - is that a tautology? ie it links to the ground not the road. Maybe drop "ground" at second mention "played at Ipswich's Portman Road ground on 24 September 1994"?
  • their French international forward - wlink Forward (association football)
  • while Mark Hughes also scored two - "also" not needed?
    • Hmm, I'm not sure, I prefer it with. Harrias talk 09:57, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • No problem, when I first read it I was looking to see who else had "scored two" JennyOz (talk) 12:19, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • were relegated that season - wlink relegate, or is the term common enough worldwide?
  • Infobox - I clicked on Tilehurst but its target, Berks & Bucks Football Association doesn't mention Tilehurst, and when I visit Tilehurst, it mentions "three football teams Barton Rovers,[64] Tilehurst Panthers[65]and Westwood Wanderers." When I visit Graham Poll, there is no mention of Tilehurst or Berks. What is the connection between Poll and Tilehurst?
  • their elimination from Europe - the European league?
    • Changed to "their elimination from European competition." Harrias talk 10:00, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • the final minutes of the 1993–94 campaign - literally?
  • described by The Guardian's - wlink?
  • and look to get forward".[13] - I can't access the ref, should full stop be inside quote marks?
    • I get confused by this. In the original, it said "..and look to get forward," he said. Harrias talk 10:06, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree MOS:LQ can be confusing. I think the '... he said.' is part of the journalist's sentence. If "get forward" are the last words of Burley's sentence, the full stop therefore goes inside the quotation mark? JennyOz (talk) 12:19, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mark Hughes - wlinked twice in prose
  • who rolled it in from three yards - I'd hate to suggest but is a convert necessary? Surely not?
  • helped to set-up the - hyphen would be for a noun not verb?
  • The performance superceded the number of goals scored".[17] - can't access ref but should full stop be inside quote marks? Should it be spelt 'superseded'?
    • Moved the full stop inside. "superceded" was the spelling in the original, but per MOS:SIC "insignificant spelling and typographic errors should simply be silently corrected", so I have changed it. Harrias talk 10:14, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • He was later quoted as saying he was "praying that United wouldn't reach ten, as he felt sorry for the Ipswich manager". - this isn't a literal quote of Ferguson's words, it's Crick paraphrasing? Maybe 'he was later reported as saying', or he later said or his biographer Michael Crick noted...
    • Rephrased, how is it now? Harrias talk 10:35, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes that's good, it attributes the telling to Crick JennyOz (talk) 12:19, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "You only get three points whether you win 9–0 or 1–0".[27] - full stop inside
  • despite his manager's suggestions he be - can't access, definitely plural ie manager suggested more than once?
  • "I sensed a hat-trick was there for the taking and I was determined to get one".[18] - can't access, should full stop be inside?
    • As before, this finishes with a comma inside the quotes, not sure what's right here. Harrias talk 10:24, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was the first time for twelve years - "It" is confusing here after so many other people mentioned, maybe swap to Cole's haul/tally/five or similar?
    • Tweaked to "Cole's haul.."
  • Forrest went on to concede a further seven goals - the soccerbase ref only mentions the score, not Forrest. Add the BBC ref 4 from Forrest's article?
  • Leicester City beat Southampton by the same scoreline, albeit away from home - why "albeit"? To me saying 'even though' reads as if it was a lesser victory. Aren't away games harder to win? I reckon you can drop "albeit"?
  • Martin, Andy - authorlink Andy Martin (author) (definitely same bloke, the Ext link "Homepage" in his article shows his domain as andymartinink as does his byline in the Independent)
  • Crick, Michael - authorlink
  • References - Specific and General, is the "General" one, Record Breakers, used as a ref or is it further reading?
    • It's not used at all, and as a video of the match, I've removed it completely. Harrias talk 10:24, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1994–95 in English football template - this match doesn't appear, add notable matches line?
    • I had looked at the other two templates which have a line for "Other matches" for those with own articles. Leave it to you. JennyOz (talk) 12:19, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's my tuppence, looking forward to learning more from any replies. JennyOz (talk) 09:32, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks JennyOz. I have responded to each of your points in turn (other than the last, I'm still looking into other season templates to see if there is a "norm".) A couple are requesting further feedback, any further help you can offer would be appreciated! Harrias talk 10:35, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all Harrias. (Apologies for not initially including your name in my opening. That was very remiss of me and I have now corrected it.) The last fiddly bits I've added to above, I will leave to you two to discuss or ignore. I am happy to now add my support. JennyOz (talk) 12:19, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from KJP1 edit

Will get to this tomorrow. KJP1 (talk) 20:20, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notes - not started review yet. Reaction - para. 2, "Despite...despite" - replace first with "although"? / para.3, "The record Manchester United set for the biggest Premier League win". I'll also pick up the Source review on this - most are online. KJP1 (talk) 06:44, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, those two points addressed. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 07:05, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Infobox
  • "Graham Poll (Tilehurst)" - what does Tilehurst mean? His home town, Tilehurst?
Lead
  • "and the joint biggest win either home or away" - just so I'm clear, is the other biggest win the 1892 victory over Wanderers, referenced in the first sentence of the Reaction section? If it is, all good. If it's not, then it probably needs a mention in the main body somewhere.
Background
  • "Before this match, the two teams had met 50 times in all competitions; Manchester United had the upper hand with 24 wins to Ipswich's 18. The remaining eight matches, which finished as draws, were all in the league, where it was a similar story, with Manchester United winning 20 of the teams' 45 meetings, while Ipswich had 17 wins" - Despite re-reading, I'm not getting this, quite long, sentence, and reading the cite confuses me further. It may be my poor maths, my non-specialist understanding of football, or both, but I can't work out what it's telling me. They'd played 50 times in total - with MU winning 24, to IT's 18, with 8 draws. That adds up. But then they'd played 45 times in the league, with MU winning 20, IT winning 17 and 8 draws. That adds up. So there were 5 non-league matches? But the source says 50 league matches with 57 in total? Cannot compute!
  • Yes, five "non-league" matches, ie. cup matches (4 FA Cup and 1 League Cup). And 57 in total runs up to current time. This match was held in 1995. The two clubs have since faced each other six more times. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 12:22, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reaction
  • You've already dealt with my only two quibbles here.
And that really is all I can find to nit-pick over. It's well-written, engaging and, with the single exception of the query over match numbers raised above, comprehensible to a non-specialist reader. I'll add my support when I've done the Source review which will be later today. KJP1 (talk) 11:36, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KJP1 I've responded above. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 12:22, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

Have checked all of the, accessible, online sources, which is most of them. With the single exception of Source 27 (see below), they work, they're reliable and they support the accompanying text. Some minor issues, mostly consistency of formatting below. No reason to suppose the, small number of, offline sources will not be similarly compliant. KJP1 (talk) 07:02, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Source 8, Observer; Sources 14/19, Irish Independent; Source 15, Newcastle Journal; Source 18, Sunday Life; Source 25, Sunday Independent; Source 33, Evening Herald - I think these are all subscription. Should they have the indicating padlock?
  • Source 27, ESPN - is this taking me to the site's current page rather than the 2014 page?
  • Bluelinking Publishers - most are, but Source 2, Racing Post; Sources 3/23, The Guardian; Source 20, The Observer; Source 21, The Independent; Sources 28/29/30/31/35/36, The BBC are not. They should probably be, for consistency. Also, the BBC sources aren't cited in a consistent way; Source 31 has BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation), but Sources 28/29/30 don't have brackets around British Broadcasting Corporation. Lastly BBC is italicised for all except Sources 31 and 36. And Sources 28/35/36 don't have British Broadcasting Corporation after BBC?
  • Source 25 - Ferguson biography - the publisher is given as Pocket Books, but the link tells me Simon & Schuster. However, Worldcat tells me it's Pocket, [9]. Not sure what to suggest.
  • From our article: "Pocket Books is a division of Simon & Schuster". The edition on Google Books was published by Pocket Books. The original edition (on my shelf) just says Simon & Schuster. I have wikilinked Pocket Books in the citation. Harrias talk 08:09, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KJP1 thanks, I believe all of your points have now been addressed. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 08:14, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All looking good and am signing off on the Source review. Many thanks both. I hope the article makes FA. Football generally bores me rigid but even I was swept up in the moment during the Match section! KJP1 (talk) 08:22, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from NapHit edit

  • "their attacking partnership of Andy Cole and Mark Hughes was not well regarded." I know it's mentioned later on in the article why they weren't well regarded, but I'd maybe add a line to state who considered this to be the case. Could simply put by pundits/journalists.
    Done. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 15:05, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • link to relegation zone
    Well "relegation" is mentioned before relegation zone, so I've linked that. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 15:05, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could mention each team's form coming into the match. This link from the Premier League shows the difference in form between the two teams. Think it would be worth mentioning in the background section.
    The form noted in that link is bogus. The matches are from 2002. It's some kind of error. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 15:05, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Despite this contrast in the fortunes of the two clubs, United had won just one of their four meetings with Ipswich in the first two seasons of the Premier League, being held to draws in both of Ipswich's visits to Old Trafford, and losing 2–1 on their first Premier League visit to Portman Road in January 1993." That is one very long sentence. I think you could split it in half where the comma after Premier League currently is.
    Yes, split, much better. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 15:06, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Premier League source contradicts the time of the yellow cards given in the article. I would have thought the Premier League would be the most reliable for this kind of information, or am I missing something?
    No, I think that Premier League source isn't very good at all under closer scrutiny. Neither player wore the 99 shirt, and per this RS the cards are as reflected in the article. I think I'll ditch the PL source as it's mostly crap. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 15:09, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • link goal difference in the reaction section.
    It's done. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 15:12, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's all from me, just a few nitpicks. The article is in fantastic shape, even though I'm a Liverpool fan, it was a somewhat interesting read! NapHit (talk) 14:55, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NapHit thanks for your review and kind words. Imagine being an Ipswich fan and having to re-live this time after time...! Great (inadvertent!) catch on the PL source. Anything else, don't hesitate to give us a shout. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 15:12, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
When the time comes to improve the 2018 UEFA Champions League Final article, I'll feel your pain! Ah, I didn't notice all the squad numbers displayed 99. Guess it was an inadvertent catch! NapHit (talk) 15:22, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
NapHit If you want to give me a hand with 1977 FA Cup Final at some point, just let me know ;) (And thanks for the review!) Harrias talk 15:30, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Despite the result, I'd be happy to work on that one with you Harrias. Thankfully, I wasn't alive when it took place! NapHit (talk) 15:57, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Harrias count me in too... The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 15:59, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And me. – PeeJay 21:54, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
NapHit I suspect the ping has failed from before. A chance to say thank you again (and correct a typo)! The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 15:14, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All my comments have been dealt with and I'm happy to support the article now. Great work! NapHit (talk) 15:22, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Comment from The Squirrel Conspiracy edit

The program cover in the infobox seems to me like a purely ornamental use of non-free content. I believe it fails the non-free content criteria.

Criteria 8 is "Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding."

What information is a reader supposed to glean from the program that cannot be replicated using free images and prose? It's a collage of several images of players, and if you look closely, you can also read the location and date on it. We already have freely licensed images of players, and have the location and date reflected in prose. The program itself is not discussed at all in the article.

Ideally we would be able to replace that image with a photograph from one of the tens of thousands of fans in the stands, or a media publication that's opened its archives under a free license. But in the absence of a replacement image from the match itself, leaving the infobox blank would be preferable.

The Wikipedia community as a whole has a tendency to give the image in the infobox a free pass on the non-free content criteria; there's an assumption, built into the upload wizard itself, that if you stick something in the infobox and call it the primary means of identifying the subject of an article, it's inherently justified. If Featured Articles represent the best work on the project, they need to be held to a higher standard than that, and I don't feel that an article with a dubious use of non-free content meets that standard.

Apologies, The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 21:31, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey The Squirrel Conspiracy, there's absolutely no need to apologise. If you really believe that there's no justification for the fair use of the programme image, then please nominate it for deletion. That way the community can decide upon its relevance. I don't think FAC (this one in particular) is the place to make a call on the misuse of programme images across the project. The only way to make a real change (and to gain real consensus) would be is to get some community input on the validity of FUR on such images. Otherwise, your opposition is invalid, the images have already been reviewed and accredited. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:43, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've nominated the image in question, as well as the program covers for the other Manchester United matches with articles, for deletion. If consensus there is that the images fail the NFCC, I can replicate the FfD effort for other teams.
While you've said that my opposition is invaild, as long as the image remains, I don't feel comfortable changing it. I feel that this article, as it currently stands, does not meet FACR #3, regardless of another editor giving the images their blessing. However, if the determination by the editors that run the FAC process is that my vote doesn't have a leg to stand on, that's fair on their part. FAC is not a process I've ever been heavily involved in. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 22:11, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No problem at all The Squirrel Conspiracy, we should work this out. You probably need to start an RFC rather than multiple FFDs because your point is the same across all these images. It's a sea change you're proposing which extends way' beyond this nomination. We can happily remove the image of the programme, it has literally no impact on this FAC. Hence my suggestion you take your thoughts to a broader place. Cheers! The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 22:16, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Squirrel Conspiracy the image has been commented out now so is there anything else you'd like us to address before you support this nomination? Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 08:44, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, I've struck my oppose. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 20:10, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from Amakuru - sorry to add further image-related annoyance into the mix, but I think the licence on File:Andy_Cole_(13047502155)_(cropped).jpg may be incorrect. The original at Flickr is licensed as "Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)", which is not one of the licences permitted for Wikimedia Commons, as it doesn't permit commercial use. The uploader has incorrectly labelled it as cc-by-sa-2.0, so unless the Flickr user later changed the licence (is that possible?) it probably isn't eligible and should be deleted. Other than that, it looks like there may be enough support already on this one but if another pair of eyes are needed, I'll be happy to do a full review as well.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:07, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Amakuru replaced. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 11:13, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... looks like the new one has the same issue unfortunately. It looks like the entire "Aeroflot" set uses the invalid licence mentioned above. File:AndrewCole.JPG (less good quality, obviously) looks like the only correctly licensed image of Cole currently on Commons.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:22, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like we have a couple of problems then, the image review here didn't pick that up nor did the bot which has approved the use of these files. Probably worth taking this issue to a wider forum? I'll look into other images. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 11:23, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Amakuru replaced. If you fancy a read, do let us know what you think. I'm not sure I've forgiven you for what happened earlier this season, but hey... The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 11:30, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. It's a shame, as those were good images, but we don't really want to use them with the incorrect licence. I'll probably nominate the images for deletion on Commons anyway, unless Nikkimaria as image reviewer here thinks I've made a mistake? Will certainly have a read of the article, although I assume it's not a day you'll remember too fondly! And are you referring to the famous 1-0 Sky Blues victory at Portman Road in March? That was a great day out I'll have you know, despite the lack of pies and beer in the away-fans' concourse. The way things are going you might get the chance to exact revenge next season anyway, if they end up cancelling the season along with our five point lead at the top...  — Amakuru (talk) 11:40, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See commons:Commons:Flickr_files#Changing_licenses. Changing the license is technically possible on Flickr's end, but CC licenses are irrevocable. Unless there was some odd bug with the bot that led it to mark the licensing as consistent when it wasn't, we don't need to delete the image, although of course if we have an alternative we can choose to use it. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:53, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: yes, certainly if it was ever on Flickr with the CC-BY-SA licence then that's a permanent release under that licence. It looks like the claimed "check" of the Flickr licence by C:User:File Upload Bot (Magnus Manske) didn't actually take place though. The earliest version of the file [10], as uploaded by the now-banned Commons admin C:User:Russavia, already had the Flickr review template in place, so it might just have been copy/pasted from elsewhere. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 12:39, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, okay, hadn't spotted that. In that case we'd need to either verify that it was at some point under that license, or failing that delete it. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:04, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anything else? Sources checked, images checked (twice), plenty of support, no outstanding actionable queries. Let me know if there's anything more we can do. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 11:59, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note edit

Support from Lee Vilenski edit

  • Obligatory WikiCup participation notice*

All looks pretty good from my end, here's the few things I could find:

  • victory for Manchester United. - do we need to say Manchester here?
  • The source for statistics is weirdly placed. Do we not denote any other information to a casual reader as to what these mean?
  • I don't think that picture of Ferguson is from 95.

That's all I could see.Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:47, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Cass edit

As someone who's been to see Norwich City play, I read this today with a rival's hat on (although I'm not really a Canaries supporter). I can find no fault whatsoever, and I'm happy to support. CassiantoTalk 19:12, 25 April 2020 (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 Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 25 April 2020 [11].

Apollo 11 50th Anniversary commemorative coins (United States) edit

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 23:03, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... space and coins, which are the two things I've been writing about recently. A bit different from the standard fare of 1930s municipal anniversaries. I wrote this over the course of the past year, as events happened.Wehwalt (talk) 23:03, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from John M Wolfson edit

  • Why does the title include "(United States)"? Have other countries issued such coins, or will they in the future?
Yes, several have, including Spain, Canada and Australia. Originally we did not have such a parenthetical. It was moved in response to this discussion--Wehwalt (talk) 20:38, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:30, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Apollo 11 50th Anniversary commemorative coins were issued by the United States Mint in 2019, commemorating the 50th anniversary of the first landing on the Moon by Apollo 11 astronauts Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin. is a long sentence.
Yes, but it's mostly the long compound noun doing it. I suppose you could divide at the comma, but I'm not certain it's an improvement.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:10, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Even as part of proper nouns, I don't like to use the word "Mint" so often as that. I've adjusted the sentence a bit.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:10, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • concave (like the inside of a cup) and the reverse is convex (like its outside). I assume people would know "concave" and "convex"; if they don't, appropriate wikilinks can be placed.
Linked.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:10, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prior to the release date of January 24, 2019, there was anticipation that like the previous U.S. issue of curved coins, the 2014 National Baseball Hall of Fame issue, some denominations might quickly sell out. → The coins were released on January 24, 2019. Prior to their release it was anticipated that some denominations might quickly sell out like the 2014 National Baseball Hall of Fame issue. Just a suggestion.
I've rearranged it a bit following the spirit of what you've said rather than the letter.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:10, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise this looks good so far. I'll try to look more into this later and intend to take WikiCup points from this review. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:36, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Thanks for the comments so far.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:10, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps the All pieces on sale January 24, 2019 and off sale after December 27, 2019 except as noted. Prices increased by $5 on February 25 for all options then on sale. Options including $5 pieces had a sales price that fluctuated based on the market price of gold. can be made small as a footnote. Other than that I don't see anything wrong with this and support this article's promotion. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:19, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review and support. I'm going to hold the change of font in abeyance as I see comments on the box formatting below.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:44, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@John M Wolfson: FYI if you bold a support in the prose and in the section header it gets counted as two supports by the nominations viewer script; if you remove one of them it would help the automated system. Kees08 (Talk) 20:18, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Kees08 edit

Placeholder until I make a full review. Kees08 (Talk) 16:13, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Should this be 'first crewed landing' commemorating the 50th anniversary of the first landing on the Moon by Apollo 11 astronauts Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin.
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:25, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The source doesn't support this, and I don't recall the experiment, so it would be good to have a source for that part (I probably just don't remember). Bootprint Penetration Experiment, an exercise in soil mechanics.
I must have blown that one. Source added, also from the 11 ALSJ.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:36, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like the source calls the experiment Boot Penetration Soil Experiment (BPSE)
Changed. I seem to have gotten that from the ALSJ.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:33, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would change to this but leaving to your discretion About 13 minutes following the taking of the bootprint photographs,
Changed.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:25, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Colon after distributed? would be distributed half to the
I would not think the colon would help much.
Yeah I think I agree now Kees08 (Talk) 15:51, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The photo was taken July 21 UTC right? Congress required that the reverse be a "close-up of the famous 'Buzz Aldrin on the Moon' photograph taken July 20, 1969
Congress is ever parochial. I will drop a footnote.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:24, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have an idea on how best to source the footnote? Plainly the entire EVA took place on the 21st UTC, and I can source that to Orloff & Harland's timeline, but there may be a better way.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:29, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
First you can include the law as a source if you want, I found it while working on this. Ctrl F for AS11-40-5903 at ALSJ. It lists it being taken at 4:14 UTC, which is 12:14 am EST. This doesn't match the NASA date of July 20. I think you can create a footnote that says something like 'According to the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal, the photo was taken at 12:14 am EST (4:14 UTC) July 21.' with a source to the ALSJ that I listed. You can source it/write it other ways, but that covers both the launch time zone and UTC, and covers the language of the bill and ALSJ's timeline. Kees08 (Talk) 19:53, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Daylight savings time would make it five hours, I suppose and bring it back to the 20th.--07:30, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Ah, stupid daylight savings. So I suppose it is July 21 UTC and July 20 EDT. Should have a footnote of some sort, your call on how to do it. Kees08 (Talk) 15:42, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:27, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lunar Module is linked earlier In the reflection on the visor may be seen the Lunar Module Eagle
Fixed.
  • Think this should be a comma instead of a colon because of the verb that comes after the colon Apollo 11 astronauts: Mark Armstrong, Andy Aldrin
Done.
  • Instead of 'included above' have you considered merging the cells? If the table was sortable I would not advise it, but since it is not, it could make it easier to read (I was a bit confused at first glance)
I don't know how to do that. This is a table I borrowed from somewhere for United States Bicentennial coinage and have adapted as needed since. If you could demonstrate, I would fix it up.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:24, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it is using rowspan as demonstrated at Help:Table#Combined_use_of_COLSPAN_and_ROWSPAN. I can give it a shot later unless you beat me to it. Kees08 (Talk) 15:24, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Got it done; you can revert it if you do not like it. Seems more clear to me though. Kees08 (Talk) 19:29, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Always a comma after the year right? January 24, 2019 at 12 noon EST through
  • Same question/comment n May 4, 2019 with the launch
  • This had an en dash earlier in the section; not sure which is right but should be consistent: 2019-S proof clad
  • Same packaging a 2019-S Apollo 11 U.S. half dollar with a curved
  • Same date question The Mint did not report weekly sales figures after November 3, 2019 due to the
All the dates in text you cite above now have commas.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:08, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The date/mintmark thing is fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:25, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Surely there is a free record of the bills? I found HR 2726, I assume the two that are linked to ProQuest could be similarly found.
That's done.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:25, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just now realized that 400,000 were minted because there were approximately 400,000 working on the Apollo Program. Unless this is misleading me. If that's true it should probably be included if RS's exist.
400K is the standard authorization for silver dollars. The American Legion one had the same authorization.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:24, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many of the citations are from a couple of websites, which I suppose isn't inherently a problem, but I remember collectSPACE had a lot of coverage on the coins, perhaps those citations would provide useful information and could be used?
I added something from the cite you mention. I tried to minimize/avoid collectSpace as I had gotten some flak over that website re the postal covers incident. Coin World is the established weekly numismatic newspaper, and the others had good coverage of the weekly Mint sales report. I'm looking through the collectSPACE articles to see if there's anything else to add.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:55, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah no problems with those numismatic sources for quality; just wanted to point out that there were space-focused publications that could be useful to use. I assume most of the coin articles you write do not have a theme or dedicated media base like that, wanted to make sure you thought of it if you had not. No worries if you think the space citations are worthless. Kees08 (Talk) 20:20, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm reading through them. I don't think they are worthless but as you know part of FAC is giving reviewers less to complain about!--Wehwalt (talk) 21:25, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've added salient points from two of the articles.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:51, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More to come later. Kees08 (Talk) 23:03, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Images

As usual I am spending more time than I should on images. Hoping for both Wehwalt's opinion on inclusion and Nikkimaria's opinion on copyright. HouseLive records the House of Representatives, and HR 2726 (warning, huge video!) is about a four minute segment of a house proceeding. HouseLive's terms say Proceedings of the House of Representatives, including any recording of such proceedings, may not be used for any political purpose or in any commercial advertisement, and may not be broadcast with commercial sponsorship except as part of a bona fide news program or public affairs documentary program. I think because this restriction is placed by the House (from Committee on Ethics: Coverage of House Floor and Committee Proceedings. Broadcast coverage and recordings of House floor proceedings may not be used for any political purpose under House Rule 5, clause 2(c)(1). In addition, under House Rule 11, clause 4(b), radio and television tapes and film of any coverage of House committee proceedings may not be used, or made available for use, as partisan political campaign material to promote or oppose the candidacy of any person for public office., it falls under House Rules and would therefore be PD.

It also looks like videos have been uploaded to Commons:Category:United States House of Representatives and Commons:Category:Videos by the United States House of Representatives.

So Wehwalt, if I downloaded, clipped, and uploaded the file, would you want it included? I think it would go nicely in the proposal and legislation section. Plus, you get to see Posey's JFK impersonation. And Nikkimaria, do you agree with the copyright assessment? Kees08 (Talk) 15:44, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Wehwalt: The video is uploaded at File:50th anniversary moon landing coin motion.webm. I think it would go nicely in that section, do you have any issues adding it? Kees08 (Talk) 15:01, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No objection. I'm sorry to be some slow, my laptop died while I was traveling and I had to rely on my tablet and phone until Sunday night. I'm catching up.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:53, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, I am having tablet issues as well (Microsoft won't fix a unit they shipped me with a hardware defect. Surface Pros are garbage). I can add that in there. Kees08 (Talk) 20:03, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can we move the reverse photo and put an image from the unveiling in? The Mint says all right reserved on those photographs, but as far as I know that is not right. You could move it down to striking, which is where it is discussed anyways. Kees08 (Talk) 16:50, 14 March 2020 (UTC) That's all the feedback that I have. Let me know your thoughts. Kees08 (Talk) 17:25, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I follow your argument here. The Commons guideline called "house rules" refers to cases where the facility restricts photos or video. For example, if you personally were to go in and take a picture of a house proceeding and then release it as PD that would be fine. However, the creator in this case is imposing the restriction, and while it's certainly possible they're doing so only because of the committee ruling you cite, I don't think we have room to argue that their restriction is illegitimate. Now, given that as you note there are many videos already on Commons of house proceedings, possibly there's been a discussion there around this issue previously, or some reason I may be missing why the stated restriction is taken to not apply? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:34, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I will research into it more, I was unable to find anything the first time. It sounded like a case of the NASA Flickr account that posts photos labeled as NC, which we disregard since it is a government work and that restriction can't be placed. Kees08 (Talk) 18:39, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Query posted at Commons:Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#HouseLive_videos Kees08 (Talk) 19:28, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Am I clear to add something from the Flikr page in question?--Wehwalt (talk) 21:15, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion you can upload and tag as US-GOV, we do the literal exact thing with NASA's Flickr. Kees08 (Talk) 22:04, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've added one.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:50, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this is excessive detail for this article Those two bootprints were not disturbed by the astronauts' subsequent activity, and are visible in photographs taken from the Apollo Lunar Module Eagle prior to liftoff.
I don't see why. It establishes that the subject of the coin's obverse still exists, unless wiped out by the liftoff or something since.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:16, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any way we can avoid direct quoting on this? deemed "one of the most famous photos in history: a portrait of Aldrin, his gold-plated sun visor reflecting the photographer and the Lunar Module, the flag, and the moon’s horizon against an unimaginably black sky."
I'd rather keep the quote. Because there are those who hate words like "iconic" and "famous". I think the quote establishes this.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:16, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Usernameunique edit

Lead
  • Any reason there isn't an infobox?
The multiple coins and specifications make it difficult. I'm following the practice I did in Panama-Pacific commemorative coin issue.
We're short on help. I probably hadn't come up with the idea of gradual writing of a current-event article.
Background
  • by the end of the decade — Unless I'm missing something, this part isn't supported by the citation. Maybe cite to the speech as well?
Oops. Source added.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:40, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • a bulk sample — of soil?
Regolith technically, but yes, will add something.
  • the eighth[4] — Just confirming that this source is used for everything after the first clause of the first sentence in this paragraph.
Yes, it is merely to establish that this was the eighth of eight photos taken by Armstrong in that sequence.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:09, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal and legislation
  • The source for the first paragraph is somewhat confusing, and I think wrong when it says the proposal was included in the 2015 report. The 2015 report is here; unless I'm missing something, there's no mention of the proposal. The 2014 report, on the other hand, includes it. I would add that as a second source to the paragraph and fix accordingly.
Done that and changed to "annual report".--Wehwalt (talk) 15:40, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was danger that another commemorative coin bill might pass instead — Any idea what one?
I've deleted that--Wehwalt (talk) 00:30, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • On December 5, the last day of the House session,[6] — The source doesn't seem to back this up
Sorry, I've fixed that now.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:36, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • uncirculated and in proof condition — What's the difference between the two? Perhaps link them to glossary of numismatics?
  • Tom Uram, also a CCAC member, stated that the bill could have been improved by allowing a different design for each denomination, but that in many cases coin legislation is written by people in Washington who do not know what collectors want. — Seems a little bit out of place here; even though it mentions legislation, it's more of a qualitative assessment.
That's true, but where else would you put it?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:25, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point—when I made the comment I was probably assuming that there was a section at the end about collecting/reception, where is where this would naturally fit. You might be able to spin out the final paragraph of "Conclusion of sales" into such a section, and add this part here. But that's not an issue for FAC.
Obverse design selection
  • I'm confused by the second paragraph. Were there three meetings: one of the CFA, one of the CCAC, and one of both?
One of the CCAC, then the CFA, then the jury which was composed of some of the members of each, on three consecutive days. I've reworked it slightly to put the CCAC first as I've looked into it and they were the first to meet.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:50, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added, from the original source, though certainly I have no problem with Esylum.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:59, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This, and the following section, feel out of order. This section is about what happened from May 2017 to October 2018, and the next section is largely about what happened in and before June 2017. Here's a suggestion (since undone) for how to handle: link.
That point had been troubling me. I've reordered it, broadly following your concept, but with the text ordered differently.
Design
  • You're probably sick of hearing me say this, but what about a footnote listing the other five designs featuring alive people? (I won't hold it against you if you would rather not!)
I'm inclined to agree on this one. Added--Wehwalt (talk) 20:09, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Striking
  • The smaller silver dollar would cost $54.95 for the proof coin and $51.95 in uncirculated — The mint isn't given here, but it is for the others.
Because the striking at Philadelphia is mentioned earlier in the section.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:44, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • enhanced reverse proof condition — What's this?
Now you're asking something! I will look for an explanation.
  • Prices for the gold pieces — When were these set? Earlier in the paragraph, it says the gold prices were to be set at a later date.
Somewhere between the 18th and the 23rd. The Mint's web page on this says they do it weekly. I'd use the date if.I had it but don't think there's any great loss if not.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:02, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Continued sales
  • Sales of the half dollar set reached 94,119 by February 10 and it showed as unavailable on the Mint's website. However, this was not a sellout of the Apollo 11 half dollar, but only of the Kennedy piece ... By February 21, the proof half dollar set had sold out entirely. — This first makes it sound as if the Kennedy piece was sold out by February 10, and then says that it sold out 11 days later. I've tinkered with the language a fair deal and added qualified the February 10 date as a "forthcoming sellout," but you may want to check the language to confirm that it is correct.
    I've played with it some.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:16, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • At one point you say 99,997 sets sold, then you say 99,998 sets.
All the sets were sold, or at least reserved, the Mint sometimes has trouble reconciling the orders, a coin may be returned as undeliverable, let's say. They must have been able to deal with one such issue.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:16, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This section—particularly the sales figures, the part about sending some of the coins into space, and the Australia/Spain/Canada paragraph—feels a little bit like a chronology that was written as events happened, and lacks some cohesion as a result. It's not a huge issue, and I'm not sure what the solution would be—maybe including the weekly sales figures in extra rows in the chart below, and adding a subsection such as "Other promotions" to deal with the rest—but just something to think about.
Of course it is to some extent written as we went along, and so I take your point. But the mintage figures are taken from logical (end of June, end of September) waypoints along the way. I won't say it is the most elegant prose but I think it gets the job done and gets useful information out there. I will keep looking at it and take suggestions on board as well.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:03, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusion of sales
  • identical mintage limits — for just the half eagle, or also for the half dollar and smaller dollar?
All three, and I've made that clearer.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:16, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the final paragraph all that exists for reviews/retrospective discussion of the coin?
All I've found anyway, and I've been looking. No new sales figures, thus no commentary on same.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:16, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  • 12, 13: Retrieval dates not needed
Axed.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:58, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 14: This could do with significantly more information. A decent rule of thumb for a citation is whether, in the absence of a link, it still gives enough information that someone could find the source. This one likely falls short.
Good point; I've added the title of the bill. I ran a google search of the title and a link from congress.gov is the first result (this article is the second).--Wehwalt (talk) 07:53, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. Switched.
  • 27: The author is Joel Crabtree.
Credited.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:58, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wehwalt, comments above. Seriously cool coin—I really like the design with the boot. --Usernameunique (talk) 07:35, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do too. OK, I think I've covered everything. Sorry for the delay, laptop issues.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:40, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Usernameunique, did you have anything further? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:56, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reminder, Ian Rose. Adding my support. I've also added a source review above. --Usernameunique (talk) 03:14, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you as ever for the detailed review. I've done the items in the source review.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:58, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks great, thanks! --Usernameunique (talk) 00:23, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I missed it Usernameunique but are you signing off on source reliability as well as formatting? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:40, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, Ian Rose, I wasn't clear about that. I've just taken a second look, and am signed off on source reliability as well as formatting. The only source that caught my eye was Headley 2020, but this is used for only a minor point in a footnote (the inclusion of which I suggested), and the wikilinks in the footnote reinforce the point. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:16, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

Kees08 posted some comments about images above, but I'm not sure that it was intended as a full image review, so (hopefully not stepping on anyone's toes here) I'd like to do an image review.

All of the images appear to be properly licensed and captioned. But some queries about the source links for the images below:

  • I got an error for the source link for Apollo 11 gold reverse.jpeg.
    I found smaller versions of this image but not the full-size version in the file; I will let Wehwalt deal with the US Mint's image storage. Kees08 (Talk) 21:17, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed that to the Mint's image library page for the coin.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:19, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wehwalt, I see you had two edits, and you changed the link to one that works, and then likely accidentally (?) back to the original link that didn't work. I've changed it back to one that works. Moisejp (talk) 01:42, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It works if you click through from from the Mint's website. Very strange.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:27, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The source link for Aldrin Apollo 11 head.jpg seems to have moved. Should it be updated?
    Fixed, though I would recommend cropping the unedited version instead of the highly edited PR version File:Aldrin Apollo 11 original.jpg Kees08 (Talk) 20:59, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also does AldrinFootprint.jpg need an online source (right now it just says NASA)?
    Added, though File:Apollo 11 bootprint.jpg is an unedited version, which could be cropped if desired. Kees08 (Talk) 21:15, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Moisejp (talk) 20:53, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, it wasn't a proper image review. Kees08 (Talk) 20:59, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The issues above have been resolved. Thank you. Moisejp (talk) 01:42, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the image review and to Kees08 for helping out.==Wehwalt (talk) 07:27, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the name of the article changed during the FAC. I figured we might as well deal with anything that needs to be done at the end, and I doubt if it's unprecedented.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:51, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, now that my attention's been drawn to that, was going to ask if any other countries had 'em and, if so, would they be considered primary... Hawkeye7, pls remind me, do you/FACbot prefer we tweak everything to the new name here and in the FAC list or can it all be dealt with as is? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:13, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We changed the name of SOLRAD 1 in the middle of the FAC (from Solrad 1 to SOLRAD 1) and left the FAC page at the old name (Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Solrad_1/archive1). Based on that, nothing should break, but you never know. I say live life on the wild side! Or wait for Hawkeye. Kees08 (Talk) 01:44, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Hawkeye7: Any reason I shouldn't just promote this? --Ealdgyth (talk) 13:35, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It should be okay. I will be watching. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:47, 25 April 2020 (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 Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 25 April 2020 [12].

Third Silesian War edit

Nominator(s): Bryan Rutherford (talk) 15:46, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is the third (and longest) in a series of four I've written about the Silesian Wars of the eighteenth century. It has already been through a Good Article Nomination and a Military History A-Class Review, and I've tried to proactively incorporate feedback the two previous articles have received in their recently concluded FACs. I'd love to get some more constructive feedback on this one and try to get the whole series to featured quality. Thanks in advance to all reviewers and coordinators! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 15:46, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Several of the images would benefit from being scaled up
Which ones, and how much? -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 00:45, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All except "Preparations for war" and Laudon - they have fairly intricate detail that's hard to see at default size. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:21, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Attempted, let me know if this is pleasing. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:27, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Schlacht_bei_Roßbach.jpg needs a US PD tag and an author
I've added an additional license. I have no idea who the artist is, and I haven't been able to discover it; let me know if that's a show-stopper for you, because I'll have to look for a replacement image. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 00:45, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest adding a note in the image description about where you've looked for attribution.
I'm not sure where you mean that this note should go on the Commons page. I can't find a free copy of the book the uploader scanned the work from to see whether there's an attribution in the book, and the website of the museum where the piece is held doesn't seem to have any browseable pages about its holdings, that I've been able to locate. I've added an English description to the file specifying where the piece is held. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:27, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Schlacht_von_Leuthen.JPG: where was this first published?
Almost certainly Germany, but I can't prove it. Let me know if I need to replace it. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 00:45, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How do we know it was published by 1920? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:21, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The artist died in 1920, and his various books of paintings of German scenes were published during his lifetime. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:27, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Frederick_the_Great_after_the_Battle_of_Hochkirch_in_1758_by_Carl_Röchling.jpg needs tag for status in source country. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:40, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated the license. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 00:45, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Source comment

Any reason why the following sources aren't cited? Seems to me that they are recent, relevant works which would probably shed light on certain aspects, as well as being stronger than many of those which are cited in the article. buidhe 02:47, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The first two pages of the article that I can access for free don't seem to offer anything other than general information about the context and inciting incidents of the war, and the assertion that Frederick had many "decision points" that might have taken the war to quite different outcomes if handled differently (undeniably true, but hardly groundbreaking). The title and this setup seem to indicate that the author will be exploring hypothetical alternate histories that might have arisen from different choices by Frederick and the other belligerents, which, though a topic I personally find interesting, doesn't strike me as something that needs to be explored in an encyclopedia article about the war. Do you think there's something in the rest of the article that ought to be here? If you have a copy, I'd be happy to read it, or maybe I can get a look over at WP:RX. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 15:20, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly I don't have access to this either. Someone at WP:RX probably does though. buidhe 01:00, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be another history of the Seven Years' War, and this article already cites a general history of the Seven Years' War (Marston 2001), one focused on the European theater (Szabo 2008), one focused on the North American theater (Anderson 2000), one focused on the Anglo-Prussian alliance (Schwiezer 1989), and one focused specifically on Frederick (Redman 2014). Is there a specific gap in coverage that you see and believe this additional Seven Years' War history would fill? -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 15:20, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM edit

I reviewed this at GAN and then at Milhist ACR, so couldn't find much this time around. I have a few comments:

  • mid-1700s, doesn't this mean 1703 to 1707 or so? Perhaps mid-18th century?
Hmm, I hadn't considered that "1700s" could mean either 17XX or 170X. I would definitely read that phrase by default to mean the century rather than the decade (unless context pointed to the decade), but maybe others wouldn't. Fair enough, changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 04:36, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest "which had concluded the earlierthe latter war"
Done. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 04:36, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "deter invasion of Prussia's coast" by whom? Russia?
Good point. Russia and Sweden were the likely naval antagonists; I've tried to clarify. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 04:36, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • move link for Brandenburg to first mention
Good catch, fixed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 04:36, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Marshal Lehwaldt, there is another example of this
Done. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 04:36, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Charles→Prince Charles
Done. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 04:36, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "one of Daun's generals" Ernst Gideon von Laudon? If so, suggest naming him here and trim and delink later mention re: Kunersdorf
Good catch, done. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 04:36, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest "invasion of Austrian territory ofduring the war"
Done. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 04:36, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • General Gottlob Heinrich Tottleben?
Done. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 04:36, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "pro-Austrian principalities in the Empire"? which empire?
HRE; clarified. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 04:36, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I could find, nice job. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:52, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, again! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 04:36, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, great job again Bryan. Supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:40, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Cas Liber edit

Looking now...

  • ...and of Frederick, who cemented his reputation as a military genius. - err, seems a bit effusive? Why not just "able/canny military tactician?"
Contemporary opinion was pretty effusive on the topic, even among his enemies, but I'll pull it back a bit since it seems to be in the encyclopedia's voice. How about "... a preeminent military commander"? -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:59, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah that's better - just a little more...sober....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:12, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prussia emerged from the war as a great power [whose importance in Europe could no longer be disputed] - redundant?
Fair enough; condensing to "... as a new European great power". -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:59, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prussia's confirmation as a first-rate power and the enhanced prestige of its king and army were long-term threats to Austria's hegemony in Germany - "first-rate power" comes over as puffy and POV.
This is a sort of language that was common at the time; one of the documents we have extant from Kaunitz says that his goal for the war was to return Brandenburg to its primordial condition as a "power of the third rank" in German politics. Does "first-rate power" seem more puffy than "great power"? -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:59, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Does a little but I get the picture. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:12, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise - reads well and appears to be comprehensive and well-written and on track for FA-hood (I am a neophyte to the area though). Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:23, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:59, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild edit

Nb. I intend to claim points for this review for the WikiCup.

I may do some copy editing as I go, which you will want to check.

  • "in return for guarantees of Austrian and Russian defence in the case of a Prussian attack"> "defence doesn't really work. Perhaps 'support'? Or expand a little?
Isn't "defense" the thing that's wanted at the time of an "attack"? I don't understand what doesn't work, but "support" seems fine, too; changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:02, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Map caption: Consider "Map of the Central European region where the bulk of the war was fought, prior to Prussia's seizure of Silesia" → 'Map of the Central European region, prior to Prussia's seizure of Silesia, where the bulk of the war was fought'.
Yes, I agree. Changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:02, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Optional: 'where he might set up winter quarters and supply his army at Austria's expense'.
Fair enough, maybe not obvious. Added. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:02, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to defend Prussia's coast against Russia or Sweden" This is the first mention of Sweden. Perhaps mention it under Diplomatic Revolution?
Actually, upon reflection I think that mention of Sweden comes too early; Sweden was still neutral at that time and only decisively took France's side in early 1757. I've eliminated that one and tried to add a bit more lead up to what is now the first mention of Swedish involvement. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 14:14, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sensible.
  • "he personally led the main Prussian army of 58,000 into Saxony" in the next section, adding the components gives 63,000.
The sources contradict each other, probably differing on what support personnel they include and so forth. I'm softening the first figure. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:02, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Army of observation is a disambiguation set index page, and there's no page describing this particular "army of observation". -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:02, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's not, but I won't push it.
I mean, I'm not trying to be stubborn here; I read the Template:Set index article at the bottom of that article as discouraging internal links from pointing to it when they ought to refer to a specific "army of observation", but I'll link it if you think that's for the best. Changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 16:58, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bryan - it's "your" article. If I were being a stubborn reviewer, you would know. I think that the link would be helpful; if you disagree, well these things happen. I'm not going to withhold a support over it. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:06, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "leaving no realistic prospect of a march on Vienna" Does "realistic" add anything here?
Hope and pride see the promise of success where there is none. ;) I suppose I'll cut it. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:02, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The need to defend core territories on other fronts". "other fronts" or 'these fronts'?
Changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:02, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the only battle between the French and Prussians during the entire war" Delete "entire".
Done. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:02, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "through the winter. Over the winter" Is it possible to avoid this near repetition?
Rearranged. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:02, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:30, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:02, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was moving the same direction" 'in'?
Changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 16:58, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to have suffered still another defeat by a smaller Prussian force" Optional: "by" rings oddly to me. Even the cliched 'at the hands of' would be better.
Okay. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 16:58, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Thus, though Frederick's army was much reduced, he was left unmolested, which allowed him to secure the northern half of Silesia" Would you care to set a time period on this?
Basically the whole of 1761, during which time his main army fought no significant battles. I've added a phrase. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 16:58, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Then, in October Frederick ordered" Optional: delete "Then,".
Okay. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 16:58, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The belligerents in the wider Seven Years' War had already begun peace talks" Possibly 'The other belligerents'?
Good point, done. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 16:58, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent explication. Very sound work. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:40, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A lovely clear read. Top class work. Supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:06, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from SnowFire edit

It's an interesting read. I had one nitpick on phrasing but just changed it myself, should be quite minor, take a look (just on how to portray the other German states within the HRE). My other possible phrasing nit is saying in the lede that the war "ended in a Prussian victory" - kinda sorta, but I think the Infobox is more on point for calling it a "diplomatic victory". From a detached modern perspective, this is a war with a lot of losers and no winner since a ton of people died but nothing really changed, but it is true that it was sold as a Prussian victory and probably helped the cause of the eventual Kleindeutscheland solution to the German Question.

Just as you say, the end result was status quo ante, but, relative to what might have been expected given the relative forces on the two sides, contemporary observers emphatically viewed preservation of the status quo as a remarkable victory by Prussia. This has also been the consensus view of historians since, notwithstanding a small number who have taken the contrary view. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 00:32, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think the bit about contemporary observers is covered by the final sentence of the lede. I guess it depends on what exactly the goalposts are placed at, since if Prussian victory = survival and Austrian victory = Prussia is partitioned between Russia, Poland, and Austria, then sure, Prussia won. But from a more distant perspective, the result was the status quo ante was preserved, which doesn't really lend itself to saying any side won. Prestige is usually a minor prize. (For one example, Finland "won" the Winter War on the prestige front and the not-get-entirely-absorbed-by-the-USSR front, but lost it otherwise. I'm sure they'd have given up the prestige in a second for the territory and lives back.) SnowFire (talk) 01:57, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I hear you. I've added the "diplomatic" qualifier to the lede, and I'll just reiterate that the historiographic consensus from the 1760s to the present has consistently viewed the war as broadly having gone Prussia's way, and the article contains citations to that effect. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 17:54, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks better now, thanks. SnowFire (talk) 04:26, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, I think this is an excellent overview of the conduct of the war itself as well as the eventual outcome. My main complaint is that I feel that wars are usually larger than that. There's no problem with the content that is in the article, but it feels like the article is missing content it really should have. To take another theater of the Seven Years War as an example - the French and Indian War covers quite a bit of "Background" and "consequences", and could easily spend twice as much space on it if it really wanted (e.g. the role of the war in Quebecois regionalism). I think the current article gives very little attention to any of that aside from the matter of diplomatic prestige. Which, to be sure, probably follows the interests of "classical" history writers who like writing about treaties, kings, and battles, but is there really nothing written on social impact? Or on battle-adjacent matters like logistics? Even if the social impact was absolutely zero, i.e. "Prussians loved it, didn't complain about the extensive losses, and it fueled proto-German nationalism". (Possible this would need to be a separate article, of course, since the Silesian War is mixed up with the Pomeranian War and the like too.)

Fair points. In the article's defense, the entire article Second Silesian War is basically the "Context" section for this article, as indicated by a hatnote. Or are you wishing there were more about the Diplomatic Revolution? Should I add Seven Years' War to the context section's hatnote? As for consequences, the article does discuss the generation-long enervation of Prussia's military after this war, not to be repaired until after Jena, at least. On the social impact in Prussia, I actually haven't seen much written; generally the people seem to have accepted their King's (true) claim that he never wanted the war and did everything he could to, first, prevent it and, second, end it as quickly as possible. I'll look around and see if I can add something substantive that isn't already here. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 00:32, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm talking more about social impact. Did different classes of society support the war with different levels of fervor? Was there any notable internal opposition to conducting the war for any of the belligerents, whether from the peasantry or from unruly nobles? Did the war cause any reforms or changes in government (the article does hint at this by saying that the war proved the Habsburg monarchy would need to continue to modernize, but anything else? What problems did the war reveal)? Frederick apparently emptied the Saxon treasury, did that matter or was it no big deal? Prussia was Protestant and Austria/France were Catholic, did the religious situation change at all in the war, e.g. did Prussia attempt to present itself as religious liberators to the Protestant Bohemians? Or was it largely secular? Why was Russia's supply lines through Poland tenuous after the Battle of Kunersdorf, weren't they allied with the Polish king at the time? Was there just a bad harvest, or internal dissension, or just plain bad planning or the like? Prussia's officer corps was still depleted by the Napoleonic Wars, but were there other societal effects from the loss of so many people on issues other than soldiery (e.g. the post-WW2 baby boom, or mass state orphanages, or an expansion in government benefits)? Again, I realize this is an encyclopedia summary and not a book, and maybe not all of these have answers. And it sounds like some of the answers are "boring" ones ("The Prussian state rallied around Frederick with no substantial opposition"?). But that's the kind of subjects I think the article glosses over a tad at the moment. SnowFire (talk) 01:57, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm adding various bits to try to address these issues. I've put in a couple of references to currency devaluations enacted by Prussia to finance the war and their consequences for Prussia (and Saxony, which got the worst of everything). I've also put in more comments on the decline of war-making capacity on both sides going into 1761. I'll go back through and add more shortly, but I'm out of editing time. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 17:54, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've added some more detail about the demographic and economic consequences of the war in Prussia and the steps taken by the state to repair the damage. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 15:48, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've also added a paragraph about the second wave of Theresian reforms inspired by Austria's defeat. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 01:42, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For the social side - even if all this comes down to "this is an era where nobility plotted against each other and started wars because they could and everybody went along with that," that might still be a helpful bit of background, go ahead and assert that Maria Theresa / Frederick / Elizabeth had essentially total control and people paid their taxes and went along with the national sacrifices 'cuz that's what they did. There's also a bit of this on logistics / non-battle related info with Frederick intentionally moving his army into Bohemia to "live off the land" so to speak, but it feels like there's more to be said here - armies being raised and transported. The article Early modern warfare is kind of a mess, but something similar that just simply describes how warfare worked in this era would also be helpful, I think. I recognize that sourcing may be patchy here, but I feel like the article feels a tad incomplete as it is. (Or maybe all of these already exist, but are in subarticles within Category:Seven Years' War ? If so, maybe link these other articles a bit more, as they're relevant.) SnowFire (talk) 23:25, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I could work in a mention of this conflict's status as one of the last cabinet wars to give some of the context I think you're asking for? I can try to work in a link to Early modern warfare alongside it, too? Those seem like helpful wikilinks for the issues you raise. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 00:32, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cabinet wars seems like a great link and useful context to explain what's going on, as would any sort of background on how this war was fought (example: Nine_Years'_War#Weapons,_technology,_and_the_art_of_war), for some reason there doesn't seem to be a comparable section for the Seven Years War article), even if it ends up being mostly a link to another article. SnowFire (talk) 01:57, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, it looks as though WikiProject Military History recommends including commentary about methods and technologies in the first (context and causes) section of an article on a war, so I'll try to put together a little blurb that can perhaps be incorporated into each of the articles in the series. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 19:00, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've written a summary of the nature of European land warfare in this period and added it. Does this seem like the sort of thing you were looking for? -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 21:01, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this addition is the type of passage I was looking for, on the military / logistics side. (Outside the scope of this FAC, but including something like this on the main Seven Years War article would also probably be good too, or otherwise expanding / splitting the Early modern warfare article. But don't feel obligated to look into that, it's irrelevant to the Silesian Wars article, just a general musing.) SnowFire (talk) 04:26, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me - thanks for including more background. Support. I realize there are WP:SIZE concerns from including too many details, but this kind of thing like social welfare programs for veterans is actually pretty relevant IMO (e.g. stuff like the Bonus Army as a delayed consequence of World War I is rather notable, even if it happened a decade after the event). The article is stronger for including some of that. SnowFire (talk) 17:41, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pushing me to make the article better! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 19:35, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox comment by Factotem edit

A general note before I start on the source review: Please do not try to represent nuance in the infobox result. If it's not possible to simply state X victory then you should set this parameter to See Outcomes

Any comment on this? Factotem (talk) 08:45, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 12:33, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Factotem - Support edit

On the sources:

  • ref #16 - Clark & 2006 (209) - is mis-formatted
Fixed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:18, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ref #133 - Vocelka (2000), pp. 157–8 - should give the ending page in full
Fixed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:18, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • France is listed as a belligerent until 1758, but in The "second miracle" section it states that France ended its involvement in 1762
It ceased active military operations in this theater in 1758 and made formal peace in 1762. Do you feel that the infobox should reflect the latter? -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:18, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
According to the article France appears to have ceased active involvement in 1758, but still occupied Prussian territory in the Rhineland in 1762. On that basis I would conclude that France remained a belligerent until 1762. Unless the sources explicitly state otherwise, it seems to me that that is the correct year to use in the infobox. Factotem (talk) 08:44, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No need to cite the casualties in the infobox - they are cited in the main body
Changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:18, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • A recent change has caused CS1 maint: ref=harv messages to be displayed in the Sources section. This can be fixed by replacing |ref=harv to |ref=none
Er, it has? I'm not seeing any maintenance messages, even in preview. Are you saying that you want all the sources changed in this way? -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:18, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. I suspect I'm seeing them because I have a script running. It's being discussed at Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates#Citation-template_change. Up to you if you want to make that change. It's not going to affect the outcome of this review. Factotem (talk) 14:52, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The archive.org link gives the publisher of Asprey's Frederick the Great: The Magnificent Enigma as History Book Club, not Ticknor and Fields
  • The ISBN provided in the Sources for Clark's Iron Kingdom: The Rise and Downfall of Prussia, 1600–1947 relates to a 775-page 2008 edition, but the archive.org link is for a 779-page 2006 edition with a different ISBN
  • The OCLC number for Kohlrausch's A History of Germany: From the Earliest Period to the Present Time is 1117916101, according to Worldcat. That listing states 700 pages. The archive.org link given in the Sources section goes up to p. 699 and is clearly coming to the end, but ends mid-sentence. Up to you whether you add the OCLC number or reject it due to a possible pagination mismatch.
User:InternetArchiveBot replaced valid links with these Archive.org links for these three sources. Is there a way I can tell the bot to stop doing that? -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:18, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You've changed the archive.org link to a Gbooks link for Clark's work, but the ISBN still still relates to a 2008 edition while the Gbooks link and the year given in the Sources section state 2006. Either the year and the Gbooks link needs to change to conform with the ISBN, or the ISBN need to change to conform with the Gbooks link and year. Factotem (talk) 14:14, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Haha okay, changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 14:20, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I check every change the bot makes to 'my' articles, and Clark here is the first time I've seen it link to the wrong edition. Suggest letting it ride for now and checking if it tries to restore the link. Factotem (talk) 15:03, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Gbooks link provided for Clodfelter's Warfare and Armed Conflicts: A Statistical Encyclopedia of Casualty and Other Figures, 1492–2015 gives a different ISBN (9781476625850 - 824-page edition), to the one provided in the Sources section (978-0-7864-7470-7 - 804-page edition). If ISBN 978-0-7864-7470-7 is the correct version, then a link to the gbooks preview would link to that edition.
Changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:18, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • FYI: Similar ISBN mismatch in gbooks link and Sources details for Creveld's Supplying War: Logistics from Wallenstein to Patton, but pagination does not differ between editions.
Changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:18, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • FYI: Ditto Duffy's Frederick the Great: A Military Life
Changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:18, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
GBooks is wrong; Da Capo Press has been bought by Hachette since the publication of the book.
  • Gbooks link for Mitford's Frederick the Great leads to a 272-page edition with ISBN 9781590176429. The ISBN provided in the Sources section (978-1-59017-623-8), however, appears to relate to a 250-page edition
Fixed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:18, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gbooks link for Shennan's International Relations in Europe, 1689-1789 is for a 96-page edition published 2005 with ISBN 9781134899968, but the ISBN provided in the Sources section, 978-0-415-07780-4, is for a 75-page published 1995. In either case, the publisher appears to be Routledge, not Taylor & Francis.
ISBN fixed. Inside the cover it says "First published by Routledge. ... This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2005." -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:18, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gbooks link for Wilson's Heart of Europe: A History of the Holy Roman Empire is for a 1008-page edition with ISBN 9780674915923, but the ISBN in the Sources section, 978-0-674-05809-5, is for a 941-page edition according to Worldcat
Changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:18, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm taking a break here and will complete the review later.

But, the same Gbook links/ISBN mismatch issues were flagged to you in the ACR and FAC for the First Silesian War article. You are not required to provide Gbooks links, but if you do so, please, please can you ensure that what you are linking to is consistent with the rest of the details provided in the article's source information? It's a nitpick when the different editions have the same pagination, as is the case with the FYIs above, but it has the potential to become a significant issue with WP:V when the pagination is different. Factotem (talk) 11:41, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your diligence! I'm juggling a lot of different editions of these books to try to verify and expand these articles while I don't have constant access to the physical books that I first used, so most of these are that I accidentally mixed references to the physical and e-book editions. The differences in page number are normally end material and don't affect the pagination of the body of the text. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:18, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A 21-page discrepancy in a 96-page source (Shennan) or a 67-page discrepancy in a 1008-page work is a difference in end material? I realise it can be a bit nitpicky at times, especially when the discrepancies are measured in just a few pages. But, not being well-informed on any given subject or its historiography, I'm basically left looking for indicators in any source review I undertake as to the quality. Incorrectly transcluding bibliographical information such as ISBNs does not tend to give me the warm and fuzzy feeling I'm seeking. Factotem (talk) 09:48, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quality, reliability and comprehensiveness of sourcing

  • A search for "third silesian war" in jstor and gbooks did not reveal any relevant sources not already used. More out of curiosity, I did a gbooks search for "Dritter Schlesischer Krieg", but found only very old sources and one self-published work.
  • Hippocrene Books seemed slightly dubious as a source for military history; it appears to have a strong focus on dictionary/phrasebooks and cookbooks. But the academic credentials of Duffy, whose work is published by Hippocrene, are impeccable, so no issue there.
  • My impression of Osprey Publishing is that it tends more towards the popular end of the market than solidly academic works I would prefer to see in the bibliography of a featured article, but again, Marston's academic credentials are impeccable. Factotem (talk) 09:51, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All source issues addressed. Supporting on sourcing. Factotem (talk) 09:52, 23 April 2020 (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 Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 25 April 2020 [13].

Bombing of Obersalzberg edit

Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk) 00:29, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article covers a massive air raid conducted against Hitler's personal home and the homes of the Nazi elite in the last days of World War II. The Obersalzberg complex was a key command centre for the German Government during World War II, with Hitler spending much of the war there. In April 1945 the Allies became concerned, wrongly as it turned out, that Hitler and other senior figures would lead a last stand in the Alps from Obersalzberg. This contributed to a decision to level the place in an attack which involved over 350 heavy bombers. The air raid was successful, and much celebrated at the time. However, it is little remembered today.

I developed this article after being intrigued by brief mentions of an attack on Obersalzberg in many histories of the air war over Europe. I'm confident that I've drawn on all the key sources, though some will be tricky to access at the moment due to COVID-19 related closures of libraries. The article was assessed as a GA in October last year, and passed a Military History Wikiproject A-class review in December. It has since been expanded, and I'm hopeful that the FA criteria are met. Thank you in advance for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 00:29, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM edit

I reviewed this at GAN, and frankly couldn't find much then. This is up to your usual high standard, Nick. I managed to find a few minor nitpicks:

  • suggest including in the lead that Hitler was in Berlin at the time, but Göring was present and survived
  • you could link anti-aircraft guns
  • German Ggovernment, there is another instance of this
    • I think that the capital G is OK as this was an institution. Nick-D (talk) 11:17, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • who are Oliver Haller and Despina Stratigakos? historians? authors?
    • The sentence before this notes that they're historians, but this is a good point: I've tweaked to note that this is the views of two historians. Nick-D (talk) 11:17, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • not sure about the redlinking of secondary targets, is this really a notable subject?
  • you could link Squadron (aviation)
  • for German air force suggest Luftwaffe and link
  • strictly speaking, Austria didn't exist after the Anschluss, it was just southern Germany
  • Nneo-Nazi
  • Bavarian Ggovernment, there are two examples
    • As above, I think this is OK Nick-D (talk) 11:17, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • is there an ISSN/JSTOR etc for Canadian Military History?
  • the sources are of high quality and reliable, spotchecks not conducted due to Nick's long history at FAC
  • I'm still keen for a photo of the undamaged Berghof be included in the Planning section, per my GAN comment. I don't think the propaganda angle outweighs the encyclopaedic value of showing a primary target of this operation
    • I'm not sure there's a suitable photo - the best image (that used in the Berghof (residence) infobox) only really shows the entry gate. The photo of Hitler with Chamberlain illustrates the propaganda value of the place. Nick-D (talk) 11:17, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I have. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:56, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Supporting.Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:34, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Image review—pass

All images are free + relevant. There was a sandwiching issue that I encountered between the infobox and the first image, but I fixed it by moving the image down a paragraph.

Drive-by comment—some of the paragraphs are a bit short and you might consider combining to improve flow. In particular, I would join "The only attack on Berchtesgaden prior to April 1945..." to the previous paragraph. buidhe 08:47, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Most image licences seem OK, but I have a question about File:Goering House, October 14, 1948 (5491626123).jpg - are we sure that the Church Archives hold the copyright to the image? ALT text seems good to me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:54, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why not. The Church's archives state that the photographer was in Europe on church work when the photo was taken, and it ended up in its archives with the church publishing it under a Wikipedia-friendly licence. Re the short para, as it covers a different topic from the previous para, I'd prefer to keep it seperate. Nick-D (talk) 11:17, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Hawkeye7 edit

The article looks great to me, so all I have is a series of suggestions and stylistic tweaks. Feel free to ignore.

  • "During the period in which Germany was ruled by the Nazi Party," You could say when this was
    • I think that's reasonably well known? I've added a link here to Nazi Germany to help readers. Nick-D (talk) 23:48, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Prior to the outbreak of World War II, Hitler hosted many" Change "Hitler" to "he" to avoid repetition.
  • "The complex was also defended by anti-aircraft guns" Delete "also"; the tunnels and bunkers were not defending the complex
  • "The RAF developed a plan to attack Obersalzberg that was designated "Hellbound"." The abbreviation "RAF" has not yet been defined. More importantly, it is not clear if this was the same plan as discussed below regarding the USAAF. If not, suggest ending the paragraph here and adding the last two lines about SOE, thereby separating the two, so one paragraph is about the british and the next about the Americans
    • The source is a bit unclear unfortunately, and what the article states basically summarises this. From reading it literally, it seems that the RAF "Hellbound" plan was to be executed by the 15th Air Force, but the source doesn't say why the RAF was doing planning for the USAAF which I think would have been fairly unusual. The RAF's greater expertise in deep penetration raids into Germany than the 15th Air Force's (which I think focused mainly on Austria and Italy) might explain this, but unfortunately it's unclear. Nick-D (talk) 23:48, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "eight USAAF Republic P-47 Thunderbolt fighter bombers" Do you know which unit these were from?
    • The Fifteenth Air Force - clarified. Nick-D (talk) 23:48, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The second primary target was the Berghof." delete "primary target" to remove repetition and improve flow.
  • "A number of other buildings were located in the target area." Delete "A number of".
  • "The bombers orbited" Circled?
    • "Orbited" is generally used in works on aviation, especially for military aircraft. I've linked to that article - thanks for noting it. Nick-D (talk) 23:48, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Canadian Military History's ISSN is 1195-8472
Again, the article looks fine to me. I support its promotion to featured status. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:02, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Hawkeye7: Sorry for the delay in responding here - COVID-related work priorities took up a lot of my time this week. Thanks a lot for your review. Nick-D (talk) 23:48, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild edit

Nb. I intend to claim points for this review in the WikiCup.

I reviewed this at ACR and could only find nit picks.

  • "air superiority"; shouldn't that be 'air supremacy'?
    • The source uses "air superiority", and notes that the Luftwaffe was on some specific occasions still able to put up a fight so I don't think that "air supremacy" is supported here. Nick-D (talk) 10:59, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. But in checking this I picked up something else, see below.
  • "The XV Corps captured the area on 4 May" Consider specifying 'US'.
    • Done
  • "the extent of this looting was unmatched by that in any other German town occupied by Allied forces" Really? Including any of those occupied by the Russians?
    • Yep, that's what the source says. After taking everything which was removable, American and French troops literally disassembled some of the buildings to take bits of them home, and Allied troops fought each other over "souvenirs". None of the sources mention any civilians coming to physical harm though, which was a big difference to the towns and cities the Soviets sacked. Obersalzberg was also obviously smaller than the big cities the Soviets looted less completely. Nick-D (talk) 10:59, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK. I see it as a fine distinction between "looting" and wanton destruction, but either way, fair enough.
  • "the seventh anniversary of death of Adolf Hitler" 'the'

And those further nit picks are all I could find. Pretty much the perfect article. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:27, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks a lot for your review Nick-D (talk) 10:59, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article states "They were not fired on by anti-aircraft guns and, as the Luftwaffe had almost ceased to exist, no fighters attempted to intercept them." and cites Haller p. 13. I assume that you mean p. 8?
If so, the source doesn't seem to support either "They were not fired on by anti-aircraft guns" nor "as the Luftwaffe had almost ceased to exist, no fighters attempted to intercept them"; I am not sure that it supports "the Luftwaffe had almost ceased to exist", it does support "no fighters attempted to intercept them" but does not, to my mind, give the first as a reason for the second.
  • Could you check all of your references to Haller p.13. I suspect a typo. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:37, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Gog the Mild: Sorry, I missed that comment. This is on page 13 (I'm using the large page numbers, not the small ones). I've tweaked for clarity - the source notes that the bombers spent little time in German AA range, and the Luftwaffe was down to less than 200 fighters. I've double checked the other page 13 references, and found one that should have been page 14 and fixed it. Nick-D (talk) 08:33, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Nick. Nice article. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:15, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

  • I checked Kaplan 2007: I don't think you have paraphrased enough here:
  • Article: The remnants of the Nazi-era buildings at Obersalzberg were destroyed by the Bavarian Government on 30 April 1952, the seventh anniversary of Adolf Hitler's suicide in Berlin, to stop neo-Nazi pilgrimages to the area.
  • Source: On 30 April 1952, the seven-year anniversary of Hitler's suicide, the Bavarian government razed the remaining Nazi buildings in the complexl, because the Berghof ruins had become an active neo-Nazi pilgrimage site.
  • Same goes for Grant 2013:
  • Article: They turned east towards their target upon reaching Lake Constance
  • Source: […]turning eastwards at Lake Constance toward their target
  • Givens 2014: nicely paraphrased, well done.
  • Haller 2011: a bit too close
  • Article: The first was the small Kehlsteinhaus pavilion (also known as the "Eagle's Nest"), which Hitler had occasionally used to host guests.
  • Source: The first British target was the Kehlsteinhaus. Referred to by the Allies as the “Eagle’s Nest,” […] built for Hitler to entertain dignitaries and guests.
  • Without going into irrelevant detail on this building (which is much mythologised but actually rarely used as Hitler disliked it), I'm not seeing how this can be tweaked. I think it's different-enough. Nick-D (talk) 02:37, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well I disagree. Your sentence structure is too similar ("the first - Kehlsteinhaus - Eagle's Nest - Hitler - guests"). If you parrot the source's presentation of the events, it amounts to close paraphrasing, simple as that. Eisfbnore (会話) 09:23, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you please suggest an alternative then? Nick-D (talk) 11:21, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not a native speaker of English, so I shall not venture to rewrite it directly. However, I note that the paragraph in which it appears consists of quite a few stubby, short lines (like "The second was the Berghof"). I think that the entire para could do with a radical rewrite, so that it doesn't hew so closely to Haller 2011. Eisfbnore (会話) 12:49, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've re-approached this with less tired eyes, and tweaked the sentence. Nick-D (talk) 11:09, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article: […]in the target area. These included the houses of other senior Nazis, a barracks used by the Waffen-SS units assigned to defend Obersalzberg and a hospital
  • Source: the target area contained Hitler’s residence as well as those of other Nazi officials, a hospital, a garage and barracks for the SS guards
  • Article: […]four of its crew were killed. The three other airmen were taken prisoner[…]
  • Source: Four airmen died. Three survived and were taken prisoner.
  • Article: The locations near Obersalzberg that were attacked included Freilassing, Hallein, Bad Reichenhall, Salzburg and Traunstein. Significant damage was inflicted on several train stations, gasworks and hospitals in these towns. More than 300 civilians were killed.
  • Source: The Americans also bombed communications targets in Traunstein, Reichenhall, Salzburg, Hallein, and Freilasing – all within close proximity to the Obersalzberg. These strikes resulted in over 300 civilian deaths and caused significant damage to rail stations, hospitals and infrastructure such as gasworks.
  • That seems different enough to me given that there's not much you can do with very concise material like this (I've looked for other sources on these attacks, but to no avail) - the ordering is different, and the wording more consise. I've tweaked "significant" to "considerable", which is probably clearer. Nick-D (talk) 02:37, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article: The attack was portrayed as forming part of the final efforts to defeat Hitler and Germany
  • Source: the bombing […] symbolized […] the final destruction of Nazism and its leader.
  • I'm not seeing the problem here - the wording is different, and I don't want to go too far from what the source states given the nature of what's being stated (e.g., how the attack was reported rather than what it actually was). Nick-D (talk) 02:37, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't check any of the books; you may be able to guess why. Eisfbnore (会話) 08:04, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these checks Nick-D (talk) 02:37, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5 edit

  • He spent more than a third of 1944 there This is an odd sentence. The paragraph before this one has a sentence which states "Hitler usually spent more than a third of each year at Obersalzberg"?
  • the Royal Air Force's (RAF's) Bomber Command This is the second time we mention RAF here the maybe move Royal Air Force to this sentence "The RAF developed a plan to attack Obersalzberg"
  • The former Reichsmarschall Hermann Göring What's a Reichsmarschall?
    • The term is linked. I'd rather not go into any details on Göring's position, as it was very complicated (e.g. he was nominally the second in charge of Germany and an important military commander, but had been totally sidelined for years and sacked by Hitler just before this raid). Nick-D (talk) 02:13, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • the approach flight, the last 250 miles (400 km) had to be Because this is more important for Germany than English-speaking Allies, I think we should metric units as the primary units.
    • The English language sources overwhelmingly use miles, etc, as is still fairly common for modern works on World War II. Nick-D (talk) 02:13, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Over 1,400 tons of bombs were released; Same as above. Also by MOS we should write long tons instead of ton. And we also need a convert.
  • An aircraft from No. 460 Squadron RAAF was hit shortly Maybe introduce the RAAF first?
  • Göring and the Reichsleiter Martin Bormann were destroyed What's a Reichsleiter?
    • The term is also linked - as with Göring, Bormann had an extremely complex role in the Nazi system. Nick-D (talk) 02:13, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link for Bomber Command?
    • In the lead and the first time it's mentioned in the body of the article Nick-D (talk) 02:13, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The US Army handed Obersalzberg to the Bavarian Government in 1996 Wait what? did the US Army still control the mountainside for more than 50 years? Why did they not give it up prior?
    • They continued to use it as a recreation centre during the Cold War. Tweaked Nick-D (talk) 02:13, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • defenders were unable to generate a smoke screen as they had exhausted Merge smoke screen?
    • I think it's usually two words. Nick-D (talk) 02:13, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • damage was inflicted on several train stations Remove the extra space.

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 13:09, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks a lot for your review Nick-D (talk) 02:13, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks great to me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 17:42, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Kaiser matias edit

Not a lot really to add that hasn't been said, but I have a few things:

  • In the lead, should there be a "the" before "RAF Bomber Command"? And seeing how RAF is spelled out later in the article, should it not be done so here too?
  • "The only attack on Berchtesgaden prior to April 1945 was made by eight Fifteenth Air Force Republic P-47 Thunderbolt fighter bombers on 20 February 1945." The "eight Fifteenth" is slightly awkward, what with the double numbers. Would it be possible to go with something like "eight Republic P-47 Thunderbolt fighter bombers of the Fifteenth Air Force"?
    • That's much better - tweaked. Nick-D (talk) 11:36, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Other than that don't see anything else here. Kaiser matias (talk) 17:20, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great, looks good. Kaiser matias (talk) 16:04, 22 April 2020 (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 Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 25 April 2020 [14].

Battle of the Aegates edit

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 23:36, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The third and final installment of my trio of naval battles from the First Punic War. It was the battle which decided the war (*spoiler alert*) - the Romans won. Interestingly (I think its interesting) archeological remains have been found on the seabed just where the primary sources said they would be. And recovered and examined. I am indebted to JennyOz, CPA-5 and Buidhe for their sterling efforts in removing so many of my foibles, faults and flaws. It is now, I hope, ready for your examination. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:36, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass
  • All images are free, correctly licensed, correctly sourced, and relevant to the article. buidhe 23:41, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Source checks
  • Curry—no issues with the content. However, the article is written by "Andrew Curry".
Gah! I'm going senile. I even thought it odd that she was writing outside her usual period as I keyed it in. Fixed.
  • Tipps—
    • #4 Quote from source: "Most extant treatments of the battle by ancient authors are disappointingly brief, but an extensive and meticulously detailed account - the most elaborate, indeed, of any naval action of the war - survives intact in the first book of Polybius, our best authority for the First Punic War as a whole." Compare to article: "he is best known for The Histories, written sometime after 167 BC, or about a century after the Battle of the Aegates". I don't see how this supports the article content, although perhaps the other source does.
Thanks Buidhe. It was meant to support "The main source for almost every aspect of the First Punic War is the historian Polybius", but I later inserted cite 2 and didn't reshuffle, which I now have done. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:58, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Otherwise no issues
  • Dart and Vervaet—no issues

buidhe 23:41, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Since I did the sources review at ACR, I think this could use some fresh eyes in that area. buidhe 00:00, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note—this article is currently undergoing an A-class review. AFAIK, that's allowed though. buidhe 23:41, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well no, actually -- I realise ACR isn't explicitly listed with PR and GAN in the FAC instructions, but we've traditionally treated simultaneous ACRs the same way, so one will need to close. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:03, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ian. I had a vague recollection of that; but querying MilHist it was suggested otherwise. ACR now closed. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:28, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Suport from Harry edit

Was gonna comment at the ACR but you're here now so what the hell. All in all, looking excellent. Just a few minor quibbles.

  • The link on artefact feels like overlinking.
Unlinked.
  • Ditto "ramming".
Unlinked.
  • The link to Roman navy on "fleet" is an Easter egg.
Unlinked.
I don't see this one. If one clicks on "board enemy ships", why should one be surprised to see an article on naval boarding?
I wouldn't normally expect to see a phrase like that linked, and I guess I expected the link to take me somewhere less "ordinary".
I'm not sure that's an actionable comment, or if it was meant to be. I am familiar with the concept of naval boarding and its variants down the millennia, but I wouldn't expect an "average reader" to be, so would prefer to leave it in. (If it went to somewhere less "ordinary", wouldn't that make it an Easter egg?)
I would have thought the average reader would probably understand the concept of naval boarding (though I must admit I wasn't aware the Romans used it) in the sense of people from one ship moving onto another ship. But it's certainly not something I'd withhold support over. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:22, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Umm. Are we talking at cross purposes here?
Sorry. Should have listed that under "overlinking". I would expect the average reader to know what crucifixion was.
Indeed. Unlinked.
  • And "traditional tactic".
Unlinked.
Unlinked.
  • And "following" (also the link is about sea state, not wind direction).
I don't see why linking "following wind" to following sea creates an Easter egg. Any chance that you could explain that one in simple words for me Harry?
The first sentence of the main article (ie, not the lead) of following sea reads "Sailors use this term synonymously with the points of sail below a beam reach, since the wind direction is generally the same as the sea direction"
I'm not sure the link is necessary, but I won't push it if you want to keep it.
  • Rome had recently unified mainland Italy south of the River Arno under its control is a little confusing. You could just insert a "the" before "recently unified", which would make it clearer that the recently unified mainland Italy south of the River Arno is a noun phrase, but I think we could also stand to lose the detail and go with "most of mainland Italy" or similar.
I prefer to keep the detail. How about 'Mainland Italy south of the River Arno had recently been unified under Roman control'?
That works well.
Done.
  • in the actual battle is probably redundant and I dislike this use of "actual" in formal prose.
I dislike it too, and it's a bit embarrassing that it slipped through. Thanks. Fixed.

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:44, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Harry and many thanks for your time and effort. Your points above all addressed, some with queries. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:39, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A few replies above. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:17, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again Harry. Your further thoughts addressed, one via a comment. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:58, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. Just FYI, your first set of changes (the ones we agreed on) haven't been made. Did you forget to save the page? ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:22, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies Harry. One of the Wiki-beta-gadgets hiccups on me about once a week. Most annoying. I usually check for things like reviews, but obviously I forgot. Or I really am going senile. Anyway, now done, and checked. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:55, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk edit

  • Didn't leave much time for the cliffhanger before the series continued! Marking my spot, will review soon (if I don't succumb to Corona virus in the meantime). FunkMonk (talk) 23:26, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The plan is to end the mini-series abruptly and unsatisfactorily; follow up with a sequel; then recap with a director's cut; which will spawn a multitude of spinoff articles of variable quality. "Always leave 'em wanting more."
  • Roman legion appears to be duplinked.
Not sure how that got through the duplink highlighter. Thanks. Fixed.
Gog the Mild (talk) 20:56, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • As before, I wonder whether the Operations in Sicily section should go before the ships?
Done.
  • "had declined by 17 per cent since the start of the war" Seems very specific considering the time, how is this known?
The Romans held an annual five-yearly census, which determined tax bands, eligibility to vote and liability for military service, so it was taken seriously. Lots of them are quoted in the ancient sources. The source I cite reads "The census of citizens had fallen by some 17% of the total, not couting their allies." (Most sources reckon that the allies had suffered worse.) Or Goldsworthy, p. 122 "Roman citizens registered by the censurs as 292,234 in 265-264 ... only 241,712 in 247-246." Honest, it is as nailed down as anything more than 200 years ago can be.
  • Link quinqueremes in infobox, and trireme in image caption?
Done.
  • "Sources other that Polybius" Same as last time, than?
D'oh! I can hardly believe that I did that! I even reintroduced it into Battle of Drepana!! Now fixed in multiple articles, and thank you.
  • "and did not feel that they had sufficient time" Seems very specific that we know how they felt, what is this based on?
The source cited. The Carthaginians were unsure when their Sicilian garrisons would run out of food and/or motivation and surrender, Hence the time pressure. I have changed to 'and did not have sufficient time'. I agree that that it is probably unencyclopedic to over-impute motivations, even with sources. And dug up a more specific source to really nail it down.
Hi there FunkMonk. Thanks for stopping by again, and apologies that the first thing you had to do was to repeat half of your grumbles from last time. Your comments to date addressed above.
And, inspired by your fondness for them, I have brought forward the release schedule: First Punic War is at ACR; Battle of the Lipari Islands is at GAN (the very last of the naval battles); Battle of Adys and Battle of Tunis should be GANing soon - the first possibly tomorrow. So there should be plenty of First Punic War things for you coming along. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:09, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, I'll hopefully be back in the GAN game soon, the Coronavirus semi-lockdown around here hasn't exactly given me more spare time, as I can work from home... Rest of the review below. FunkMonk (talk) 23:49, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Let me know when you have a GAN up, and I'll see if I fancy it.
  • I wonder there that photo of the naval ram as taken.
No metadata, so one can't tell. I understand that some of the rams have been on tour, so it could have been anywhere. Is it important?
  • Since the battle section is a bit crammed with images now, and the archaeology sections mentions recovered rams, why not ove the photo down there for balance in the layout?
Good idea. Thanks. Done.
  • "However, they believe that the many amphora identified confirms" Confirm, since it's plural? Or maybe I'm missing something, as I'm of course not a native speaker.
But you are managing better than this native speaker. Good spot. Fixed.
  • You don't give the full names of the Roman commanders anywhere in the article body.
Oops. How embarrassing. Fixed.
@FunkMonk: Very insightful. Thank you. All done.
  • Support - Nice work, hopefully I'll look at some GANs next... FunkMonk (talk) 00:57, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5 edit

I won't do a review for now mate. I didn't really support the ARC but most of my comments were addressed though I think there were some points I wanted to talk about or it was about the First Punic War one or another. Anyway I won't do this one, 'cause just heard the news, we'll get a lockdown tomorrow noon and everything's changing rapidly. Even schools are closed since Monday and normally I had a deadline in mid-April at our project (which is after the break and Easter) but they changed it to 25 March which is month lost thanks a lot corona. I won't be that much online until I don't know 26th? Who knows I'd still be online and minor edit here and there but I don't really have time to reply to them. It's really sad because now I barely can visit my dad for like a month or even longer 'cause he has asthma and could be dangerous for his health. :/ Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 22:21, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm sorry to hear that. Hope this disaster mysteriously vanishes tomorrow! buidhe 13:04, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • between the fleets of Carthage and Rome during the First Punic War Wrong link of Carthage here; it should be the Carthaginian Empire's article. Same in the infobox.
I have changed the redirect.
  • Almost bankrupt, the Romans borrowed money to build a naval fleet I couldn't find anyone in the body who borrowed them some money? I even cannot find the word "borrowed" in the body either.
"With the state's coffers exhausted, the Senate approached Rome's wealthiest citizens for loans to finance the construction of one ship each, repayable from the reparations to be imposed on Carthage once the war was won, and to donate slaves as oarsmen. The result was a fleet of approximately 200 quinqueremes, built, equipped, and crewed without government expense." from "New Roman fleet" section.
  • on several, now-lost, Greek and Latin sources Unlink Latin here.
Done.
  • Link Arno and Sicily in the body.
Done.
  • because of the Romans' invention of the corvus I don't know if you know it but I don't think the Romans invented a bird. ;)
:-) Sloppy editing by me. Fixed.
  • and displacing around 100 long tons (110 short tons; 100 tonnes) Link tonnes and why is long ton here the primary while the rest of the article uses metric units as primary?
I blame the sources. Flipped and linked.
  • that they could maintain 7 knots (8 mph; 13 km/h) for extended periods Do we know how long extended periods here are?
No. But I found something in another source, and at the risk of becoming unfocused have added it.
  • The Carthaginians finally gained command of the sea in 249 BC Maybe add "again" here.
Done.
  • North Africa at the expense of the Libyans I think this is an easter egg?
In what way?
  • In this way "Keep piped links as intuitive as possible. Per the principle of least astonishment, make sure that the reader knows what to expect when clicking on a link." from MOS:EGG. I don't think an average reader would know there were Berbers in Libya and the article doesn't clarify Berbers in Libya.
I am more confused. No Berbers are mentioned in the article.
I have stripped out the Libyans, and just left the Numidians - most of the Libyans who lived around Carthage were Numidians. Does that work for you?
  • That works for me. Cheers.
  • led by a commander named Hanno. This is possibly the general Easter egg here and was Hano here Hano the Great?
In what way do you think it is an Easter egg? No, it is the Hanno linked to.
  • Like before, this sentence doesn't clarify which Hanno it is; I think a toponymic is needed and link Hanno instead of "the general" that'd make a little bit clearer.
Link repositioned. Only one Hanno is mentioned in the article, so there is no need to disambiguate him.
  • In the section "264–250 BC" it mentions Hanno the Great so maybe that's why it could create confusion?
Ah. I missed him. T'other Hanno now introduced properly.
  • numbers to take them the 45 kilometres (28 mi) to Lilybaeum --> "numbers to take them the 45 km (28 mi) to Lilybaeum"
Done.
  • They would then unload their cargos, mostly grain --> "They would then unload their cargoes, mostly grain" by Ngram.
Cargos is entirely correct usage. I note that the Ngram shows it becoming more popular and "cargoes" less so. Nevertheless, changed.
  • I've found out that Ngram also says "cargoes" is in general popular than its counterpart.
  • anchored off the island of Aegusa, 16 kilometres (10 mi) from Sicily --> "anchored off the island of Aegusa, 16 km (10 mi) from Sicily"
Done.
  • each anchor weighed 270 kilograms (600 lb) --> "each anchor weighed 270 kg (600 lb)"
Done.
  • 50 Carthaginian ships were sunk, 20 of them with all hands This is a start of a sentence.
Tweaked.
  • request for a 2,000 talent loan --> "request for a 2,000-talent loan" It is a compound adjective.
Done.
  • archaeologists in the sea within a 1 km2 (0.4 sq mi) --> "archaeologists in the sea within a 1 square kilometre (0.4 sq mi)"
Done.
  • In both the 4th and 5th notes should have an abbreviation.
Done.
  • he is known today for The Histories What is The Histories?
Click on the link and find out :-).
  • vessel as a model produced high quality quinqueremes --> "vessel as a model produced high-quality quinqueremes"
Done

All right this is done, I hope I got everything here. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 12:51, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CPA-5: many thanks as usual for your usual thorough job. All of your comments addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:32, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replied to your responses. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 11:43, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
CPA-5, and ditto. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:41, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@CPA-5: Hanno sorted; image - give me a clue. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:47, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@CPA-5: Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:05, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've tweaked some things but it's now fine to me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 11:19, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support!Review from CaptainEek edit

Always love a good naval battle! Do note that I'm counting this for the WP:WikiCup. An excellent article, just a few nitpicks from me:

  • Try to get the short description under 50 characters, ~40 is the recommended
Done.
  • I think that "decisive" should be added as a qualifier at some point in the lead, perhaps the first sentence as "was a decisive naval battle" or perhaps in the third sentence as "was the decisive final battle".
I have gone with "It was the final and deciding battle of the 23-year-long First Punic War.."
  • This might be my lack of understanding Latin grammar, but should the "quinqueremess" in the infobox really have two "s" adjacent?
It's a typo. Thank you. Fixed.
  • The third sentence of the lead seems to repeat the first, "between the fleets of Carthage and Rome during the First Punic War", "First Punic War between Rome and Carthage" are saying the same thing two ways. I suggest trying to rework that somehow, perhaps just remove "between Rome and Carthage" from one of the sentences.
Good point. Now that, at your suggestion, "deciding" has been added to the third "between Rome and Carthage" can be deleted from it without it looking painfully short.
  • "the large majority of the Roman fleet was destroyed in a storm, with an estimated loss of 100,000 men" Do we have an article about that? Is it covered somewhere? If so please link it. If not, create a suitable red-link, as that would be very interesting to read more about.
There is no article. It is usually, in the sources, considered part of the aftermath of the Battle of Cape Hermaeua; on which there isn't an article either, but which is red linked. I will write the article on it one day, but not today. I will red link to just the strom if you wish, but I am sceptical that an article on it will ever be written, and more so that it will say anything that won't be in the proposed Battle of Cape Hermaeua article.
A red link to the battle of Cape Hermaeua works for me
Ahoy CaptainEek, in a moment of lockdown boredom I have written Battle of Cape Hermaeum. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:10, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild Nicely done! I've rated it and did a bit of cleanup. Very interesting material. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:32, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Carthage probably viewed Sicily as a secondary theatre" according to Bagnall?
I'm not sure what the query is here. But, yes, according to Bagnall; see here. Also in other sources, see, eg, pp. 143-4 of Lazenby, here.
  • "17 per cent" As an American English speaker this looks very odd to me, is that a British English thing?
I think that it must be. Which part of it looks odd?
Heh, in American English its written as one word, "percent"
  • "The garrisons of Lilybaeum and Drepana, and Hamilcar's army at Eryx, held fast, but without supplies from Carthage they could not hold out indefinitely" suggest be changed to "The garrisons of Lilybaeum and Drepana – and Hamilcar's army at Eryx – held fast, but without supplies from Carthage they could not hold out indefinitely". I think that using an endash to add an interjection, instead of commas, works better. Once you have three commas set up like so it gets a bit awkward to read.
Fair point. Done.
It would indeed. And thank you for doing the work for me. Cut and pasted in.
  • Looked through all the images, good captions, good alt descriptions. I lament that the first image in the battle section is poor quality, but unless you feel a strong desire to remake it at a proper resolution, I have no complaint.
It came with the article when I picked it up. I know nothing about creating maps, although others have generously created them for me on occasion. (IMO the one in Battle of Cape Ecnomus is a stunner.) I considered this one just about this side of acceptable, and so decided o=not to 'use up' any good will by requesting a replacement; which couls take some time, or may never get picked up.

All in all, a very nice article, very well done! CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:02, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks CaptainEek, glad you like it. And many thanks for stopping by and going through this one. You make some good points above, and they are all now responded to. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:46, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: Good fixes, happy to support! CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:29, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Cap'n, I appreciate that. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:35, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Query for the co-ordinators edit

Hi Ian, given the state of play above, can I ask permission to nominate another? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:35, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure you can ask permission. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:35, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and permission granted, suh! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:37, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. And don't give up the day job. ;-) Gog the Mild (talk) 22:39, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from JennyOz edit

I had a look over this last month and now have only one quick quibble...

  • to lose another 150 ships to another storm - possibly consider reword to avoid 2 x "another". Eg, a further 150 ships? or, a subsequent/later/following storm? Only a trivial point so am happy to support promotion. JennyOz (talk) 10:14, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Jenny. I am constantly amazed at my inability to proof read my own work. Nice job in spotting this. Now fixed. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:22, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm back. Sorry. I noticed a couple of things in your most recent changes and just have to ask.

  • Hanno's - I see you have just adjusted that apostrophe in Hanno's. I was going to suggest some other treatments:
    • he is distinguished from other Hannos of the period by being known as the son of Hannibal
Oh. Very clever. Done.
    • he is distinguished from any other Carthaginian Hanno by being known as the son of Hannibal
Not sure about this. I don't think that there are any non-Carthaginian Hannos, so I don't see what adding this adds. Although I have deleted "the".
    • The Carthaginian fleet was led by a commander named Hanno (the son of Hannibal). Oh well, as long as the apostrophe has gone, all good.
Sorry Jenny, not getting your point here.
  • Did you mean to do this? "Hanno the Great was put in charge of operations in Africa in 248 BC and went on to conquer considerable territory by 248 BC." ie 241?
D'oh! Indeed not. Fixed.
  • redlink [[Battle of Cape Hermaea|Cape Hermaeum]] (255 BC) - confused here, the bottom Punic wars template has this blue (as a redirect to Adys). Is the different spelling in the pipe which is giving a redlink intentional? Can it not lose the pipe and also go to Adys until its own article is written? And yet I see the side template has no Hermaeum but has the red Hermaea. Told you I was confused. No need to explain, I was just sure I'd seen it blue somewhere since the ACR.
I get confused too. The Battle of Cape Hermaea has nothing to do with the Battle of Adys. (I have recently had the latter promoted to GA.) Or very little. I don't know why it was linked in the box. I have gone with the spelling in the sources I have so I can red link it and not have it redirected to an inappropriate article. I may well have mistakenly linked it myself, before I realised where it was pointing to. I really need to write the stub to stop these issues. Or just be bold and tidy up the box.
Hi Jenny, in a moment of lockdown boredom I have written Battle of Cape Hermaeum; and tidied up the templates. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:10, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bonza Gog! Looking good! (small because I'm barely game to ask... so the Battle of Cape Hermaeum (254 BC) is a different scuffle to the Battle of Cape Hermaea, (per my pipe spelling question above), and still showing red and fought in 255 BC in this Aegates article? JennyOz (talk) 13:31, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
JennyOz No, no - always ask. I had gone through all of the relevant FPW articles standardising on the RS's preferred spelling and sorting out the templates, but somehow managed to miss this one! Which is typical of me. Many thanks for picking it up. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:09, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's all, my support still stands of course. JennyOz (talk) 17:42, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jenny, I am pleased that someone is paying attention. If you have any more like those, please flag them up. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:14, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from HaEr48 (support) edit

Nicely written, well-referenced and enjoyable to read. Just some small comments from me:

  • "It was intercepted by the Roman fleet and in a hard-fought battle the better-trained Romans defeated the undermanned and ill-trained Carthaginian fleet." (in the lead) Suggest adding the fact that the Carthaginian fleet was laden with supplies and hadn't had a chance to be reinforced with marines. Seems to me they were crucial because they limited the fleet's fighting power and maneuverability.
Good point. Done.
  • Largely because of the Romans' use of the corvus: Link or briefly gloss what corvus is because this is the first time it is mentioned and a full explanation will only come much later
Good spot. I have done both.
    • I wonder if the extensive explanation of the corvus (in the last paragraph of #Ships) is needed, given that it is not used in this battle. In exchange, I suggest for comprehensiveness adding a little bit on the tactics of a fleet (as opposed to an individual ship) - how did a commander try to win a battle? Is it mainly maneuvering your ships in order to ram and board the enemy? How were ships sunk? (given that many Carthaginian ships were sunk in this battle, but the mechanics aren't explained)
  • "During this period the standard warship was the quinquereme": add "in the Mediterranean" as qualifier, if appropriate?
Done.
  • "The Carthaginian fleet was led by a commander named Hanno": The following sentence suggests that his identity is actually unclear, so I wonder if the linking of Hanno is appropriate in this sentence. Maybe move the link to "This is probably the general who had lost .. "?

Done.

  • File:Aegades241a.png is really helpful and illustrative, but the texts are really small even if I open the image at full resolution in commons, any chance that they can be enlarged?
Nope. I would need to attempt to commission a new map, or remove this one entirely. I "inherited" it with the article, and I am not really happy with it. As say above to Captain Eek "I know nothing about creating maps, although others have generously created them for me on occasion. (IMO the one in Battle of Cape Ecnomus is a stunner.) I considered this one just about this side of acceptable, and so decided not to 'use up' any good will by requesting a replacement; which could take some time, or may never get picked up."
  • Is there any link (even a section in another article) for "the Carthaginian Senate"?
I could link to Ancient Carthage#Government if you think it useful, but the only mention there of the senate is the bracketed "(Roman sources speak of a Carthaginian "Senate", and Greek ones of a "council of Elders" or a gerousia)". It is not covered by the list in senate.
I see, it won't be that useful then. Fine to leave unlinked. HaEr48 (talk) 21:53, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • How did the archeologists/historians explain the fact that triremes, rather than quinqueremes were discovered?
They don't. That's the "their analysis and the recovery of further items are ongoing" bit. Bear in mind that they are hypothesizing from just the rams. They haven't actually recovered any ships, or even bits of. The best source to cover all of this in detail is the second work in "Further reading". It goes directly to your point, but sadly is a masters thesis, so I can't use it in the article. You can see here that I have a long standing request in for extracts from what seems to be the only copy[!] in the public domain of the book by the archeologists who recovered the artefacts. This may (or may not) shed more light.
  • I hope my comments are useful. Feel free to push back or discuss if they aren't. Note, I am planning to claim points for WikiCup 13:00, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi HaEr48 and many thanks for taking a look at this. Your comments are very useful, and insightful - thank you. All addressed bar the corvus/manoeuvring one. I agree with you there, in broad terms, but give me a little time to think how best to phrase it, and to make sure that I can source it. I'll re-ping you once I have. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:15, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@HaEr48: Done. [15] See what you think. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:57, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: I like it and I think it's more relevant too. Suggest finding another phrase for "spring its timbers" (not easy to understand for non-native speaker), but if not possible it's fine too because hopefully it can be inferred from context. 21:53, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your responses. I've checked all of them and I have no more to add. Happy to support the nomination of this excellent article. HaEr48 (talk) 21:55, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@HaEr48: Thank you for your support, and even more for helping to improve the article. Re your previous comment, I have changed to the less exact but hopefully more readily understandable "to break loose its timbers". Gog the Mild (talk) 22:00, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Harrias edit

  • Use a {{lang}} template for the first (linked) usage of "corvus".
I wasn't aware that you could, as the template instructions don't mention it. It took a fit of trial and error to work it out. Done.
  • "The Romans rapidly rebuilt their fleet, to lose a further 150 ships.." Even with the comma there, this sort of sounds like the intention of building more was to lose them! I would either change it to "..their fleet, only to lose.." or "..their fleet, but subsequently lost.."
Added "only".
  • "Average speeds of 5–6 knots were recorded.." Didn't fancy converting this one?
Done.
Done.
  • "These features allowed the hull to be strengthened, increased carrying capacity and improving conditions for the rowers." This seems to switch tense: "allowed", "increased", "improving"?
True. Consistentised.
  • "In 260 BC Romans set out.." Should this be "the Romans", or if we are talking about a specific group, "some Romans"?
"the" added.
  • "..and so slower and less manoeuvrable." Technically this is absolutely correct. However, with the modern usage of "so" as a modifier (thanks, Donald Trump), it could be confused for meaning "so much" slower. Could it be swapped for "therefore" or similar?
First time I've been told not to be technically correct! Gone with "thus"
  • "ubiquitous"? Us commoners needs a wikitionary link for this. Or at least a switch to something a little bit more prevalent, such as... prevalent?
Really! Wikitionaryed.
  • "..ones own galley.." Should this be "one's own galley".
It should.
  • "..manoeuvring of whole squadrons rather than ships." Would it be worth clarifying: "..manoeuvring of whole squadrons rather than individual ships."?
So clarified.
  • "The absence of Roman fleets probably led Carthage to gradually decommission her navy, reducing the financial strain of building, maintaining and repairing ships, and providing and provisioning their crews." and "Carthage probably viewed Sicily as a secondary theatre." Unless these can be shown to be widespread opinion, I would prefer inline attribution for the opinions.
There can, but it is easier to look up one and in line attribute, than five and list them here, so I have gone for the lazy option.
  • I'm a bit confused regarding the scale and length of the blockade. The end of the Blockade section says "They rebuilt again, and in 250 BC blockaded the main Carthaginian base on Sicily of Lilybaeum with 200 warships." But then the start of the New Roman fleet section says "In late 243 BC, realizing they would not capture Drepana and Lilybaeum unless they could extend their blockade to the sea.." Could you clarify this? Was this two different blockades? A really long blockade that wasn't effective until after 243?

I'm going to break off here, because this point is really confusing my understanding of the Prelude and New Roman fleet section. Nice work until this point, and it might just be my tiredness that is confusing me! Harrias talk 19:27, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. Another reviewer wanted what you were seeing as the second paragraph of Background moving there, feeling that it was more sensible to have the information on ships nearer to the actual battle. But I can't make it work chronologically like that. I should probably have dug my feet in at the time rather than taking the easy and agreeable option. (It kinda made sense then - the first paragraph of what is n.) I have cut and pasted it back to how I wrote it, retweaked it slightly and - hopefully - it now flows more readily. If challenged, I shall point to your confusion. See what you think. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:40, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And now, the conclusion...
  • The image, captioned "The course of the battle" says that the Romans had 220 quinqueremes, but the article says 200. It also states that "The Punic Fleet arrived near the Holy Island with the intention of sailing to Eryx" while the article states "in secret off Hiera (Holy Island), the westernmost of the Aegates islands. There they would wait for a following wind, and rely on surprise and numbers to take them the 45 km (28 mi) to Lilybaeum". Unless the image text (which also contains a number of grammatical and spelling inconsistencies) can be made consistent with the article narrative, it needs to be removed, as it provides more confusion than clarification.
Removed. Swapped in a standard map of the islands.
  • "..the other Hanno's.." Should this be an apostrophe? I'm not sure it should?
Correct. Fixed
  • On the note of the text and image disagreeing; in New Roman fleet we are told that Hamilcar's army is at Eryx. This matches the image. However, in the Battle section, we are told that "..reach Sicily to relieve Hamilcar Barca and Lilybaeum." This isn't necessarily a contradiction, as the "and" allows them to be in different locations, but I did read it as one; when I first read it, I assumed Hamilcar Barca was at Lilybaeum.
Changed to "Lilybaeum, Drepana and Hamilcar's army". Does that help?
Yes, thank you. Harrias talk 15:20, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed.
  • "..the Romans had left their masts, sails and rigging ashore to save weight and so were unable to pursue." Phrased like this, it seems repetitive to me, as we have already been told this information. Perhaps something more like "..as the Romans had left their masts, sails and rigging ashore, they were unable to pursue."
Good point. Done.
  • "..contrary to Polybius's account of all of the warships involved being quinqueremes." Weren't we told earlier that Polybius essentially used "quinquereme" and "warship" as synonymous terms? So it wasn't necessarily "contrary" to his account?
Well it was. He explicitly said that all of the ships were quinqueremes. The fact that modern scholars may think he was generalising doesn't alleviate that. It is only contrary to how modern scholars are inclined to read his account. And even then, they always come back to "Polybius turns out to [be] fairly reliable" and "Polybius' account is usually to be preferred when it differs with any of our other accounts". All of the sources I have on the battle predate this hypothesis, and it is interesting to see how they uncritically take Polybius's word that they were quinqueremes. The thesis, sadly only a masters, by one of the archaeologists involved under "Further reading" is interesting in this respect.
Fair. Harrias talk 15:20, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove the |ref=harv from the Further reading section, and expand the "Warships of the First Punic War" link to show where it goes.
Umm. I can't find a ref=harv in the Further reading nor a "nowiki" template anywhere in the article. A little reluctantly I have taken The Histories out of the cite template. Does that resolve the issue?
Hmmm, strange. One of the scripts was flagging it up as an issue. The change you've made has sorted it, but I admit that I can't see why it was doing it originally. Harrias talk 15:20, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am not entirely sure what you want with the second part, as the link currently goes where I mean it to. I have tweaked. Does that address your concern?
Essentially, I was asking for it to be formatted as a citation would be; ie include the author details, date of publication etc. Harrias talk 15:20, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, a really nice read (as usual). The image/text consistency issues might be tricky if you want to retain an image with the battle timeline, but otherwise mostly minor issues.

I was never really happy with the map, but it seemed just about serviceable. I should have looked at it in detail prior to nominating, but with images I tend to go straight to licencing and sourcing. Lesson learned. I hope.

I can't remember if I mentioned above, but I will claim WikiCup points for this review. I would also be very grateful if you would consider taking a look at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2009 Women's Cricket World Cup Final/archive2.

Sure. Now on my to do list.

Harrias talk 14:07, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Harrias. Well earned WikiCup points. Your points now addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:56, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I made a couple of replies above regarding the Further reading section, but they won't make a difference to whether this is a FA or not! Harrias talk 15:20, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Harrias Yeah, I got that on Polybius too. I assumed it was a bug and ignored it. Polakowski: tha should 'a' said lad. It is now fully cited. And has a big brown harv warning, which I am going to ignore. Thanks again, and good luck in the cup. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:42, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • The infobox refers to quinqueremes sunk or damaged, but the text gives these numbers as ships generally and mentions the involvement of other ship types - is it certain that all sunk/damaged were quinqueremes? If so suggest clarifying that
No, it is not certain, to me. But only quinqueremes are noted as sunk or damaged in the sources. There is mention that transports sailed with the Carthaginian warships, but no mention of them in the battle. To OR, it seems highly likely that when the Roman fleet was sighted coming straight at the Carthaginians the transports prudently withdrew, probably ordered to do so. They would have been easy pickings for the galleys otherwise. Regardless, they are mentioned in the sources as being prepared, so I have also mentioned them. There is no mention of any casualties, if indeed they suffered any, or were even present at the battle, so I haven't mentioned them.
  • Similarly infobox states outright 10,000 men captured while text qualifies this as "up to". Also, is a death figure available for either side?
Apologies. Different sources. The consensus is 10,000. Text amended to match. Sourcing tweaked. No, no RS discusses even loosely possible death figures. The only work I have come across where there is speculation about this is Polakowski; but as this is a master's thesis I have not used him as a source and relegated him to Further reading.
  • FN70 is missing pages
I had used an upper case "P". Fixed.
  • Check alphabetization of Sources
Whoops. Too many Hoyos's. Fixed.
  • Bagnall: link goes to a different edition
Link removed.
  • Casson 1991: Worldcat states this is a second edition? If so that should be stated in the citation
It is. Done.
  • The Dart entry in Sources is incomplete
Page numbers and volume added.
  • "Elements of this building survive to the present-day" is cited to a 1911 source - a source that old can't verify that claim
Removed the mention. (Readers can see the photograph and draw their own conclusions.)
  • Lazenby: source link provides a different ISBN
ISBN from the work's title page now used.
  • Miles: Worldcat suggests the US editions have Viking as a publisher, while Penguin is the publisher for the British editions. Which edition is being cited here?
UK. Location changed to London.
  • Murray has a duplicate society name, but looking at the link this seems to be a conference paper so should be cited as such
  • Is there a reason to cite chapters from two different editions of Hoyos? Looking at the TOC from the 2015 edition it seems to include the chapter being cited from the 2011 edition
I suppose not. Standardised.
  • Tipps: "4th Qtr" is the date, issue is 4
Fixed.
  • Be consistent in whether you provide publishers for periodicals
I assume that you consider The Site of the Battle of the Aegates Islands at the End of the First Punic War. Fieldwork, Analyses and Perspectives, 2005–2015 to be a periodical, and so have removed the location.
He doesn't, IMO. Which is why I haven't used him in the article, nor cited him, and why he is only in further reading.

Nikkimaria (talk) 22:49, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nikkimaria. Apologies that there was such a long list of sloppiness on this one. All of your comments addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:40, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brief comment from The ed17 edit

Hi The ed17 It's "a device which enabled them to grapple and board enemy vessels more easily" and is Wikilinked. As it doesn't feature in this battle, that seemed enough for a passing mention. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:49, 24 April 2020 (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 Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 25 April 2020 [16].

SMS Niobe edit

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) and Peacemaker67 (talk) 13:22, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Niobe had something of a colorful career, serving under the Imperial German, Yugoslav, Italian, and Nazi German flags (and depending on who you ask, maybe under the banner of the Independent State of Croatia as well). She also book-ended her relatively long life under the name Niobe, having been renamed Dalmacija and Cattaro (and, again, maybe Znaim) in between. This article is the result of a collaboration between Peacemaker and myself, and it passed a Milhist A-class review last year. Thanks to all who take the time to review it. Parsecboy (talk) 13:22, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:SMS_Niobe_launching.png: as per the template, please provide evidence of lack of author attribution. Same with File:SMS_Niobe_(1899)_2.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:32, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've either removed the EU-no-disclosure template or moved it locally to avoid the issue, since we don't have access to the original German sources. Thanks Nikki. Parsecboy (talk) 11:03, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentSupport by CPA-5 edit

Hmm I'll do this later or so. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 16:39, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oh right in which kind of English style should it be written? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 16:39, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • SMS Niobe ("His Majesty's Ship Niobe")[a] Delete ("His Majesty's Ship Niobe") because the note already cleared it out and it's unnecessary.
  • and a top speed of 21.5 knots (39.8 km/h; 24.7 mph) Link knots.
  • The ship had a long career, serving in all three German navies, along with the Yugoslav and Italian fleets Link Yugoslav.
  • but as one of the cruisers permitted to the post-war Reichsmarine (Navy of the Realm) British post-war.
  • Niobe was 105 meters (344 ft 6 in) long overall and had a beam of 12.2 m (40 ft) --> "Niobe was 105 m (344 ft 6 in) long overall and had a beam of 12.2 m (40 ft)"
  • triple-expansion steam engines manufactured by AG Germania, Tegel --> "triple-expansion steam engines manufactured by AG Germania in Tegel" Because this isn't a location.
  • powered by eight coal-fired Thornycroft water-tube boilers Why has Thornycroft an upper case?
  • The ship was protected by an armored deck that was 20 to 25 mm (0.79 to 0.98 in) --> "She was protected by an armored deck that was 20 to 25 mm (0.79 to 0.98 in)"
  • thick sides, and the gun shields were 50 mm (2 in) thick Gun shields?
    • I'm not sure what you're asking on this one. Parsecboy (talk) 10:51, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm it's the first time I've heard about a gun shield and because it hasn't an article maybe a clarification is needed here? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 10:07, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's linked earlier at " ten 10.5 cm (4.1 in) SK L/40 guns in single mounts protected by gun shields." Parsecboy (talk) 10:57, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Will continue later on. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 22:16, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • On 19 June 1906, Niobe was recommissioned for service in the East Asia Squadron To do what?
  • Between 28 August to 2 September, and from 23 December What happend between 2 and 23 September?
  • Nothing, as far as what's in the sources. Parsecboy (talk) 12:08, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • flotillas defending the Jade Bight and the mouth of the Weser Add river here.
  • British submarine HMS Traveller south of Premantura but all of the torpedoes missed Add village here.
  • Cattaro was later transferred to the Navy of the Independent State of Croatia Does Hildebrand say when she was transferred to Croatia?
  • She returned to German service in September 1943 after Italy surrendered to the Allies Ehm was there a resistance when Germany took her?
  • Nothing recorded. I had a look at Dark Navy, which discusses some of the fighting between Italian and German forces, but it doesn't have anything useful to add. Parsecboy (talk) 12:08, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the night of 21–22 September, while she was still refitting --> "On the night of 21/22 September, while she was still refitting"
  • when salvage operations began. She was raised and broken up for scrap by 1952 Maybe add "Yougoslav government"?
  • As far as I know, we don't know who raised and scrapped her. Given it was in socialist Yugoslavia, it may well have been a state-run enterprise, but can't be sure. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:44, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about you PB? Do your sources say anything? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 13:08, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I don't have any further details on the scrapping process. Parsecboy (talk) 13:13, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No worries, maybe in the near future.
  • with consideration given to Zenta or Novara --> " with consideration is given to Zenta or Novara"?

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 11:30, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Update: I don't really have the time to continue this. 'Cause of our lockdown, school and real life issues I won't be that much online for a week or so. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 22:25, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No worries. No rush. We'll work through responses to the rest of your comments and come back when you get a chance. Keep well. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:26, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Made a question for Nate above. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 13:08, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks good to me, support. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 13:33, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Llammakey edit

  • In the lede, serving in all three German navies, along with the Yugoslav and Italian fleets over the span of more than forty years in service - I would remove the "in service" at the end to avoid repetition.
    • Done
  • and had a beam of 12.2 m (40 ft) and a draft of 5.03 m (16 ft 6 in) forward - suggest "with a beam" to avoid "and, and".
    • Works for me
  • In the WWI section, I would move the torpedo boat link to the first mention.
    • Done
  • I would link the Austro-Hungarian Empire in the first sentence of Yugoslav service and World War II.
    • Good idea

That is it for me. Good article. Llammakey (talk) 13:02, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Llammakey. Parsecboy (talk) 14:36, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Changing to support. Llammakey (talk) 18:08, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

  • Citations properly formatted.
  • Need to add the edition to Rohwer and add author links for Rohwer and Lenton Otherwise all references properly formatted.

Support Comments by Sturmvogel_66 edit

  • Just a few niggles
  • What's a station ship?
    • A ship on an overseas station? I've reworded to avoid any confusion.
  • Shouldn't you spell out the full title of I Squadron on first use, just like you did for I Flotilla?
    • That was the full name at that time - the squadrons were re-designated when the Heimatflotte became the High Seas Fleet in 1907
  • Rather than literally translate Korvettenkapitän, wouldn't it be better to provide the equivalent rank in Anglosphere navies?
    • I think that would be confusing to see some German terms translated but others not (or it would give the misleading impression that the English translation of Korvettenkapitän is lieutenant commander). Parsecboy (talk) 12:54, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link torpedo boat on first use
  • including the addition of supporting struts that rendered it a tripod mast Awkward
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 Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 25 April 2020 [17].

Coropuna edit

Nominator(s): Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:09, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about the highest volcano in Peru, which currently happens to host the largest ice cap of the tropics even though it is retreating like most ice bodies of the world. The volcano itself began forming during the Miocene or Pliocene but activity continued until recent times; two or three eruptions occurred within the last 10,000 years. Aside from its geological and climatological importance, Coropuna was also a holy site of the Inka, which dedicated two archeological sites to it.

This article was already at FAC two months ago and was withdrawn to work on mainly prose issues. I've taken the liberty to message all the reviewers back then, if that is OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:09, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - I supported the last nomination based on the content. I will leave the word-smith minutiae to others. FunkMonk (talk) 20:19, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comments SG
Resolved on FAC talk, change installed in article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:15, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Iridescent raised this on his talk, so I'm addressing it here. (Although we worked for weeks on this article, I focused on prose in individual sections, and never actually got to read the entire thing through ... I missed this section.)

Coropuna was considered to be the most important God (apu) of the region, the second-most important in the cosmology of the Andes and a holy mountain; it was particularly important for the town of Cotahuasi. ... Today, St Francis of Assisi is sometimes localised at the top of the mountain by pious people and the mountain is used in mortuary rites to this day.

  • Can we know why it was particularly important for Cotahuasi?
  • The two parts of the St Francis of Assisi sentence aren't connected; there are two different thoughts there= two sentences.
  • Today, ... to this day ... redundant ... and take care with MOS:RECENT to specify what exactly is meant.
  • The sentence is awkward; localized? The reader doesn't know what that means. (Iri's question?) So I consulted the source to try to understand what was being said here.

Iri says, "It might be worth finding a Spanish speaker (ping for SandyGeorgia) to ask es-wiki if anyone there has any idea about why the locals believe a medieval Italian is living on their mountain as I can't be the only reader who finds it odd." The source is in English, and culturally, I don't find this at all odd. Different saints are patrons/protectors of different things in the Catholic religion, and I've seen all kinds of customs similar to this throughout my time in Latin America ... but that still doesn't help understand what the sentence is trying to say. The source says:

Noteworthy in this vein is the fact that the pious among today’s Peruvian peasantry believe that Saint Francis has alighted on top of an active volcano, the sacred Mount Coropuna, where the Poverello of Assisi awaits the souls of dead Andeans to fly into his paternal arms. ... Flying Francis appears in centers of Franciscan influence that are located in highly volcanic or seismically active regions. Seismicity and volcanism appear to have been the trigger for the depiction of these eschatological scenes in colonial times, and the initial center of dissemination of the novel iconography was the Cuzco friary. In the Andes, Francis appears more often than not in paintings and sculptures created by native artists, often commissioned by wealthy indigenous nobles for Indian towns. ... Flying Francis and his fellow militant angels also highlight the appropriation of the rhetoric of the oppressor by the oppressed and the subsequent redirection of that rhetoric against the oppressor.

And so on; there is plenty in the source to expand the sentence enough to help the reader understand how this came to be, and the source is in English. Will come back to this when I have time; five of us working made tons of progress on the article,[18] but I never found time to read the whole thing. Someone with better prose than I might figure out how to fix the passage. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:04, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll reply in this section to keep the thread together even though it probably violates something; my concern with this section is that it seems to raise more questions than it answers. Sure, Catholicism has lots of patron saints who don't necessarily have an obvious connection, but as I understand it the locals don't believe just the St Francis is the patron saint of the mountain, but that St Francis has been resurrected and is currently physically living on the mountain. That is definitely not typical Catholicism; if the sources genuinely don't say how this belief came about then so it goes since we can't speculate in Wikipedia's voice, but every reader who gets to this section is going to be confused by it. (I don't really buy "Flying Francis appears in centers of Franciscan influence that are located in highly volcanic or seismically active regions"; the spiritual heartland of Franciscan belief in Italy has no shortage of active volcanoes but I never heard of a connection between Francis and (e.g.) Vulsini.) ‑ Iridescent 08:29, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
First the cultural part, then the source-->text dilemma.
One key is the sourced phrase, "among today's Peruvian peasantry". I am not surprised at all. Odd local customs tangentially related to religious beliefs are legion in the hispanic culture. Although they often originate among those with less formal education, they often become widespread cultural norms and expectations. To this day, I get very odd looks when I nervously scurry to pick up a purse that a guest in my house has set on the floor, or to ask a child with a seashell in her pocket to leave it outside. Of course I know intellectually that dire consequences are not going to befall my household because someone set their purse on the floor or brought a seashell into my house, but these are nonetheless cultural practices of dubious and odd origins that become the norm. Still does not seem odd to me that peasants have these beliefs, even if they don't exist in other countries and we can't understand how they relate to Catholicism. How does Cuba's brujeria relate to Catholcism? It doesn't; but most practice it. No Venezuelan woman will ever set her purse on the floor or bring a seashell into your home, no matter the level of their education. Does that make sense? No.
So, to the source-->text dilemma, the source a) explains this is a peasant belief, b) says it appears to have been triggered around a local Peruvian (Cuzco) friary during Colonial times as a response to seismicity (that explains the local custom, not found for example in Italy), c) was furthered by wealthy Indigenous nobles through artwork, and d) is related to themes of rhetoric against the oppressor. We have enough to craft one sentence. If it's hard to do, safest is just to directly quote the source. I am not a good wordsmith; you do it, Iridescent :) :) The other issues I listed should also be fixed in that section. Coropuna is not just a volcano; it is a tourist site and a holy site; we have to address this content even if briefly. Also, Iri, re "physically living on the mountain", the source mentions "angels", which aren't such a stretch: I missed the part where you come up with physically resurrected and living there? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:19, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see how to read the pious among today’s Peruvian peasantry believe that Saint Francis has alighted on top of an active volcano in any way other than that he's physically there. (The alternative—that Francis has changed from human to angelic form—really would be heresy at burned-at-the-stake levels, since Francis was human and it's an article of faith that angels are sinless, unchanging and unchanging beings of pure spirit). ‑ Iridescent 15:17, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Continued at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Coropuna/archive2. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:28, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've split the sentence, but regarding the MOS:CURRENT thing this falls under the "very long time periods" proviso there. As for why it is important for Cotahuasi the source does not specify but it looks like it's because Coropuna is in that area. On the religious aspect ... I wonder if following the source a sentence like "Native people have adapted Spanish beliefs such as Francis of Assisi into their own culture" (needs a better vocabulary) might work as an explainer. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:33, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Best I leave the wordsmithing to others more competent :) On MOS:CURRENT, is the first "today" redundant? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:38, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've attempted a slight rewrite here to explain, which should probably be checked (it's sourced to the quote that Sandy posted). Just to clarify, the first "today" in the article or in the section? There is only one "today" in the section. I am struggling for a synonym to "localized" that could work. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:40, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
New wording installed after discussion on FAC talk. Looks good! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:15, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, surprised we are still here. I participated in the rewrite after the first FAC, so am somewhat involved, hence my hesitation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:23, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support promotion to FA. Have done a few more wording tweaks and some conversions that were a bit off in last week and have read it over twice again. Using the FA Tools from the article talkpage, there are no dead refs and citation bot turned up only one formatting error. From my end I cannot see any reason to not promote this article.--MONGO (talk) 03:41, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Fowler&fowler edit

Reserving a slot here. I haven't forgotten, just have my plate full right now. I've added this review to my to-do list on my user page. Will get here very soon. I have to earn my 1/3 star.  :) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:35, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The upper reaches of Coropuna consist of several perennially snowbound conical summits, lending it the name Nevado Coropuna in Spanish."
  • Without any explanation, "Nevado Coropuna" is opaque. It leaves the reader thinking both words are Spanish, whereas we know that it is only the first. Also, "Nevado," according to the Oxford Spanish English citionary is not "snowy," but "snow-capped," i.e. capped, crowned, or overlain with snow.
  • Do you think it would be more accurate to say, even in the lead, "The upper reaches of Coropuna consist of several perennially snowbound conical summits, lending themselves to the name Nevado Coropuna for the mountain in Spanish ('nevado,' literally, 'snow-capped.')"? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:08, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Fowler&fowler:It could be, although I am not sure how important exact correspondence is in this sentence context. Do you have a link to the OSE page? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:21, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • On second thoughts, though, the sentence in the lead is fine. We don't want to complicate things too much too early. But you might consider a change in the etymology section if this meaning is indeed accurate. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:50, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The rest of the article looks good. I had already worked on it quite a bit between the two FACs. I'm happy to offer it support for promotion to a Featured Article. It should be promoted with dispatch. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:27, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to commend for the record Jo-Jo Eumerus's withdrawal of the first FAC of her own volition—with a view to improving it—and thereby holding steadfastly in that action to what I then termed, "a sound moral principle." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:10, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by DoctorSpeed edit

  • Support promotion to FA. Looks wonderful and well-researched! DoctorSpeed ✉️ ✨
  • Query from WereSpielChequers
Nice read, hope you are OK with the tweaks I made.
"The glaciers lose mass through both sublimation and melting. This meltwater rarely forms streams, though some do exist" (my emphasis) to my mind jibes with statements such as "The retreat of the Coropuna glaciers threatens the water supply of tens of thousands of people relying upon its watershed".

ϢereSpielChequers 08:22, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Um, WereSpielChequers I am not sure if I understand the problem... The tweaks are fine by the way. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:24, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If the meltwater rarely even forms streams, how does it contribute to the water supply of tens of thousands of people? is it soaking away and topping up the groundwater that these people rely on? Or is something else going on? ϢereSpielChequers 10:03, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@WereSpielChequers:The sources do not discuss these aspects in depth, but I'd imagine that some meltwater flows underground (as groundwater) from Coropuna's icecap to the rivers. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:09, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5 edit

  • What's a "±"? Is there a template who can clarify this to the readers?
    That's the plus–minus sign which means the margin of error of a date. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:00, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a template for it? If not maybe link it?
  • No. I've added a link to the first instance, but I am a little dubious. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:13, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • had expanded to over 500 square kilometres (190 square miles) Per MOS:UNITNAMES long units should only be written fully once.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:00, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • of the Arequipa Department.[14][13] Maybe re-order the refs here?
    Done, although I don't think that's strictly needed per WP:WIAFA. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:00, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coropuna is a part of the Andes In the last section "Geography and geomorphology" it already states "Coropuna lies in the Andes of Peru" thus it is repeating the latter sentence.
    Cut it back. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:00, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • to Venezuela forming the longest mountain chain in the world Maybe a little bit off-topic but how long was the chain?
    Eh, I don't think that is necessary. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:00, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link for stratovolcanoes?
    Already linked in the lead. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:00, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I always recommend to link it in the body too but that's fine.
  • main summits rise about three kilometres (1.9 mi) --> "main summits rise about 3 km (1.9 mi)"
    I was thinking that for such small numbers, it's better to spell out the numbers. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:00, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • True but I see some other small numbers who are the written with their symbols; maybe standardise?
  • Tried to do this, but I am really not sure what the ideal conformation is here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:04, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • During the dry season, most of these Link dry season.
    Linked. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:00, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • and about 3.5 kilometres (2.2 mi) on the southern side --> "and about 3.5 km (2.2 mi) on the southern side"
  • of 6,425 metres (21,079 ft) for the El Toro summit --> "of 6,425 m (21,079 ft) for the El Toro summit"
  • Coropuna Casulla at 6,377 metres (20,922 ft) --> "Coropuna Casulla at 6,377 m (20,922 ft)"
    I recall a discussion on the talk page where it was recommended that the units be spelled out, so I am not sure about this change. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:00, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per MOS:UNITNAMES short units should be written a few times in the article. In my opinion an article with short units like "metres" should be max 3 times written in it. But I'm not sure if this applies in both the body and lead or they should have maximum 3 "metres" each (6 in total). Anyway the metres here are totally not a few. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 12:41, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • their number variously estimated to be 23,[78] 17[91][55] and 15.[32] Shouldn't it be from low (or less) to high (or many)?
    Yes; changed this around. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:00, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • on the northern flank.[12][78][37] Re-order the refs here?
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:00, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retreat rates shortly before 2009 reached 13 percent in only 21 years In what kinda English is this article written; if it's in British English then it should be "per cent".
    BrEng; corrected. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:00, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • a rate of 0.409 square kilometres per year (0.158 sq mi/a) --> "a rate of 0.409 km2 per year (0.158 sq mi/a)"
  • with a 2015 estimate amounting to 0.5 square kilometres per year (0.19 sq mi/a) --> "with a 2015 estimate amounting to 0.5 km2 per year (0.19 sq mi/a)"
    See discussion above. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:00, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Total shrinkage has been estimated to amount to 26 percent between 1962 and 2000, and by 18 percent between 1955 and 2007 American per cent here.

Going through Glacial history and the rest later on. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 09:41, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • with its surface exceeding 500 square kilometres (190 sq mi) --> "with its surface exceeding 500 km2 (190 sq mi)" Per MOS:UNITNAMES.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:04, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • dated tephra layers such as those from the 1600 Huaynaputina eruptions --> "dated tephra layers such as those from the 1,600 Huaynaputina eruptions"
    Pretty sure that proper dates are not comma separated. I've singularized this, though, it was probably a typo. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:04, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • as 100 m (330 ft) high, 8 km (5.0 mi) long Round the nought here.
    Um, clarify the request, please? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:04, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are large cirques around Cerro Cuncaicha.[81][37] Re-order the refs here.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:04, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • and old dates of 47,000–31,000 and 61,000–37,000 years Small numbers first than the larger one.
  • the last glacial maximum 20,000–18,000 years ago Same as above.
  • to either 13,400–10,000 or 13,900–11,900 years ago Same as above.
  • lasted until 10,000–9,000 years ago Same as above.
  • place about 13,000–9,000 years ago Same as above.
    Not sure that this is correct for date ranges, especially when the paragraph is written in a descending order. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:04, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It looks different you see; a date range like this which goes before AD then sure it shouldn't. But I don't believe a date range with "years ago" behind it, is not really a date range anymore. It now looks like a range of years of how long ago; if it'd says for instead "place about 11,000–7,000 BC" instead of "place about 13,000–9,000 years ago". Except if there is a policy or a lot of sources who disagree with me or am not aware of then I'm fine with this.
  • I confess that I am not sure. I did try to Google it but all what I get is ways to sort dates in tables. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:25, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The closest policies I could find about this tiny issue are MOS:ENTO and MOS:DATERANGE. MOS:ENTO says "For ranges between numbers, dates, or times, use an en dash" so I assume years is part of times; it also doesn't say we should use ranges from small to big numbers even though all of the examples are written from small to big numbers. Unless there is a separate guideline which wouldn't surprise me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:32, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @CPA-5:I don't have anymore information or knowledge apart from what I said before, and if ambiguity is the issue I don't see how changing the order would resolve it. So I stand by my previous assessment that consistency with the paragraph structure favours the descending order. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:18, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • especially during the dry season When is the dry season in Peru?
    Added. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:04, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • rate of 9 centimetres per year (3.5 in/year) In the section "Recent area and retreat" we use "a" as year maybe standardise this in the article.
    I don't see any "a" use like that there. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:04, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about this sentence "at a rate of 0.409 square kilometres per year (0.158 sq mi/a)"? Also we should avoid this number in this sentence "amounting to zero point five km2/a (0.19 sq mi/a)".
  • No worries.
  • was between 195 and 190 million years ago Small numbers first than the larger one.
  • second between 78 and 50 million years ago Same as above.
    Given that the paragraph is written in descending order (Law of superposition), I think it's fine. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:04, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aside from the volcanic rocks, deposits of salts I'm not sure or salt should be linked or not.
    I don't think that "salt" here is too far removed from the normal meaning. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:04, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • while Coropuna II above 6,000 metres (20,000 ft) elevation --> "while Coropuna II above 6,000 m (20,000 ft) elevation"
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:04, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • between 14.3 and 13.2 million years ago Small numbers first than the larger one.
  • Sencca Ignimbrites are a 2.09–1.76 million years old Same as above.
  • about 41,000 and 30,000 – 31,000 years old What why is there an em dash?
    Huh? The markup tells me it's an en dash. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:04, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whoops probably was confused which dash it was.
  • part overlie late-glacial moraines.[147][12][166] Re-order the refs here.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:04, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 226 and 560 mm/a (8.9 and 22.0 in/year) (semi-humid) Is it possible to round the nought here?
    Maybe, but I am not that well versed with {{Convert}} to say how. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:04, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Sajsi formed about 25,000–19,000 years ago, Tauca about 18,000–14,000 and Coipasa 13,000–11,000 years ago Small numbers first than the larger one.
  • Reversal between 14,500 and 12,900 years ago may have pushed the polar front Same as above.
  • with a pronounced dry period lasting from 5,200 to 3,000 years ago Same as above.
  • between about 2,200 and 900 years ago Same as above.
  • interpreted as being 7,000 – 3,000 years BC have been found --> "interpreted as being 7,000–3,000 BC have been found"?
    Is it better now? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:04, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • high camp can be set up at 5,600–5,800 metres (18,400–19,000 ft) elevation --> "high camp can be set up at 5,600–5,800 (18,400–19,000 ft) elevation"
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:04, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 6,446 m (21,148 ft);[71] and 6,450 metres (21,160 ft) --> "6,446 m (21,148 ft);[71] and 6,450 m (21,160 ft)" In note d.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:04, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "~5 Ma - 1 ka" --> "c. 5 Ma - 1 ka" and the circa needs a circa template in the infobox.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:04, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • legends and the mountain is worshiped to the present day --> "legends and the mountain is worshipped to the present-day"
    I think that's an acceptable variation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:04, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not "present-day" here.
  • leads up to a foresummit --> "leads up to a fore summit"?
    I don't think that "fore" can be used as a standalone word, here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:04, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay that's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 17:31, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CPA-5: Got these, but I don't agree that dates should always be in smaller-->bigger order. Also closed a tag there. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:04, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Ditto. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 09:52, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@CPA-5: Replied. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:25, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you also remove the awkward numbers like these "and about three point five km (2.2 mi)", "it was eight point five km (5.3 mi) wide" and "decreased by four point five–five point five °C (8.1–9.9 °F)". Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:32, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Factotem - Support edit

Technical checks

  • Sources showing CS1 Maint msgs. The |ref=harv parameter is not necessary and can be removed to eliminate the msgs
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:55, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any reason why some source details are provided as part of inline ref (e.g. #9 Besom, #41 Yates et al) and not listed in the Sources section? This seems to be common with sources with ISBN refs.
    That's because I use Harv references when more than one page is being employed and ref tags when I am employing only one page. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:55, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Then I'm sorry to do this on a technicality, but per WP:CITESTYLE, we're supposed to be consistent with how we cite. The article mixes <ref>...</ref> with {sfn}, which is a no-no as I understand it. Factotem (talk) 13:09, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think you may be misreading or misunderstanding CITESTYLE. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:40, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Quite possibly so, and I would be delighted for any good reason to set aside such a nitpicky technicality, but that guideline does state "...citations within any given article should follow a consistent style." How do I ignore that in evaluating whether the sourcing in this otherwise, as best I can tell, impeccable article is representative of WP's finest work? Factotem (talk) 15:20, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The idea is that citations should render consistently; the device or template used to accomplish that isn't the issue. THis whole problem came about back in the day when many people still used parenthetical citations, and others began switching them to ref tags-- that was the main conflict. If the citations in the article have a consistent style as rendered to the reader, we're good here :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:07, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's not really what the guideline says, though. I've queried it on the guideline TP, but as far as this FAC is concerned, the really important stuff is squared away and ship shape, so all good here. Factotem (talk) 17:10, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inconsistent with publisher locations. You seem to have opted not to provide these, which is fine, but Heine's work appears to give the locations as part of the publisher name, whilst Hermann's work specificaly provides the location info.
    Removed the location. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:55, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the publisher Springer Spektrum (Heine) or just Springer (Hermann), or are these really two different publishers?
    It seems like they might be two different publishers that are part of the same conglomerate. Ealdgyth, do you know perhaps what the relationship between the two is? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:55, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mismatch in editions of Wilson's The Andes referenced in the References section. The archive.org link relates to a 266-page edition with ISBN 9780195386356, but the ISBN you provide, 9780199731077, relates to a 285-page edition
    Changed the ISBN. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:55, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Curious as to why so many different identifiers are sometimes provided. For example, Cubukcu et al's work is listed with Bibcode, doi and ISSN. It's not an issue and no action is required here, but, A. surely one ID will suffice, and, B. having multiple ID's surely introduces scope for error?
    That's ultimately because formatting references is the most excruciatingly painful aspect of Wikipedia editing, so I don't make much effort at standardizing. The Bibcodes are added by a bot. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:55, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Following on from above, I did check a few at random and found no issues, although, to nitpick, the only date I could find for Forget's work is 2008, with nowhere stating 1 July as provided in the Sources listing.
    Sometimes I wonder whether these day-month bits that the citation formatting tools such as RefToolbar sometimes show are pulled out of thin air. Removed and fixed another issue in that reference. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:55, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Equally nitpicky (sorry), Racoviteanu et al's work appears to be from issues 1–4, not 1
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:55, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's going on with Úbeda? This appears to be one person, but is variously listed in the Sources section as "Palenque, Jose Úbeda", "Úbeda, Jose" and "Úbeda Palenque, José". There are also two other works detailed in the References section, one co-authored by "Úbeda, Jose" (ref #97), the other co-authored by "Úbeda, J" (ref #122), the latter appearing to be an English language version of the 2012 work co-authored with Palacios and Vázquez-Selém that is listed under its Spanish title in the Sources section.
    I am fairly albeit not 100% sure these are the same person, but see above re: "excruciatingly painful". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:55, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two works listed with Kuentz as the lead co-author are both dated 2011. You cite one as "Kuentz, Ledru & Thouret 2011" (e.g. ref #69) and the other as "Kuentz et al. 2011" (e.g. ref #196). My concern here is that "Kuentz et al. 2011" could be confused as referring to the other, "Kuentz, Ledru & Thouret" work. Maybe better if you change "Kuentz et al." to "Kuentz, Forget, Ledru & Thouret" and change the order in which you list those authors in the Sources listing?
  • Similar problem: there are two works listed in the sources published in 2011 where Bromley is listed as the first co-author, but in the References section the only possibly relevant cite is to "Bromley et al. 2011". This means that either only one of those two sources is being used or that the two different sources have been mistakenly conflated as one in the referencing
    Mended both by applying "2011b" for the year. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:55, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced info

  • Main body of the article is extensively and admirably sourced, with no unsourced statements
  • It states in the infobox Early Pliocene, but I'm not sure there's any support for the "early" in the main body of the article
    5 million years ago is early Pliocene, as the Pliocene goes 5.333 million to 2.58 million years ago. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:55, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whilst checking where in the main article there is support for the last eruption information provided in the infobox, I found that the relevant section begins "No eruptions of Coropuna during historical[165] or modern times are known..." but then goes on to state that the 1,100 or 700-year-old lava flow was "...probably formed during a single eruption..." I'm pretty sure that even 1,100 qualifies as a historical time. Just a bit confusing.
    I believe that 165# is treating "historical" as "post-Spanish conquest" which was one-two centuries later. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:55, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The source for the image captioned "The larger tectonic plates in South America" in the Geology section does not include the arrows. What is the source for them?
    I dunno and have commented out the file in the meantime. Perhaps Beyond My Ken knows. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:55, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know either - my only involvement was to crop to that region from a larger image. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:17, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I, see, the Chinese version added the arrows which were not in the USGS original. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:24, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to this, User:Scott Nash added the arrows. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:30, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've created a new version, cropped from the original without the unattributed arrows, and restored the image to the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:00, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quality, reliablity and comprehensiveness of sources

  • This subject is way out of my comfort zone and I cannot make any informed comment on the quality, reliability or comprehensiveness of the sources used. All I can say is that the sheer quantity of different sources cited and the fact that the vast majority are journal articles suggests to me that the article is not deficient in these respects.

That's all from me. Factotem (talk) 11:30, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Factotem: Replied and resolved as appropriate. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:55, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All good. Supporting on sourcing Factotem (talk) 17:08, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Iridescent edit

Apologies for the delay, I've commented on so many different versions of this article that I thought I'd already commented on this FAC but apparently not. Support per my comments at the previous FAC; as per my comment there I don't have an issue with parts of this not meeting "its prose is engaging" given that so much of it is technical detail which needs to be provided but which is impossible to make exciting. ‑ Iridescent 08:26, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord notes edit

  • Noting FTR that Nikkimaria checked image licensing at the previous FAC and I can see that none have been added since.
  • CPA-5, if you're able to return and check on changes in response to your comments that'd be great.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:52, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I just finished my review. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 17:32, 20 April 2020 (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) 20 April 2020 [19].

1978 FA Cup Final edit

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 08:32, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One of the finest FA Cup finals ever, serious underdogs and league-lame Ipswich took on the mighty Gooners at old Wembley and beat them. The goalscorer collapsed after scoring, assuring his place in ITFC history. This is a fresh GA but it's fully comprehensive so I can't see a reason why FAC shouldn't be considered. I look forward to receiving the comments of the community. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 08:32, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support on comprehensiveness and prose - I reviewed this at GAN and tried to give it as big a shove as possible to here...and found little to complain about. I don't have the best eye for detail so may have missed stuff but I can't tell as I missed it (if I did). Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:31, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you Cas, I appreciated the review then and your comments here. It's a bit of a test case, but I'd be more than happy to discover any gaps and fill them in if there are any...! Cheers. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 11:51, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from JennyOz edit

Hi TRM, great read. Congrats on the win! There was only a little football jargon I was unsure of so have suggested wlinks. Here are my comments...

That is it for now. Let me know if you need any clarifications. Regards, JennyOz (talk) 13:21, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JennyOz thanks, as ever, for your comments. I've addressed as many as I can, and there are a couple of "Really"s? in there which might need a bit more discussion. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 13:57, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
JennyOz just wondered if you had a chance to get back to me about the comments I addressed? Cheers. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 07:11, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi TRM, yes, I have been mulling over this and have revisited it often hoping the penny would drop but am still (embarrassingly) confused. I have tried to explain my confusion (maybe confused my explanation!) above re Robson/tie. As for my apostrophe suggestions - maybe not "really". All else seems perfectly fine to me and am happy with the tweaks. JennyOz (talk) 12:02, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
JennyOz I think I created confusion. I've added notes above and made a change to the prose which hopefully clears it up? Thanks again for your time and comments. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 12:54, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All clear! This article is a fine telling of the journey and match. I am very happy to add my support. JennyOz (talk) 13:40, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

Referee edit

  • Not sure, but I don't like the idea of having a red-linked article name for a FA article. Would it be better to de-link? Govvy (talk) 14:54, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I delinked it (it was already in the infobox without linking) as it's unlikely that he will soon attract any interest in an article. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 16:06, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some source comments edit

  • Sources look reliable.
  • Curious about external links 1 and 2 - are either of those reliable sources?
    First link expunged, but Soccerbase is usually consider RS. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 07:09, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spot check 1 using source 4: quote checks out.
  • Spot check 2 using source 8a/b: first quote checks out for 8a; second claim is stated explicitly and looks good.
  • Spot check 3 using source 14a: Seems to be summarized from the available records there, so looks fine to me.
  • Spot check 4 using source 19: names listed match source.
  • Spot check 5 using source 25: Not sure the first sentence is supported by the source explicitly.
    Explicitly supported by new ref now. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 07:09, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So looks good besides external links 1/2 and then my concern about spot check 5/source 25 material. Prose looks great. ceranthor 22:43, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]


A limitation of my review to note would be that I only did spot checks for freely available sources, which are in the minority for this article unless you have access to newspaper archives. ceranthor 22:43, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ceranthor thanks for taking a look at the sources, I've addressed them where appropriate and responded above. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 07:09, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@The Rambling Man: Looks good now. Nice work. ceranthor 12:49, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ceranthor. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 13:01, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Kaiser matias edit

  • "Ipswich had needed a replay in the fifth round to proceed past Bristol Rovers but Arsenal won all of their ties at the first time of asking. They went into the final as clear favourites." Couple things here: this may be my Canadian English showing, but I gather "tie" to be a variant of "match" or "game" and not the outcome (eg. 0-0)? The wording just comes across as odd to me, but if it is proper British English, I'll leave it. And I don't know if "but" is the right word here; I'd be more inclined to go with "while Arsenal won..." I'm also thinking if it wouldn't be better to drop the period after "first time of asking" and make it one sentence, which would further highlight Arsenal was the clear favourite. Something like "Arsenal won all of their ties at the first time of asking, and went into the final as clear favourites."?
Yes, these confused JennyOz above too, not helped by my bad linking... It's a "tie" in the sense that the two teams are drawn out and "tied" together to play their game. It can, as you note, mean you could have a tied tie. Tweaked the bit you suggested, hopefully that works/flows better? The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 18:36, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All good. I'll also blame discrepancies between English variations here, but I'm happy with it now.
  • "Clubs ... are drawn randomly out of a hat..." Is it literally a hat? I say this more out of curiosity than anything, but I suppose if not then could be just "drawn randomly".
Well it was. It's a little more clinical these days (balls out of a bowl, each ball having a number which represents each team still in the contest", but yes, that's how it happened. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 18:36, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, neat that they literally did that.
  • "Alan Sunderland's header from a Macdonald cross..." I'd add a link to Cross (association football) here. While it's clear it is a pass, it isn't clear what type of pass.
Done. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 18:36, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...25 minutes in, Macdonald tapped home..." That comma seems out of place, and could probably be removed.
Not sure I agree with that one, a natural pause for me, i.e. suitable for a comma. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 18:36, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Again I'll note English variations, which of course isn't anything to be hung up on.
Done. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 18:36, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They had won the cup on four other occasions..." Shouldn' cup, as a proper noun, be capitalized here? I can see an argument either way, so more curious on the conventional usage (I know that when referring to the Stanley Cup, for example, "Cup" is always capitalized). But if that's not the style, then all good.
No, I don't think so. If I said "they had won the FA Cup on four other occasions" then I'd agree, but this isn't the case. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 18:36, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good enough for me. Just want to make sure that's the case.

Other than that seems like a solid article. Kaiser matias (talk) 17:17, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review Kaiser matias, I've responded inline to each of your comments. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 18:36, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, looks good to me. Kaiser matias (talk) 18:00, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Kosack edit

Nothing much I would pick out really, a handful of minor points above to consider. Kosack (talk) 19:06, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kosack thanks very much for taking a look. I've addressed your comments above. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 19:58, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, happy to support. Nice work. Kosack (talk) 06:16, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Harrias edit

Overall a nice article, with just a few nit-picks. (Fancy taking a look at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2009 Women's Cricket World Cup Final/archive2 some time?) Harrias talk 19:55, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Harrias thanks very much, I think I've addressed every one of your comments. Do let me know if anything else is needed. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 20:20, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support nice work. I need to point out that I will claim WikiCup points for this review. Harrias talk 13:13, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FAC delegates, are we done here? Source review, image review, heavy consensus to promote? Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 20:29, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I was wondering about referencing for the Details section. I can see a fair bit of it is supported by the match report link but I couldn't see where, for instance, that included the players' positions and flags of origin or allegiance or whatever. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:21, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added another link in (teams) next to (Reports) which has their positions/nationalities. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 09:34, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ian Rose that's addressed, anything else? The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 09:42, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks okay, tks. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:13, 20 April 2020 (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) 20 April 2020 [20].

Cyclone Chapala edit

Nominator(s): ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:30, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Cyclone Chapala, which struck one of the poorest parts of the world in the midst of a civil war. To make matters worse, another cyclone hit the same area a few days later. This nomination is for Cyclone Chapala, which I wrote a few years ago, and which I believe is a fine article, worthy of consideration for FAC. I imagine there might be some jargon issues - if anything is too complicated, please let me know, and I'll do my best to make it simpler for the reader. Otherwise, I believe the article holds up well, and I'm happy to address any concerns y'all have. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:30, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from JC edit

I found this FAC by way of your review of my nomination, and figured I'd return the favor. It's a rare pleasure to take in a high-quality article about a storm in this region. I'm reading with a focus on prose, presentation, and precision—I'll leave the image and style reviews to the many capable experts in those areas.

  • Perhaps to best introduce the topic, it's worth mentioning Somalia alongside Yemen in the first sentence?
  • only Cyclone Gonu in 2007 and Cyclone Kyarr in 2019 was stronger in the Arabian Sea. - I see Gonu supported in the body of the article, but not Kyarr.
  • The cyclone first affected Socotra - Redundant in such close proximity to the first mention of the Socotra encounter.
  • I reordered the lede so that Socotra and Somalia impacts are mentioned at the same time as the storm traversing those areas. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:14, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "amid" twice in two sentences is a little disruptive to the flow of things.
  • the equivalent to several years' worth - "Several years' worth" on its own would suffice.
  • coastal areas, which damaged or destroyed roads - Dangling modifier.
  • After the storm and later Cyclone Megh - "Cyclones Chapala and Megh"?
  • I split the Megh part off into its own sentence, as that's pretty important to the narrative. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:14, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • A trough developed along the northeast monsoon on 25 October 2015 off the southwest coast of India,[2] consisting of a fragmented area of convection, or thunderstorms. - This line tripped me up. I'm not sure what "northeast" means in relation to the monsoon. And what consisted of convection? It may be best to split this up for ease of digestion.
  • the circulation became better defined, amplified by decreasing wind shear - I'm not sure it's entirely accurate to say decreasing wind shear amplifies organization. It would simply stop prohibiting it.
  • Initially, the storm moved slowly to the north due to a ridge to the northeast, although the track shifted to the west due to another ridge to the northwest. - While I can visualize this pattern, it might not be immediately obvious how changes in track can be directly attributed to ridges. For that matter, the source mentions anticyclones but not ridges, which is a subtle yet distinct difference.
  • I mistakenly synonymized anticyclone and ridges there and butchered it, so I changed it to the two anticyclones, per IMD. Good catch. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:42, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • favorable conditions related to the Madden–Julian oscillation - Without knowing how the MJO was favorable (phase and amplitude), this doesn't add much. I'd prefer more detail be added, but it could probably just be removed harmlessly.
  • the system rapidly intensified beginning on 29 October. - While not strictly necessary, it would be helpful to know the constraints of the RI that took place (eg., it deepened by x mb in y hours), since it's usually a technical term rather than simply a descriptive one.
  • prompting the JTWC to upgrade Chapala to the equivalence of a hurricane - Since the SSHS isn't applicable, is it fair to call this threshold an "upgrade" rather than simply an acknowledgement?
  • amplified by vigorous outflow and continued low wind shear. - Same concern as earlier, though perhaps not as jarring in this case.
  • Recursive contradictions ("However, [it weakened] ... However, [it was still pretty strong]") in the third MH paragraph could stand to be reworded.
  • marking the area's first hurricane-force impact - Is there a reason not to use "island" instead of the vague "area" here?
  • The structure became disorganized that day - Now almost three sentences after the last mention of a date, "that day" is on the cusp of losing meaning.
  • True, I removed it. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:42, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The structure became disorganized [...] causing cooler and drier air to enter the circulation. - Circular logic?
  • "Allowing" :) ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:42, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to the JTWC, Chapala moved ashore and immediately turned back over water,[22] although the agency soon reassessed the center as being over land.[23] - To avoid falling into the trap of chronicling agencies instead of storms, maybe you could just say more broadly, "the center straddled the coast before heading inland", or something?
  • advised migrants and refugees from Somalia and Ethiopia from crossing to Yemen due to anticipated rough seas from Chapala. - That's a lot of "froms"!
  • An Iranian-flagged vessel capsized offshore on 1 November, killing one person and leaving many others missing. - Reviewing the given source, it seems uncertain that there were others aboard. The source also claims "conflicting reports" on the role Chapala played in the incident. I'm sure the connection is there, I'd just like to have more corroborating sources, if possible.
  • Re-reading the source, given the date (11/1 was after the storm), I tend to think it wasn't related to Chapala, so I removed it. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:00, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nationwide, the storm wrecked 350 houses, - The source specifies that this figure pertains to the Bari Region. I'm not sure how much damage occurred in the rest of Puntland, but "nationwide" may lead to an assumption that isn't supported.
  • Eastern Puntland was hardest-hit,[30] where 45 km (28 mi) of roads were damaged. - Dangling participle.
  • Re: 28 damaged schoolrooms in Puntland, the source offers a lot more details about this... if nothing else, the districts would be nice, since Puntland is huge. Also, the source says 13 more schools were affected in the Gardafuul province, so not sure how that would factor-in.
  • Ehh, I always hate when the sources say "were affected", because that's not too useful. If it was "flooded" or "damaged", I'd probably mention, but since it's just "affected", I opted not to add that Gardafuul bit - that said, I changed it to 9 damaged schools, as opposed to classrooms. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:46, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • the rains killed 3,000 sheep and goats - Pedantic, but those would have to be some massive raindrops.
  • plastic sheets for housing. - Maybe remove "for housing", to make it clear that people didn't have to actually make houses out of the sheeting?
  • Officials in Hadramawt recommended that residents in coastal areas evacuate. - I would move this back one line to avoid jumping back and forth between organizations in power.
  • On the offshore Socotra island - "On Socotra"? I think it's adequately established as an island by now.
  • On 1 November, Chapala became the first hurricane-force storm to impact Socotra since 1922, - Repeat of this fact in the MH.
  • Chapala wrecked 237 homes on the island and damaged at least 497 homes,[43][45] forcing about 18,000 people to leave their homes. - Three homes for the price of one.
  • So the gov't debunked the fatality reports on Socotra, but what of the 200 injuries?
  • Clarified the bit about fatalities, it was actually OCHA, not government. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:37, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • High winds, strong waves and heavy rainfall - You've been using the Oxford comma throughout the rest of the article.
  • Comma'n! (come on, I said to myself mentally in disappointment for missing this comma) ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:37, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chapala damaged seven health facilities. - In Mukalla?
  • Not in order, but mentioning before I forget... what's the source for the $100m damage total in the infobox?
  • Neighboring Oman sent 14 cargo planes' worth of food totaling 270 tons worth of goods. The planes mostly carried food, - Worth, worth; food, food.
  • carrying 500 tons of food [...] and 1,200 barrels of food.
  • To prevent the spread of disease - Was this after or before the dengue fever outbreak?

These are some of the things that jumped out at me in my first read-through. The content is good, there's just a little polishing to be done I think. I thought the aftermath section did an especially good job in making sense of what were essentially three concurrent crises. That must have been daunting to sort out. Happy to jump in and help copyedit once some of these ambiguities are cleared up. Overall, nice work so far! – Juliancolton | Talk 05:13, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review JC! I believe I addressed your comments, and the article is much better off with your feedback. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:37, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Hurricanehink: Thanks for addressing this laundry list of comments so quickly! Very happy with the changes made. Pending the resolution to TA's concerns below and one more read-through, I have one more comment before I support. WP:LEADLENGTH recommends a 1-2 paragraph intro for articles with <15kb of readable prose (Chapala is around 14kb). Do you think you'd be able to adequately summarize the storm in two paragraphs, or is it better the way it is now? – Juliancolton | Talk 21:30, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I got it down to a reasonable length for two paragraphs. What do you think? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:30, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

← The reworked lead looks great. I just have a few more remarks to go along with my final look (and I'm making a few small changes myself, so if anything isn't to your liking, please feel free to revert).

  • On 31 October, the outer eyewall became established, - Does this signify the end of the ERC? If so, maybe that could be made a tad more explicit?
  • the Yemeni Army and Government had withdrawn from areas in April - I've been trying to warm up to this construction for a couple days, but I think I've decided "withdrawn from areas" is just too vague to work.
  • The Socotra section: three consecutive sentences start with "Chapala". I'm not sure how to remedy this without clashing with your writing style, so I'll defer to you. Also, there's a commented-out note about a discrepancy between sources. Has this been resolved?
  • I changed the second to "the cyclone" - hope that's not too lazy and it works! And yes that commented out note was resolved, that was more of a note for me. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:12, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Residents in Mukalla took shelter in schools as the storm caused the sea level to rise by 9 m (30 ft), destroying the city's seafront. - I'm having trouble verifying everything before the comma, and am a little incredulous regarding the 30-ft surge. Maybe a reference got accidentally moved somewhere along the line.

And I think that's it! – Juliancolton | Talk 04:18, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Perfect - I'm satisfied. Nicely done. Support on prose, verifiability, and comprehensiveness. – Juliancolton | Talk 15:11, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by TropicalAnalystwx13 edit

  • "After leaving the island, unfavorable environmental conditions caused Chapala to weaken, although it maintained much of its intensity upon entering the Gulf of Aden on 2 November, becoming the strongest known cyclone in that body of water." - This sentence feels very rigid to me. We go from talking about weakening, to actually it maintained to most of its intensity, to it was the strongest cyclone in that body of water. How about something like "While Chapala encountered less favorable conditions after leaving the island, it maintained much of its intensity; upon entering the Gulf of Aden on 2 November, it became the strongest known cyclone in that body of water." or something similar?
  • "Chapala weakened into a remnant the next day over land." - A remnant what?
  • "Several years' worth of heavy rainfall inundated coastal areas, which damaged roads and hundreds of homes." - Should years be possessive here? You probably know better than me, but I think years is fine on its own.
  • Years' needs to be possessive so it functions as an adjective for worth. You could say "The equivalent of several years worth of heavy rainfall", but you get the same effect with the current verbiage. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:21, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The system moved slowly to the north at first, steered by an anticyclone to the northeast, before beginning a westward trajectory due to another anticyclone to its northwest." - This is a lot of directions and anticyclones in the same sentence. Can you simplify or break into two?
  • "The storm developed well-defined rainbands as the structure consolidated more, with well-established outflow to the north and south, as well as an eye feature." - Mentioning good outflow north and south seems repetitive since you said this in the earlier paragraph.
  • "By early on 30 October, Chapala had developed a well-defined eye 22 km (14 mi) wide, amplified by vigorous outflow." - We get it bro, you outflow.
  • "Based on their estimate, Chapala was the second-strongest cyclone on record over the Arabian Sea; at the time, only Cyclone Gonu of 2007 was stronger,[1] as was Cyclone Kyarr in 2019." - I'm confused. Kyarr has 1-min sustained winds of 150 mph. That's equivalent, not stronger.
  • Reading the MH, it seems important to note Chapala's EWRC (alongside the less favorable environment) for the slight decrease in strength back in the lede.
  • Also, I see the MH mentions that Chapala actually became better organized upn entering the Gulf of Aden before weakening after. This is worth mentioning in the lede too and may require additional edits to my originally suggested sentence.
  • Given JC's comments, I don't want to add anything else to the lead. It's still factual that the storm was weaker in the Gulf of Aden than at its peak. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:21, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the Bari region, Chapala wrecked 350 houses" - The lede says 250. Also, you mentioned "thousands of animals," which made me think in terms of 1-9k, not >25,000. Change to tens of thousands?
  • "Yemen's meteorological agency told residents to stay at least one kilometre inland." - Probably need to convert this?
  • I'm seeing the word "wrecked" used a lot throughout the article. Switch it up.
  • "bout 80% of the village of Jilah was flooded" - Missing a etter, artner.
  • hanks! (aww, that made me think of Tom Hanks, who has Covid, curses!) ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:21, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The planes mostly carried food,[1] as well as blankets and tents." - We already established the planes carried food. Maybe just make this sentence about the blankets and tents?
  • "In the days after the storm, airstrikes and attacks continued elsewhere in the country,[1] and only days after Chapala, Cyclone Megh followed a similar path, causing additional damage." - This is a lot in one sentence.
  • References 26, 37, 42, and 51 are dead.

Otherwise, great work! 🌧❄ϟ TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 20:10, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review TA! The article is much better off. I hope you found the writing to your liking. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:21, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support! 🌧❄ϟ TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 02:35, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Hurricane Noah edit

Adding this section in... give a bit of time for me to add my comments. NoahTalk 15:53, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Images
  • Please add alt text to the images. NoahTalk 01:26, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:33, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lead

General: The met in the lead seems a bit rushed at first. We go from it developing in one sentence to reaching peak intensity in the next. NoahTalk 16:11, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • You said it developed but never said what it formed into. Where did it come from? Was it monitored beforehand? Was it a D/DD at any point or did it just form into a CS? Just some food for thought. NoahTalk 16:11, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and rapidly intensified beginning the next day" Probably better to say during, throughout, or over. NoahTalk 16:11, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "contributed an outbreaks of locusts and dengue fever" Grammar NoahTalk 16:11, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Meteorological History
  • मैंने लेख को लिंक किया। ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:33, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mbar isnt used in this basin NoahTalk 16:42, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "operationally it was held at 250 km/h (155 mph), though this was lowered in post-storm analysis." this is a bit much for readers outside the field of meteorology. Could this be included as a note (attached to peak winds)? NoahTalk 16:42, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would recommend mentioning the peak pressure. NoahTalk 16:42, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:33, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "JTWC anticipated strengthening to Category 5-equivalent." Should be 'into a' NoahTalk 16:42, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would recommend moving dates/times to the middle of the sentences for the most part instead of them being located at the beginning to avoid chopping off the flow of the prose. Just seems to be a lot of it concentrated towards the end of the met. NoahTalk 16:42, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, I never noticed that about my writing, good idea. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:33, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria edit

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Some of the details in the lead/infobox don't appear to be cited anywhere - for example the 3-minute sustained figure (the article text actually gives a different figure)
  • Fixed rounding error for the wind speed. Everything else (the dates, deaths, pressure, damage total, and areas affected) are all cited in the article. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:55, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would like to see a citation for the Arabic name. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:23, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I removed it, since I'm not sure where it originated from, and on second thought, it's the English Wikipedia, I don't think it's needed. I'd hate for some source to provide a mistranslation. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:10, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes "Modern Indian Baby Names" a high-quality reliable source? Weather Underground? Daily Mirror?
  • I replaced the reference for "Modern Indian Baby Names" with the World meteorological organization. I replaced the first WU reference with an article from The Guardian. The second one, I would argue it is high-quality/reliable, as the website tracks weather data from around the world. Sometimes, it is the only record of some weather stations, as most are automatic. I removed the Daily Mirror bit, I wasn't familiar with that as a parody website! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:55, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • For context, the author of that Wunderground entry, Robert Henson, is a council member of the American Meteorological Society (ref), chaired a couple of its subcommittees, and has been published in Nature, Audubon, Monthly Weather Review, etc., which I'd argue satisfy the "established expert on the subject matter" clause for WP:RSSELF. – Juliancolton | Talk 01:57, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • FAO is not a work, Scientific American is - check throughout, there are several instances of this type of error
  • I changed most of the references so change FAO (and other UN agencies) as the publisher, and changed ReliefWeb (the main source for these documents) with the "via" parameter of cite report. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:10, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still seeing some errors of this type, eg The Guardian is correctly italicized in FN24 but not 36 (and where'd that AP credit come from in 24?). Nikkimaria (talk) 01:58, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I went through more of the citations and converted a few more (and removed the AP credit, I saw AP credited in the image but was mistaken to list it as agency). I wanted to check, is CNN in FN13 formatted right? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:50, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in whether authors are listed first or last name first
  • FN22 is missing date
  • FN23 is missing date and has the same info in two parameters
  • Be consistent in whether you include locations for news references
  • FN37 is missing author, check for others
  • FN48 is missing publication date, check for others.
  • I went through the references and checked, adding other missing publishers. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:10, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose pending significant citation cleanup. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:47, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Nikkimaria (talk · contribs) for the review. I went through the references and cleaned up a lot of them. References aren't my strongest suit, so if I've missed any (of if it's so bad that I need a dedicated source reviewer), then let me know. I apologize for taking a few days to reply. I've had to adjust to teaching an online class (which was today, it went well). So I can focus again on this FAC. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:10, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. In addition to pending points above I also noticed a few additional errors on this pass: FN47 is incomplete, and the author name for 35 appears incorrect. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:58, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I added AFP to FN47. Also, I felt the same thing about RN35's author "Goth Mohamed Goth", but Google backs up that being his full name. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:50, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria (talk · contribs), was there anything else that I can do to address your opposition? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:38, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I struck my oppose a few days ago! Just not used to having a header going along with it ;-) Nikkimaria (talk) 23:13, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Nikki! Hope your wiki'ing is going well these days. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:28, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Truflip99 edit

  • It developed as a depression on 28 October off western India, which strengthened a day later into a cyclonic storm. -- "which" --> "and" sans comma would sound better, I think
  • making Chapala tied for the second strongest cyclone on record in the Arabian Sea. -- should you mention with which other storm?
  • I explained it in the "meteorological history", but I didn't want to add too much to the lead, especially because the basis for it being the 2nd strongest is unofficial. I changed it to "among the strongest storms on record in the Arabian Sea." ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:14, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Early on 3 November, the storm made landfall near Mukalla, Yemen, as a very severe cyclonic storm, making it the strongest storm on record to strike the nation. -- a very severe cyclonic storm doesn't really carry much weight as to why it became Yemen's strongest without including sus winds; better to replace "making it" --> "and" sans comma
  • After Chapala and later Megh -- you don't need to say "later", IMO
  • I removed "later" but added "cyclones" before "Chapala" here. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:14, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • residual storm effects contributed to an outbreaks of locusts and dengue fever -- grammar
  • Nine hours later, the agency upgraded it further to a deep depression -- you don't need to say "further" as this is the first upgrade
  • due to the ridge to the north. -- I'm not privy to this topic so I'm not sure what "the ridge" is in this context, but shouldn't it be "a ridge"?
  • and the JTWC anticipated strengthening into Category 5-equivalent. -- anticipated it strengthening into a..
  • After the cyclone bypassed Socotra -- As you had just said in the previous sentence that it impacted Socotra, not sure that bypass is the right word...
  • The United Arab Emirates also sent a ship and a plane, carrying 500 tons of food -- omit comma
  • residents built a makeshift pathway to help distribution of aid -- the distribution of aid
  • Collectively, the passages of Chapala and Megh near Socotra -- Collectively --> Together
  • due to house damage -- "house damage" doesn't sound good...
  • A locust outbreak also began in December 2015 due to the floods. -- "began" needs an end date unless it's still ongoing, in which case you would still need to state that. I would suggest "occurred"
  • 41,000 l (11,000 US gal) -- typically want abbr off in prose

Looks good overall. --Truflip99 (talk) 21:45, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review Truflip99! I believe I addressed all of your comments. Cheers ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:14, 9 April 2020 (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) 20 April 2020 [21].

Loveday, 1458 edit

Nominator(s): ——SN54129 20:27, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coming back in with the medieval masters, as they say. This time, King Henry VI tries to save the world as we he knew it, drawing together warring factions within his own government. "Did it work? Anyone know the effects? It did not work, and 15th-century Britain fell deeper into depression". Not surprising really when he was trying to persuade people to hold hands and make up—literally—while each had a small army at his back! It was really Henry's last throw of the dice when it came to wearing the trousers; after his failed initiative, his wife became all the more powerful and war was right around the corner. Usual stuff. Anyway, if anyone wants to comment or suggest stuff, go ahead and welcome. Cheers everyone, ——SN54129 20:27, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild edit

I will do a little copy editing, then get on with a proper review. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:48, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't think that one, or anything, can be "easily malleable". (Note 1.)
    • Manipulable.
  • "and eternal masses were paid for the souls of all who had died" Should that be 'paid for for ... '?
    • With a comma?
I wouldn't, but it's permissible if you wish.

Gog the Mild (talk) 19:00, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The House of Lords chose the Duke of York—as the King's closest adult relative—to command" "to command" is not, IMO, readily understandable as what you want it to mean. Can I suggest 'as Protector'?
    • Good idea, done.
  • Note 3: If you are going to use a word like "ecclesiast", could you link it?
    • Heh  :) linked.
  • Note 4: "Salisbury's "reckoning" of all the damage caused to his estates during the course of the feud". "the feud", what feud?
    • "...with the Percies".
Works for me.

Gog the Mild (talk) 21:25, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Often one of them would be appointed an umpire in case of a deadlock." Would they be appointed preemptively at the start of the process, or only if a deadlock arose?
    • Clarified that it was near the beginning, although can't say much more accurately than that I'm afraid.
  • "He summoned a great council to Westminster" Link "great council"?
I assume that it wasn't the curia regis?
You assume correctly. Only Wikiedia could use these names! Cheers for the spot.
  • "Henry ... led the parade[80] from Westminster to London. Leading procession were Somerset and Salisbury" So who led? And should that be 'a parade'?
    • True: How about he —joined his wife and nobles on a celebratory procession?
Good.

Gog the Mild (talk) 13:03, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Salisbury's son Sir John Neville was arranged to marry a ward of the Queen" Is there a better word than "arranged"?
    • They were, of course, betrothed, so odd not to just use the word!
  • "The Headmaster Paul Johnson" Headmaster?
    • Per, non-false title? "The headmaster", rather than "Headmaster Johnson".
Ah. My main point is why are we being informed that Johnson is a, or the, headmaster? Does this give his opinion additional weight. Is he also a parish councillor?
CLASSIC :D fair point. This stems from my perennial problem about having to quote various people for things I can't put in WP's voice, but then, of course, my imagination regularly fails me once I've used The scholar/The historian/The medievalist, etc. So that was an excuse to use something completely different. but you're right, his headmastership is pretty damned irrelevant  :) ——SN54129 13:12, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The scholar David Grummitt, the Loveday illustrated the" A few too many "the"s. Lacking a 'To'?
    • Yes: added a to, changed second "the" to a this.

That's it for my first run through. See what you make of it. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:14, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All good stuff, thanks very much Gog the Mild. Just a couple of queries, if you can opine. ——SN54129 15:05, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have inserted some opining. I shall no doubt be supporting, despite the lack of nuns, sieges, conjugal rights cases or the Sheriff of Nottingham being beaten up in an alley, but let me brood on it for a couple of days. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:28, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, very dull this one Gog the Mild. Still, you never know what's around the corner...murdered watermelons perhaps  :) Loved the crack about the parish councillor. ——SN54129 13:12, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We aim to please. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:35, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Further nit-picking edit
  • "The King's award" Lose the "The".
  • Johnson should be introduced at first mention - second para of The King's award.
  • I'm not sure about "The Loveday" as a section header and would welcome thoughts. IAR?

Gog the Mild (talk) 13:35, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

cheers Gog. Did them first two. Sigh. If we IAR on the third, it'll get continually changed back, so no point encouraging it...how about ==Loveday, 25 March==? ——SN54129 13:44, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose. Your usual painstaking job. Happy to support. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:48, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That "suppose" sounds grudging GtM!  :) If you prefer an IAR job on the header, I honestly don't mind. ——SN54129 13:53, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate the support though, many thanks! ——SN54129 13:54, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It was a little grudging, but only because you are right. "The Loveday" is clearer and less messy than something like "Loveday, 25 March", which I assume is why you went with it in the first place. I think that I would prefer to leave it; but you are correct, it would continually be changed and you're the one who would have to keep explaining. So "Loveday, 25 March" is probably least worst. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:57, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That was it. After all, the section is for the day itself, rather than "The Loveday", the broader topic. I'll ask others who may pop along though, a consensus to proactively use the def article would go a long way. ——SN54129 14:12, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wehwalt edit

Interesting article, not much to criticise:

  • " after his title of Duke of York.[note 1] The Duke of York felt increasingly excluded from government," I would separate the twice-given titles.
    • Excellent spot. I've split them up with a small date and changed to he.
  • "The House of Lords chose the Duke of York—as the King's closest adult relative—to command. " The word "command" makes it sound military, though I am sure that was a large part of it, is that the best word?
    • Agree with you both. Now "Protector".
  • "They wrote to Henry regarding their fears. They emphasised their loyalty to the King." Surely these sentences could be combined?
    • Of course, thanks! How about, They wrote to Henry regarding their fears, and emphasised their loyalty to him.
  • When you mention Calais, you might want to mention it was English-occupied.
    • Added a short footnote.
  • Is it "a Loveday" or "a loveday"?
    • I've gone through and capitalised where it's this particular loveday and lower-cased wheer discussion referes to lovedays generally or other lovedays.
  • "unhinderred" unhindered?
    • D'oh! Of course.
  • "Another probable consequence of the Loveday deliberations may have been that in May, Salisbury's son Sir John Neville was arranged to marry a ward of the Queen." was arranged? Is this OK in Britlish?
    • Yep, changed to betrothed.
  • "The Headmaster Paul Johnson" Should headmaster be capped? (also, are we using that term these days?)--Wehwalt (talk) 15:11, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've uncapped it. But not sure what other terms to use. Although it does remind me of "Ed Rooney, Dean of Students" sounding like he's Dirty Harry  :)
Thanks very much Wehwalt, always a pleasure! I think I've addressed your suggestions, hopefuly to your satisfaction. All the best! ——SN54129 15:05, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:37, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hope you're keeping safe, Wehwalt. Thanks for that though! ——SN54129 13:25, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thanks, hope you are too.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:05, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

  • The king's portrait has multiple alts
  • File:Old_St_Paul's.jpg: what's the original source of this image, and what's the author's date of death? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:03, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this, Nikkimaria—got rid of an alt, but went and got rid of the St Paul's pic totally. Swapped out for a contemporary image, which is more suited as it also shows a procession. I think I've cited it / licensed it OK? ——SN54129 13:12, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, looks fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:15, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot, as ever  :) ——SN54129 13:20, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Cas Liber edit

Taking a look now....queries below Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:49, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Intriguing topic..

Lead edit
  • First sentence - ...was a ritualistic reconciliation that took place at St Paul's Cathedral on 25 March 1458. - the word "reconciliation" to me begs to have a "between" and factions after it....
  • English politics had become increasingly factional during Henry's reign, and this had been exacerbated in 1453 when he became mentally incapacitated. - the "and this" comes across as a bit wonky. Am about to go to bed now but will have a think on how to rephrase...
  • By the 1450s, he felt increasingly excluded from government... - had to read this twice to figure out who "he" was...

Actually finding nothing much to complain about otherwise. Nice work. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:03, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber, that's good news! I dealt with your points the other day—in expectation of a further swathe! But if you like it, I like it  :) thanks very much for looking in! ——SN54129 13:25, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
all seems in order on comprehensiveness and prose Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:29, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Cassianto edit

The Loveday

  • "The immediate aftermath of the Loveday, however, was positive, not least for the Nevilles, as the King granted Egremont permission to go on a pilgrimage that June." -- Which June?
  • Note 8: Compared by who?

Nothing further, easily your best yet. CassiantoTalk

"Crikey"  :) cheers Cassianto, bloody good of you to look in! Dealt with your points, hopefully to your satisfaction. Hope you and yours are keeping safe and sound. ——SN54129 13:25, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from HaEr48 (support) edit

I think I reviewed this at GA - happy to see it in FAC. As mentioned before, it is well researched, well referenced and decently written. Some further feedback from me:

  • To give context for the general reader, I suggest mentioning/linking Wars of the Roses in the lead section (probably either in the last paragraph or the first). At least to help answer the question of "what period is this" for a first time reader.
Right, now opens the sentence Following the outbreak of the Wars of the Roses in 1455, it was the culmination of lengthy negotiations initiated...
  • in November 1454, the Percy sons were captured in battle: Only one Percy son was mentioned prior to this sentence, should we say "Thomas Percy and his brothers (possibly named here) were captured …"?
God idea, named and linked.
  • "but Percy and Somerset were bitter enemies of the Nevilles and York": Any reason why Percy is called Percy in this sentence but "Northumberland" in the preceding one? Suggest using the same name to make it easier to follow
For consistency, changed all to Northumberland (as everyone else is known by title rather than name).
  • When was the king released after being captured?
Clarified that although he was realistically a prisoner, he was treated with all deference to his rank, etc., so there was never a question of legally "releasing" him.
  • Suggest clarifying the relation of London and Westminster somewhere - this is not universally obvious. Maybe describe it when they were first mentioned together. Is Westminster a palace located near London? Or is it part of London? Some passages in the article suggest Westminster is part of London, (e.g. "In London, there was an ugly brawl at Westminster") but some parts suggest they're separate ("a celebratory procession from Westminster to London")
Added footnote wrt the separation and distance of the two cities.
  • Did the procession only consist of the 7 people named in the first paragraph of "The Loveday"? Or did it include more people (but unnamed)?
No idea, the sources only reveal the bare facts: but, realistically, yes, it would have been a holiday day of sorts, and I've added a sentence talking about medieval processions in general, and how they were popularly received.
  • Do we have any more detail on the procession, e.g. how long did they walk, what was the distance, and was the public there to see it?
See above (sort of).
  • " the King granted Egremont permission to go on a pilgrimage in June 1458": Can you clarify why this is such a big advantage? Where did he want to go, and why was it disallowed in the first place?
Well, the point is that the King granted Egremont to go on pilgrimage...it didn't mean that Egremont had asked to go!  :) He was being got rid of abroad to keep him out of trouble, basically. Have clarified that.
Ah I see. My bad, I misunderstood the sentence until I realized Egremont is from the opposite side of the Nevilles (sometimes I struggle with this reading the article). Thanks for adding clarifications!HaEr48 (talk) 15:10, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the award ignored and sidelined the original complaints of the Yorkists that they had argued led to the battle": what were the original complaints of the Yorkists?
Ha! Good one  ;) old time's sake, eh?!
Hold on, I don't understand, which complaints are these? HaEr48 (talk) 15:10, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In London, there was an ugly brawl at Westminster[114] between the Earl of Warwick's men and those of the Duke of Somerset: Can we add a date? was it still during the same sequence of events as the loveday gathering, or was it a separate event?
Yes, it was November the same year.
  • two years for the monks to say perpetual masses for the slain: Just curious, what does "perpetual" mean here if it's only two years?
This is real "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? stuff"  :) after a lot of searching, it seems that perpetual didn't actually mean perpetual, rather, however, long it was likely to be before the soul was allowed out of purgatory. So in this case, 90 quids' worth of masses might last 5 years, by which time the souls of the slain might be assumed to have gone upstairs. Or elsewhere, presumably.
Any way, and to cut a long story short, since the whole perpetualism of the mass (or otherwise) seems pretty irrelevant, I've omitted it, and just left "masses".
  • Note: I am planning to claim this review for Wikicup. HaEr48 (talk) 15:24, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks HaEr48, some really subtle themes you have had clarified there, many thanks! I would have pinged you, as GA reviewer, but wasn't sure if that would have been spamming. But glad you looked in anyway! Good luck in the cup, and keep yourself safe. ——SN54129 14:38, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Serial Number 54129: Thanks for your responses. Please see my small follow ups above, but I'm happy to support this excellent article. Regarding pinging, personally I don't mind getting pinged when GAs that I reviewed go for FAC, at worse I can just ignore it if I'm too busy/not interested. Nice job on this article, and likewise keep yourself safe too! HaEr48 (talk) 15:10, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass edit

  • Allen, Pushon, and Baker should have |degree = PhD like Baker, and not |type=PhD.
Done.
  • Why is Ross Dphil and not PhD?
Because he went to Oxford, and Oxford, Cambridge (and I think, York), just have to be different, don't they...
  • Griffiths (1972) has a stray "]".
Dead eye.
  • Griffiths (2004): the link is dead.
Very odd, I just paseted the same link back in and now it works!
OK, and now it does for me too.
  • Grummitt: Short Histories?
Done.
  • "Hicks, M." or "Hicks, M.A."?
Done.
  • Jewell: North-South.
Yeeeeas...done.
  • Lander: "MA" in full please.
Really?!
We don't do US Post Office abbreviations. Either in full or make a case for removing it. I wasn't aware of a conversation, but I don't see why an average, non-US, reader should be expected to have any idea what MA means, or even that it is a geographical location.
I assumed you'd point me to the MoS; for your future reference, MOS:POSTABBR is what you're citing. ——SN54129 15:39, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pollard (2004): Earl.
Done.
  • Booth: Society.
Done.
  • Storey, and Vale: "Stroud" → 'Stroud, Gloucestershire'.
Really?!
If you really object, I'll let it go.
It's unnecessary: historically, the only reason US places of publication are disambiguated isn't an idiosyncrasy, but rather because the US is over-represented with places that exist elsewhere in the publishing world (Cambridge being the most well known, but by no means the sole, example. Indeed, I'd be tempted, in the interests of consistency, to remove "MA/Massachusettes" from the citation and see how that aids the WP:READER, to whose erudition all our efforts should be directed, etc.).

Gog the Mild (talk) 11:42, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks for the review, Gog the Mild, all your perspicacious points dealt with, except for a couple which seem to be giving the MOS:HEADS their, err, head; but I might be persuadable wrt the spelling-out of US states—I remember there was a conversation about it somewhere, but not, I confess, the result. ——SN54129 14:51, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Picky" is the word you're searching for. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:17, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Brutal" suits me. I'll sort MA. Take care of yourself. ——SN54129 15:39, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The sources used all appear to me to be reliable. I am unable to find any other sources which would materially add to the content of the article. The sources referred to seem to support the text cited, insofar as I have checked them. I found no unattributed close paraphrasing. I consider the sources to be current, with one exception which I consider permissible. A reasonable mix of perspectives are represented. Everything that I would expect to be cited, is. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:47, 16 April 2020 (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) 20 April 2020 [22].

Marcian edit

Nominator(s): Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:50, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an Eastern Roman Emperor named Marcian, who ruled from 450 to 457; the article was previously nominated, with many suggesting it be run through by a GOCE copyeditor before renomination, which has been done. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:50, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass

All images are free, correctly licensed, and relevant. buidhe 03:43, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and support by A. Parrot, including source review edit

I've made several nit-picky copyedits, doing them individually so it's easy to revert one if you object to it. There were few problems with clarity, however, so I think the article is in very good shape overall.

  • "This marked the official abandonment of a rigid Danube barrier, which had been manned by Roman laeti…" I know this term is linked, but could it be briefly defined, so the reader doesn't need to click away from the article?
  •  Done
Thanks, but the explanation given makes one wonder what the distinction was between laeti and foederati. A. Parrot (talk) 16:54, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article alternates between "Sassanian" and "Sassanid", and it uses the spelling "Sasanian" once. Also, the Legacy section refers to Persia, a name not used anywhere else in the article, and not all readers will know that the Sasanians are Persia.
  •  Done
  • "…sent an embassy to Theodosius in 450, composed of his brother Hmayeak Mamikonian, Atom Gnuni, Vardan Amatuni, and Meruzhan Artsruni…" Is it necessary to list all of these people? And although Hmayeak is the brother in question, it looks a little odd to say "his brother" and then list a bunch of people. If you keep them all, perhaps you could say "…his brother Hmayeak Mamikonian along with…"
  •  Done
  • "He was remembered fondly by the people of Constantinople, who would shout "Reign like Marcian!" at the installation of future emperors." Does the source indicate at which coronations this happened? Did the public shout this only while some of them could personally remember Marcian, or did he become a byword for good government that lasted well beyond firsthand memory of his reign?
    Source seems to indicate it being a byword; sort of a Byzantine Felicior Augusto, melior Traiano. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 06:17, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The DIR page says "It is also clear that he steadfastly remained out of entanglements with the west. In that sense, Marcian's rule was the conceptual end of a universal--and unified--Roman Empire." I wouldn't want to cite this passage itself, given that your heavy reliance on this page was a source of criticism at the previous FAC, but do the other sources agree with it? Do they say something similar? A. Parrot (talk) 03:17, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    A lot of sources speak to Marcian arising during a time where East and West Rome were practically independent of each other, but only DIR speaks directly of Marcian being 'the end' of the unified empire, so I'm uncomfortable with citing such a thing with only DIR. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 06:17, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sensible, but do other sources describe Marcian's reign as marking any kind of change in the east–west relationship? A. Parrot (talk) 16:54, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@A. Parrot: Working on this, have made a number of small additions based on searches. Nothing huge so far, but does nicely round out the topic of the Western-Eastern Roman relationships. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:47, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. A few more general content-and style comments, followed by the source review:
  • The article favors the spelling Genseric, but Gaiseric is the spelling used in the WP article on him and in the Nathan source. I changed this spelling in one instance, but then I realized that the name appears a few more times in the article, in passages cited to sources that I can't access but that seem on the old side. Unless Genseric really is the more widespread spelling in the sources (including recent ones), I suggest changing it all to Gaiseric.
  •  Done
  • I still don't feel that the distinction between laeti and foederati is adequately explained. The passage in Friell & Williams that supports the text about them actually says the distinction was breaking down in Marcian's time, which seems a relevant topic to discuss.
  •  Done
  • I think it's worth emphasizing how much friction the Council of Chalcedon created between the Near Eastern churches, most obviously that in Egypt, and the imperial court, and that it was the seed of the split between the Oriental Orthodox Churches and the Eastern Orthodox/Catholic Church. You mention Nestorians fleeing to the Sassanian Empire, but the Oriental Orthodox split was even more consequential, even if it wasn't a firm break until long after Marcian's time. (The Bauer source cited in the relevant paragraph hints at this.) The WP article on Chalcedon has a detailed anecdote about an argument between Dioscorus and Pulcheria that led to Dioscorus's exile, although the sourcing for them leaves something to be desired; it would be interesting to mention if there are credible sources supporting it.
    Have significantly expanded on the tensions split. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:41, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • A minor point: the "Buildings" section uses "Eastern Emperor" several times, which seems superfluous; very few emperors who ruled the West ever had the opportunity to build in Constantinople, and all those under discussion here postdated the split.
  •  Done
Source review edit

I've spot-checked several of the citations and found few problems; those I did find are listed below. All the sources look reliable, with one exception. Some of the sources are older than I'd generally be comfortable with, but sources since 1980 or so predominate, and I know that classical studies haven't changed as much since the late 19th century as my own wheelhouse, Egyptology, has done.

  • Last time around, Squeamish Ossifrage pointed out problems with Dawes 1948. It's a collection of public domain texts, and the relevant one is a life of Daniel the Stylite. The Ossifrage's objections haven't been addressed; the entry in the bibliography really isn't specific enough, and why is a contemporary, or at least pre-modern, biography of a saint being used as a source for Marcian's foreign policy in the Caucasus? Aren't scholarly sources available for this?
  •  Done
  • Squeamish Ossifrage also questioned the heavy reliance on the Nathan source. The citation list has only expanded slightly since then, while the use of the Nathan source remains largely the same, but this may be less of a problem than it appears. Several of the citations to Nathan are bunched together with others, and I question whether those citations are actually necessary in every case. See a specific example below.
  • That aside, Nathan dates to 1998; that should be specified.
  •  Done
  • The original publication date for Pharr et al. is 1952; that should be noted (in the same format as the entry for Bury 2012/1889).
  •  Done
  • The citations for the last paragraph of "Conflict with the Huns" are odd. Nearly the whole paragraph is supported by one set of citations. Most of the text in that block seems to derive from Friell and Williams, but unless the pagination in your copy differs from that in this Google Books preview Citation 22 should be pp. 89–91 instead of just p. 89. The Nathan source (Citation 2) only treats this subject in a general way, and I'm not sure it's necessary to cite it here. Citation 23, to The Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire, seems to be to a page that's about the career of Ardabur (in this edition), and unless I'm missing something, it doesn't seem directly related to this block of text—it mentions Ardabur's defeat of unidentified barbarians in Thrace, but that's not mentioned here. If this citation is relevant here, can it be arranged to more clearly indicate which part of the paragraph it's related to?
     Done Fixed the pages. I think the general text of the Nathan source is pretty helpful as a sumnation of events; I've removed the The Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire source; unsure of why it was in there. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:54, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The wording of the quotation of the Chalcedonian Creed doesn't match the wording provided in the source.
     Done
  • Citation 43 lacks a page number, and the book it cited does not seem to use Arms Trade as part of its title. A. Parrot (talk) 04:41, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The Arms's Trade bit is actually a chapter of the Book; I've adjusted the parameters to match this; it also doesn't have a page number because its an online edition; unless you'd prefer me to call it page one, which I'm not opposed to, although I don't really think it neccesary. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:54, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Final comments edit

@Iazyges: Sorry to drag this out any further, but I have a few final points. I'm very close to supporting, don't worry!

  • The translation of the Chalcedonian Creed hasn't changed, and it still conflicts with the translation in the cited source.
    Made an edit before which appears to have not gone through; have made the edit again to fix it. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 03:15, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The text about the Chalcedonian split is still thorny. For one thing, the text uses the label Monophysite, which Miaphysites reject; for another, the Oriental Orthodox Churches, which descended from the Miaphysites' split with Constantinople, should be linked here.
  •  Done
  • This text is questionable: "Even after these revolts were put down, the popular dissatisfaction with the Eastern Church among the Monophysitic and Nestorian population remained, as the eastern provinces became increasingly convinced of their need for independence from the Eastern Roman Empire. This would lead to long-lasting disloyalty toward the Byzantine government among the eastern provinces, ultimately facilitating the loss of these provinces to the Sassanians and later to the Arabs." Recent scholarship I've seen on the Islamic conquest of Egypt suggests (with good reason, I believe) that internal religious conflict wasn't necessarily a major factor in the speed and success of those conquests. That position may not be the consensus in the field yet, but the idea that "the eastern provinces became increasingly convinced of their need for independence from the Eastern Roman Empire" seems pretty extreme, and it's based on a source that's more than 60 years old.
    Have modified it to specify that this is the opinion of Vasiliev, rather than a universal belief. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 03:15, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I should have said something about this earlier, but in the section on economic and legal policy, do we have any examples of the expenditures that Marcian cut? The sentences that follow don't actually list any. Given that repairing the empire's finances was one of Marcian's most important achievements, more detail here would be welcome. A. Parrot (talk) 23:54, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't been able to find any real detail about the expenses that he cut, other than the cessation of tribute. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 03:15, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support. On a personal note, I knew very little about events in the Eastern Empire in this period, so it was good to read a solid article that helped fill that gap. A. Parrot (talk) 04:55, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild edit

Nb. It is my intention to use this review to claim points in the WikiCup.

This is a marker, I'll get back over the next couple of days. I have looked at this a couple of times already, so my review may be brief. I shall no doubt do some copy editing as I go; shout if any of it causes alarm. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:43, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Marcian took advantage of the resulting fragmentation of the Hunnic confederation, settling numerous tribes within Eastern Roman lands" Maybe 'by settling', no comma?
  •  Done
  • "Marcian had reached the rank of tribune." Could we have a brief in line explanation of what "tribune" means? Eg 'Marcian had reached the rank of tribune, a middle ranking officer.'
  •  Done
  • "He did not see action in the war itself having become ill in Lycia" Delete "itself", replace with a comma.
  •  Done
  • " Despite being Alanic" You need to explain to a reader why being Alanic was a handicap.
  •  Done
  • "comparable to that of Stilicho in the Western Roman Empire" As Stilicho has not been introduced and a reader does not know how much power he held, I don't see the point of this. Suggest deleting it.
  •  Done
  • "After his capture, he is not mentioned again" Is "he" Marcian or Gaiseric? Either way, suggest replacing "he" with their name. Done

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:55, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The Eastern Roman Empire had been plagued" Suggest "had been" → 'was'.
  •  Done
  • "to pay 350 pounds (160 kg) of gold every year" Optional: "every" → 'each'.
  •  Done
  • "In the face of Eastern Roman weakness, the Huns doubled their demand, asking for 700 pounds (320 kg) of gold per year, which Theodosius agreed to; the threat the Huns posed to the weakly protected Eastern Empire was enough that Theodosius recalled a large number of his forces from Africa." A bit long for a single sentence.
  •  Done
  • "Theodosius refused to pay the tribute and continued to do so until 439" That's a little unclear. Suggest "do so" → 'refuse'.
  •  Done
  • " In the spring of 440, 1,100 ships set sail from Constantinople for Africa, twice the size of the fleet that Emperor Justinian would send a century later." 1. To be grammatically correct, you need to add something like 'which was twice the size ... ' And what is a reader to make of this mention, out of the blue, of an event 100 years later. Either explain it or delete it - recommended: If you can source it, just say something like 'extraordinarily large for the time'.
  •  Done
  • "but this is thought to be merely propaganda created by Marcian's supporters after his election" Do we really need "merely"?
  •  Done
  • "This has led many historians to suggest a deal was made whereby Zeno would be rewarded for supporting Marcian and not attempt to have himself made the emperor" Could you give the prose from Lee where they state that "many" historians hold this view. Thanks.
    Appears I made a general assumption that many historians did; fixed. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:32, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "indicative of further separation between the Eastern and Western Roman Empires" Further than what? This hasn't been mentioned before.
  •  Done
  • "Marcian took a much tougher stance against the Huns" "much"? Do the sources support this?
  •  Fixed
  • "although both Pulcheria and Flavius Zeno were opposed to Chrysaphius' influence, which may have motivated Marcian's actions." This seems out of place. Maybe something like

    The election of Marcian in 450 resulted in large changes to eastern imperial policy. Chrysaphius, the eunuch and spatharios (guard of the imperial chambers), who had exercised much influence over the young Theodosius, was either murdered or executed. Both Pulcheria and Flavius Zeno were opposed to Chrysaphius' influence, which may have motivated Marcian's actions. Marcian took a much tougher stance against the Huns and a more direct role in ecclesiastical affairs. For these reasons, some historians consider him the strongest, or at least most independent, Eastern Roman emperor.

  •  Done

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:35, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sections: Why is "Reign of Theodosius II" under "Reign [of Marcian]"?
  •  Done
  • Ditto "Rise to the throne"?
  •  Done
  • "Marcian reversed Theodosius' policies" All of them? Suggest either specifying which in this sentence or inserting 'some of'.
  •  Done
  • "some Franks, Burgundians, and Ostrogoths" Is that some Burgundians and some Ostrogoths; or just some Franks? Either way, the grammar needs changing.
  •  Done
  • "resulted in massive losses on both sides" "massive" is a bit 'word to watchy'. Optional: → 'very high'.
  •  Done
  • "Aetius dismissed his coalition of barbarians" Suggest deleting "of barbarians" It is a bit PoV and doesn't really add anything.
    Replaced with "tribes". Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:32, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "into the almost entirely undefended Italy" → 'into Italy, which was almost entirely undefended.'
  •  Done
  • "He was likely motivated by his desire for revenge" "his → 'a'.
  •  Done
  • Link lines of communication.
  •  Done
  • "Aetius was unable to launch an attack on Attila" Either briefly explain why he was unable, or just say 'did not'.
  •  Done
  • "coupled with the famine that Italy was suffering" "the" → 'a'.
  •  Done
  • "and enslave it entirely" "enslave" seems an odd word. Optional: → 'conquer' or 'overrun'.
  •  Done
  • "starting first with the rebellions of the Ostrogoths" Delete the first "the".
  •  Done
  • Link Lower Moesia.
  •  Done
  • Link Scythia.
  •  Done
  • Link Dacia
  •  Done
  • "various tribal people" Should that be 'peoples'?
  •  Done
  • "induced to serve the East Empire" Eastern.
  •  Done
  • "both the Eastern and Western Roman Churches" I don't think there was an Eastern Roman Church. → 'both the Eastern Church and the Western Roman Church'
  •  Done
  • "The decision considered most objectionable by the Eastern and Western Roman Churches" → 'The decision considered most objectionable by both churches'
  •  Done
  • "which held enormous religious importance to the early church" "to" → 'for'.
  •  Done
  • "The council also agreed to condemn Pope Dioscorus I of Alexandria" Could we insert 'Coptic', ie 'The council also agreed to condemn the Coptic Pope Dioscorus I of Alexandria' and link Coptic Pope.
  •  Done

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:33, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Valentinian also did not recognize the Eastern Roman consul—Marcian for 451, or Sporacius for 452" Just those two, or both consuls for those years? Just those years? Ie, did he recognise Eastern consuls in other years?
    Just those two (the other counsul would be West Roman), and just those years. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 03:44, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The issue of Eastern authority would prove a point of contention between Eastern and Western Christianity." When?
  •  Done
  • Refs: the sfn for Nathan are incorrectly set up, and do not link.
  •  Done
  • Refs 51 and 58 should be "pp.", not "p."
  •  Done
  • The two Vasiliev works should be in date order.
  •  Done

That's all from me. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:19, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments edit
  • "a group considered Barbarian by" Lower case b.
  •  Done

Otherwise I am happy with the various changes. Give me a day or two to read through it again. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:50, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have done a little copy editing. Could you flag up here if you are unhappy with any of it.

  • Lead: " allowed Marcian to bribe Attila into retreating from the Italian peninsula. "
  • Main body: "allowing the Western Roman Empire to bribe him into retreating to his homeland"
  • Which?
  •  Done
  • "He mandated that the praetorship must be given to senators residing in Constantinople" Could you explain what this means in English?
  •  Done

Iazyges A few additional points above for your consideration. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:40, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: Done. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:10, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Flows well. A complicated reign, and set of sources, rendered intelligible. Good work. Supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:23, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Hawkeye7 edit

This is a fine article, and I support its promotion to featured article status. I have read through it multiple times, and have no issues. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:45, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by CPA-5 edit

  • Marcian (/ˈmɑːrʃən/; Latin: Flavius Marcianus Augustus Unlink Latin.
  •  Done
  • After a month of negotiations Pulcheria, Theodosius' sister --> "After a month of negotiations Pulcheria, Theodosius's sister"
    If a noun ends with s you put an apostrophe after the s, not a 's, so s' is the correct form. I have crossed out further suggestions that are just this. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:21, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@CPA-5: That is solely for a silent s at the end of the word; as this article notes, Greek has very few if any silent letters, so it will basically never apply to Greek names; they are also generally pretty uncommon in English. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:11, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@CPA-5: It is largely left up to the editors choice, as the common usage in English is to avoid adding on an extra s; the license granted by "If the singular possessive is difficult or awkward to pronounce with an added sibilant, do not add an extra s; these exceptions are supported by The Guardian,[25] Yahoo! Style Guide,[26] and The American Heritage Book of English Usage.[27] Such sources permit possessive singulars like these: Socrates' later suggestion; or Achilles' heel if that is how the pronunciation is intended." is pretty enormous. I disagree with the concept of using a double s, so I won't use it in articles that I'm the sole writer of. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:38, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@CPA-5: Do you think the article is otherwise ready? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 03:37, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Flavius Zeno was given the prestigious rank of patrician Remove Flavius because it's already mentioned the sentence before.
  •  Done
  • and Flavius Zeno were opposed to Chrysaphius' influence Same as above and an extra "s" after "Chrysaphius'" should be written.
  • reversed some of Theodosius' policies --> "reversed some of Theodosius's policies"
  • before meeting Aetius' forces at the Battle of the Catalaunian Plains --> "before meeting Aetius's forces at the Battle of the Catalaunian Plains in Northeast Gaul" and why is "Northeast" capitalised?
    Fixed capitalization. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:21, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Attila retreated to the Hungarian plain, and Aetius dismissed Wait about which Hungarian plain are we talking about the Little or the Great?
  •  Done
  • He then raided across northern Italy, taking Milan --> "He then raided across northern Italy, taking Mediolanum (Milan)"
  •  Done
  • After returning to the Hungarian plain Again which Hungarian plain?
  •  Done
  • Can you explain what a foederatiis in the body because you explained it in the lead, and it is odd to see not see it in the body? Same with laeti.
    It is explained below foederati, sub-states that provided troops in exchange for Roman support. and laeti, barbarians settled directly in Roman land in exchange for military service. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:21, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Egypt to Roman Egypt.
  •  Done
  • long-lasting disloyalty toward the Byzantine government Just curious how a Byzantine government looks like? Isn't it like a council? If so then government is a little bit the wrong word to use.
    It's an empire with essentially more aggressive feudalism, with the church and state strongly linked, and different levels of government closely tied together. The only form of council would be the Byzantine Senate, but they have little to no actual power. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:21, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe standardise Eastern Roman Empire and the Byzantine Empire.
  •  Done
  • Vardan II Mamikonian, who was leading a revolt against the Sassanian Empire Where near the border because in his article states he was an Armenian. So the revolte was in Armenia?
    In the lands of Armenia, but which were nominally held by the Sassanian Empire empire. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:21, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Marcian risked the anger of the Sassanians to strike against the king of Lazica --> "Marcian risked the anger of the Sassanians to strike against the King of Lazica"
  •  Done
  • who would not recognize him until March 452 This sentence in the "Relationship with the Western Roman Empire" section is a repeat of the same sentence a couple sections before?
    I don't see this sentence anywhere else? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:21, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Valentinian would have attempted to depose Marcian, but for Aetius' opposition --> "Valentinian would have attempted to depose Marcian, but for Aetius's opposition"
  • which may simply be a muddling of Aetius' campaign Same as above.
  • Due to Euphemius' influence over foreign policy Same as above.
  • whereas the Suda states that Emperor Justin II What is the Suda?
  •  Done
  • How do we know he was 65 when he died while his birth date is unknown?
    The 65 is not backed in the sources, likely a holdover from the old dates. I have removed it. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:21, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay that's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:16, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CPA-5: Done all. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:21, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks good to me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 16:51, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments bySupport from Borsoka edit

Great article.

Lede edit
  • Introduce Ardabur and his son Aspar as military commanders.
  •  Done
  • Flavius Zeno, a military leader whose influence was similar to Aspar's, agreed to help Marcian to become emperor in exchange for the rank of patrician. The statement is not verified in the main text (the text in sub-section 2.2 Rise to the throne writes of the possible role Zeno played in M's ascension).
    A holdover from when main text said this before it was removed for not being said in citation. Fixed.
  • Marcian reversed many of the actions of his predecessor, Theodosius II, in religious matters and in the Eastern Roman Empire's relationship with the Huns under Attila. I suggest: Marcian reversed many of the actions of his predecessor, Theodosius II, in the Eastern Roman Empire's relationship with the Huns under Attila and in religious matters. (The sentences after this statement follow this sequence of events.)
  •  Done
  • Link Hungarian plain to Great Hungarian Plain.
  •  Done
  • the Council of Chalcedon ... reversed the outcome of the earlier Second Council of Ephesus and declared that Jesus had two natures: divine and human. The Council of Chalcedon did not reverse the Second Council of Ephesus, but condemned it. (The source cited to verify this statement in sub-section 3.2 Religious policy does not support the claim either.)
  •  Done
  • Mention the consequences of the Council of Chalcedon in the lede (the alienation of the masses of Egyptians and Syrians, who did not accept Chalcedonian Christology), because it would have important consequences.
  •  Done

....more to come. Borsoka (talk) 11:18, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Early life edit
  • Consider linking Illyria to Praetorian prefecture of Illyricum (in the age, Illyria was a not well-defined region and the Illyrian emperors hailed from many parts of Illyricum, not only from Dalmatia).
  •  Done
  • Despite being Alanic,... He was actually half-Alanic and half-Gothic (Friell, Williams (2005), pp. 45, 75).
  •  Done
  • ...a group considered barbarian by much of the Eatern Roman Elite... Delete: the article is not about Aspar and the Alans may have been considered barbarians by the Eastern Roman elite, but Aspar was born in the empire.
  •  Done
  • Some sources give a likely false account... Consider changing to Evagrius Scholasticus, Procopius and later authors give a like false account..., as per WP:WEASEL.
  •  Done

....more to come. Borsoka (talk) 15:52, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rise to the throne edit
  • Marcian had served Aspar's father Ardabur loyally for fifteen years and had served Aspar for some time. The cited source says that M. served Ardabur and Aspar for fifteen years.
  •  Done
  • This was due possibly to negotiations between Aspar and Pulcheria, Theodosius II's sister, who agreed to marry Marcian. The cited source says that the one-month interregnum was due to negotiations and one of those negotiations was possibly conducted with Pulcheria.
  •  Done
  • Despite being married to Marcian, Pulcheria kept the vow of virginity she had made in 413, at age 14, during her three years of marriage to him. I did not find the text that verifies this statement in the cited work.
  •  Done
  • Their marriage helped to legitimize Marcian's rule, as Pulcheria's family, the Theodosian dynasty, had direct ties to the throne. Consider moving it to directly follow the sentence about their marriage. I think the text "as Pulcheria's family ... to the throne" should be deleted: we are informed that she was the last emperor's sister. Do we need to repeat the information just to link "Theodosian dynasty"? If we want to link that article, we could add a "See also" section at the bottom of the main text.
     Done I think the theodosian dynasty bit is helpful in explaining why the marriage was so important, as imperial ties were a huge part of the legitimacy of a new emperor/usurper. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 07:44, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider mentioning that Pulcheria is thought to have agree to marry Marcian only after he had promised to abandon Theodosius II's religious policies and convoke a Church council in this section. [Lee (2013), p. 104.]
  •  Done
  • It is possible negotiations were also needed between Flavius Zeno, who was in a similar position of military power, and Aspar. Zeno was given the prestigious rank of patrician upon Marcian's ascension in 450. This has led some historians, such as A. D. Lee, to suggest a deal was made whereby Zeno would be rewarded for supporting Marcian and not attempting to have himself made the emperor. Consider the following text, as per WP:WEASEL: Historian Doug Lee proposes that negotiations were also needed between Aspar and Flavius Zeno, who was in a similar position of military power. Zeno was given the prestigious rank of patrician upon Marcian's ascension, suggesting a deal whereby Zeno was rewarded for supporting Marcian instead of claiming the throne for himself.
  •  Done
  • Consider mentioning that Zeno died in a year. (Lee (2013), p. 98)
  •  Done
  • Consider mentioning that Aspar's son, Ardabur "was promoted to a high military command soon after Marcian's ascencion" (Lee in the Cambridge Ancient History, page 43.)
    Gone one step further; in politics this was mentioned but I've moved it up to here as it is relevant. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 07:44, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Marcian was elected without any consultation with the Western Roman Emperor, Valentinian III, which has been viewed as indicative of further separation between the Eastern and Western Roman Empires than before his reign. Consider changing: Marcian was elected without any consultation with the Western Roman Emperor, Valentinian III—clear indicative of further separation between the Eastern and Western Roman Empires than before his reign. We do not need to present the second statement as a PoV. It is quite obvious and nothing indicates that any scholars have challenged it.
  •  Done
  • Consider mentioning the proposed exact date of Marcian's recognition by Valentinian in the main text (not in a footnote). It is quite relevant.
    Done, I've also done my best to explain that it is a matter of dispute between the two. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 07:44, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 453, Marcian had his daughter from a previous marriage, Marcia Euphemia, marry Anthemius, the future Western Roman emperor. Why is this mentioned in connection with the Western Roman Emperor Valentinian III? Anthemius was a patrician in the Eastern Roman Empire, as far as I know with no connection with Valentinian or the Western Roman Empire until he was sent to Rome to seize the throne more than a decade later. If we mention the marrieage here, we suggesting a connection between Marcian's recognition by Valentinian and the marriage, although - as far as I know - they are not connected.
  •  Done
  • Delete the young - Theodosius was almost fifty when he died.
  •  Done
  • For these reasons, some historians consider him the strongest, or at least most independent, Eastern Roman emperor. I did not find the source verifying this claim. Lee says that Marcian "can appear as a stronger figure than many other fifth-century incumbents of the imperial office", but he does not support this claim. If there are historian who consider him the strongest (?) or most independent Eastern Roman Emperor, they should be named, but Lee's doubts should also be mentioned.
  •  Done

....more to come. Borsoka (talk) 02:00, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict with the Huns edit
  • Almost immediately after becoming emperor, Marcian reversed some of Theodosius' policies, revoked all treaties with Attila and proclaimed the end of subsidies. Consider changing to Almost immediately after becoming emperor, Marcian revoked Theodosius' treaties with Attila and proclaimed the end of subsidies. We are informed that he changed everything in the previous section.
  •  Done
  • Consider changing ...he would be repelled... to ...Attila would be repelled....
  •  Done
  • Consider shortening the text about Hunnic-Western Roman relations. I think we should really shortly be informed about the following facts and events: 1. the Huns' dependence on tribute and loot (which is the principal reason of their constant wars or demand of tribute); 2. the first Hunnic invasion of the Western Roman Empire (because it prevented Attila from attacking the Balkans), and 3. the Hunnic invasion of Italy (because it enabled Marcian to invade the Huns' heartland). A too detailed storyline prevents us from understanding the Leitmotif.
    IMO the extensive text on the relationship is necessary because it dominates Marcian's reign. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 08:06, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • My concern is that we are informed about lots of events, but their relevance in the context of Marcian's life remains obscure (WP:Summary style). Why do we need to list lots of barbarian tribes, who did not play any role in Marcian's life? Why do we need to mention towns in Gaul and Italy which had nothing to do with Marcian? The core information is that Attila had no time to deal with the Eastern Roman Empire, because he was waging war against the Western Roman Empire. Borsoka (talk) 08:18, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's important for giving the context of the conflict; the locations of where the war was being waged are very important for the empire, east and west. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 10:03, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Gaul and Italy. We should give the context of Marican's life and rule. From this perspective, lengthy sentences about faraway conflicts are disturbing. We should make it clear what is their relevance in the context. Would you mention the details of battles fought against the German invaders in the Soviet Union during WWII and would you list the ethnic groups fighting in the Red Army in an article dedicated to Roosevelt's or Churchill's life. No. Borsoka (talk) 11:17, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Marcian forcibly settled multiple peoples in the recovered European provinces: the Rugians in eastern Thrace, Sciri in Lower Moesia and Scythia, Gepids in Dacia and others, as foederati, sub-states that provided troops in exchange for Roman support. The source cited to verify the sentence writes of Marcian and his successors and does not write of forced settlements of the barbarian groups. (When writing of force, Friell and Williams clearly refer to Attila, instead of Marcian). A recently published book, not cited in the article - Elton, Hugh (2018). The Roman Empire in Late Antiquity: A Political and Military History. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-108-45631-9. - makes it clear that during Marcian's reign only groups of Goths were allowed (and not forced!) to settle in Pannonia Prima and Pannonia Valeria provinces. (The two sources cited in the article also mention only the Goths clearly in connection with Marcian.)
  • Page 172
  •  Done
  • This marked the official abandonment of a rigid Danube barrier, which had been manned by Roman laeti, barbarians settled directly in Roman land in exchange for military service. The source cited to verify the text actually writes that Marcian tacitly abandoned the idea of restoring the rigid Danube that had existed before the emergence of Attila. I am not a native speaker, so I may be wrong, but I think the text quoted from the article does not reflect the cited source.

....more to come. Borsoka (talk) 16:24, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would say a tacit abandonment in official policy makes it an official abandonment; its somewhat semantical but the meaning is much the same. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 08:06, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The text suggest that Marcian withdrew Roman troops from the lands along the Danube and declared that he did not want to recover them. The cited source writes that the Roman troops had been withdrawn from the lands along Roman frontier decades before Marcian and Marcian did not make attempts to restore Roman rule there, but the source does not imply that he whenever declared that the Romans abandoned their claims to those lands. (And this is the difference between a tacit and an official abandonment.) Borsoka (talk) 08:18, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done
Religious policy edit
  • Shortly before Marcian became emperor, the Second Council of Ephesus was held in 449. Despite the intention that it be ecumenical it was marred by what both the Eastern Church and the Western Roman Churches saw as heretical beliefs, causing both to refuse to recognize the decisions of the council. The decision considered most objectionable by the Eastern Church and the Western Roman Churches was on the matter of Christology. The council stated that Jesus had one divine united nature, called miaphysis, which went against both churches' belief in the hypostatic union. I think the text is loose and contains OR. 1. First of all the sequence of the sentences should be changed. We learn about the negativ reception of the council's decisions before we are informed about their core. 2. The terms "Eastern Church" and "Western Roman Church" are not defined (remember most Syrian and Egyptian bishops supported the decisions of the council). Neither are they verified in the cited sources. I would rather say that both the Pope and the Patriarch of Constantinople rejected the doctrine adopted at the council. 3. I would avoid the use of the term "ecumenical" in the context. After 431 the use of the term is in itself a PoV: the Second Council of Ephesus is not regarded ecumenical by Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Christians, while Chalcedon is refused by the Syrian, Armenian, Egyptian and Ethiopian Churches. 4. Which source verifies the use of the term "miaphysis"? 5. Consolidate references No. 25 and 26.
  •  Done
  • The council was to take place near Constantinople so that Marcian and Pulcheria could watch the proceedings closely. I think the sentence is closely paraphrased, but does not properly reflect the cited source which does not say that Marcian and Pulcheria wanted to "keep a close eye on proceedings" at the council. I think the cited source simply wants to say, that the imperial government wanted to keep the council under control (but I am not a native speaker).
    For English to watch something closely generally means to ensure that it goes the way you want it to; so I think it works well in the example. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 08:38, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The cited source does not write of Marcian and Pulcheria, it uses a general term referring to the imperial government. Borsoka (talk) 08:59, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
     Done
  • ...the Danube, which was being raided by the Huns under Attila. The sources cited to verify the sentence does not write of raids (and we are informed in the previous section that the Huns launched two invasions against the Western Roman Empire in this period). The cited source refers to the strained relationship between the Hunnic and Eastern Roman Empires.
  •  Done
  • Consider mentioning that the elevation of the See of Constantinonple was offensive for the Patriarchs of Alexandria. (Bauer (2010), p. 122.)
  •  Done
  • Consider mentioning that the fact that Marcian enacted the doctrines adopted at the council shows that they were not universally accepted. (Lee (2013), p. 148)
  •  Done
  • One such edict ordered the repression of Eutychianists, barring them from holding state offices, forbidding them from criticizing the Council of Chalcedon, and ordering their literature, along with that of the Nestorians, to be burned. Consider summarizing this statement without introducing new and unexplained terms like "Eutychianists" and "Nestorians". If we want to link the two terms to this article we can mentioned them in a "See also" section.
    I think the introduction are somewhat necessary for later usage. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 08:38, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The anti-Miaphysite resolutions of the council led to a large increase in civil disruption in the eastern provinces of Syria and Egypt, where the majority of the population was Miaphysitic. The work cited to verify the statement does not contain the terms "anti-Miaphysite" and "Miaphysitic" (or any similar term).
    A matter of semantics actually; Vasiliev as an Eastern Orthodox man refers to them as Monophysites, whereas the Miaphysites reject being called such; he is definitely referring to the Miaphysites however. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 08:38, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to the Byzantist Alexander Vasiliev,... and Vasiliev states that... Why are the statements that follow these introductions are presented as Vasiliev's PoV? I have not read a single book about Eastern Roman, or Byzantine, history that contradicts Vasiliev's statement. Could you refer to one?
    I think the claim that it "ultimately facilitating the loss of these provinces to the Sassanians and later to the Arabs". is a pretty strong stance to take, so stating that this is a belief of Vasiliev adds clarity. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 08:38, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...Eastern Church... A loose term. Consider using the term imperial/official/state church.
  •  Done
  • ...the Miaphysite and Nestorian population... The work cited to verify the statement does not use the term "Miaphysite" (or any similar term).
    As per above. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 08:38, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The separation of the Miaphysites from... Does Meyendorff use the term "Miaphysites"?
    Same point as with Vasiliev. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 08:38, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... the Western and Eastern Churches.... Loose terms (Syria and Armenia are located to the east of Constantinople). Consider using the term "churches accepting Chalcedonian doctrine", or similar.
  •  Done
  • Due to his piety, ... Herrin does not verify this introduction. She rather suggests that Marcian's comparison with David and Paul was flattering by his courtiers.
  •  Done
  • Consider introduce Paul as "the apostle Paul" and "David" as the "Biblical king David" (there are billions of people in the world to whom these two first names do not suggest anything).
  •  Done
  • ...later religious figures. Some example?
  •  Done

....more to come. Borsoka (talk) 03:31, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Economic and legal policy edit
  • Consider linking "senator" to Byzantine Senate#Admission and composition.
  •  Done
  • Marcian laid out many legal reforms in his five novels, or codes of law, many of which were targeted at reducing the corruption and abuses of office that had existed during the reign of Theodosius. 1. I think the statement is not verified by the source cited. 2. The cited source is a translation of primary sources. We need a secondary source, or at least a footnote in the cited source to refer to it as per WP:SOURCE. 3. If the sentence were verified, it would be a good introduction of the list of his decrees after the sentence "Marcian attempted to improve the efficiency of the state in multiple ways." in the previous paragraph. 4. Consider deleting the word "many" and the expression "many of which were" from the sentence as per WP:WEASEL.
  •  Done
Politics edit
  • Change Anthemius, the future Western Roman emperor to a talented military commander, Anthemius, who descended from an aristocratic family. At the time of marrying Marcian's daughter, Anthemius was "only" an aristocrat and a talented general. (Dzino, Parry (2017), p. 258.) Of course, we should shortly mention Anthemius' future carrier in the "Death" section, but it is not relevant in this context.
  •  Done
  • ...dictated policy directly... Close paraphrasing?
  • Despite Aspar's great influence, the Eastern Roman elites retained much of their anti-German sentiment. Marcian patronized the Blues... This is a sudden change of subject - there is no connection between the two statements.
  •  Done
  • [The Blues} were one of the original four circus teams. The two teams that remained had become more like political parties than sports teams by his time, wielding large influence in the empire, the other being the Greens; both vied for power 1. The cited source does not verify this statement. 2. We do not need to mention that once there were four circus demes, because during Marcian's reign there were only two of them (WP:Summary style). 3. Link the expression to "Deme#Later usage" (not to "chariot racing").
  •  Done
  • Consider changing dynastic motivations to "political/personal motivations" (close paraphrasing and for a non-native speaker the adjective "dynastic" is surprising in the context).
  •  Done
  • Consider changing Chrysaphius to the once powerful/disgraced/murdered eunuch, Chrysaphius (to help readers to identify him soon).
  •  Done
Foreign relations edit
  • Are you sure that the cited sources verify the paragraph? Jones, Martindale, and Morris does not mention the details of the Vardan II Mamikonian's embassy (although they are cited to verify). The two Mamikonians and Hmayeak Mamikonian's partners are not mentioned by Mikaberidze.
  •  Done
  • If the sentences referring to the following persons are verified, introduce them: Vardan II Mamikonian and Gubazes I.
  •  Done
  • Marcian was counseled by Anatolius and Florentius not to make war with the Sassanians and thus did not agree to help them. [This text is verified!] Introduce , Anatolius, Florentius. Why did the two men dissuaded Marcian from waging war against the Sassanids? Why did Marcian accept their advice?
  •  Done

....more to come. Borsoka (talk) 13:10, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relationship with the Western Roman Empire edit
  • When Marcian was elected in 450, it was done without consulting the Western Emperor, Valentinian III, who would not recognize him until either March 451 or March 452; Marcian's appointment marked a further stage of separation between the Eastern and Western Roman Empires. Duplicated info. Delete it either from section Rise to the throne, or from here. WP:Summary style does not allow us to repeat the same information in the same article.
  •  Done
  • Change ...Excerpta de insidiis... to ...John of Antioch's Excerpta de insidiis.... Do we know whether this is a chronicle deemed to be reliable by historians?
  •  Done Unfortunately I've not been able to locate a source that directly
  • References to footnotes in the cited books are not consequent (compare references No. 64 and 65.)
    @Borsoka: Uncertain what this means? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:43, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Valentinian also did not recognize the Eastern Roman consul—Marcian for 451, or Sporacius for 452. This is not a proper summary of the cited source. It writes that Valentinian did not recognize the consuls of the Eastern Roman Empire for the years 451 and 452, and Valentinian also "seems to have refused to acknowledge Marcian until 452".
  •  Done
  • Marcian also radically changed Eastern Roman policies, especially in relation to the Huns,[53] without consulting the Western Roman Empire, which infuriated Valentinian. We have been informed about the change. Consider Marcian's unilateral change also radically changed Eastern Roman policies, especially in relation to the Huns,[53] without consulting the Western Roman Empire, which infuriated Valentinian. 1. The first part of the sentence is a repetition of a fact already mentioned. (Furthermore, page 98 of the cited work verifies it again.) 2. The second part of the article is based on a book published by Quercus publishing. Is this a peer-reviewed book. As far as I understand anybody who has an agent can access to publishing at Quercus ([23]). Furthermore the statement is highly problematic: Marcian stopped paying tribute to the Huns who were preparing for an invasion of the Western Roman Empire, thus risking a Hunnic invasion of the Eastern Roman Empire. Why his step outraged Valentinian? I suggest the whole sentence should be deleted. If the second part of the sentence is kept, it should be presented as Potter's PoV, with a reference to Potter's profession.
    I did not check the publisher for Potter's book because I recognized him as being reliable; his decision to publish the book commercially rather than academically seems to have been good for him, but unfortunately makes it unusable here. I've removed the entire sentence. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:43, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Introduce Hydatius.
  •  Done
  • Does Grant explicitly write of Marcian settling the Ostrogoths in Pannonia and the Gepids by the Tisza? Especially the reference to the Gepids is strange: the lands to the north of the Danube along the Tisza had been outside Roman control for almost two centuries. Could the settlement of South American refugees in New England outrage the government of the UK?
    He does: ...and when he granted part of Pannonia to the Ostrogoths and the Tisza region to another people, the Gepids, he was accused of encroaching upon the borderlands between eastern and western Empires. (Grant, p. 307) I've changed "settled" as it was in the article to "granted" as it was in the source, as I think granted implied he allowed them to live there without harassment, but also did not fully control them, which settled would imply. Not 100% sure why the Western Roman Empire got mad about this, but perhaps they thought the introduction of new groups close to their border would cause new problems. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:43, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...the Eastern Roman Empress, Licinia Eudoxia and her daughters Placidia and Eudocia She was Western Roman Empress. Consider changing to ...the Dowager Empress, Licinia Eudoxia and her daughters by Valentinian III, Placidia and Eudocia.
  •  Done
  • Around this time, Marcian made peace with Lazica and settled the Ostrogoths and other tribes along the Danubian frontier, both of which would allow him to direct his attention elsewhere. We have been informed about the settlement of Ostrogoths in Pannonia three times. Furthermore, we have just been informed that the settlement of the Ostrogoths outraged Valentinian. Now we are informed that the Ostrogoths were likely settled in Pannonia after Valentinian's death. Please clarify what happened when and avoid duplicating/triplicating the same info.
  •  Done
  • Is Maximus identical with Petronius Maximus? Consider using his name consequently or introduce Petronius Maximus as an emperor.
  •  Done
  • ...a century after the fact... For a non-native speaker the term "fact" is strange in the context. Maybe "event/episode"?
  •  Done
  • The issue of Eastern authority would prove a point of contention between Eastern and Western Christianity... 1. Almost the same (but slightly different) info is already mentioned in the section. 2. This is Consider changing to Authority over the Church/Supreme church authority in the Eastern Roman Empire would prove a point of contention between Rome and Constantinople... (the ancient Eastern patriarchal sees of Antioch and Alexandria were also outraged by the elevation of the see of Constantinople).
  •  Done
Death edit
  • Consider mentioning that he had problems with his legs and could not walk at the end of his life (based on these symptoms Meijer suggests gangrene).
  •  Done
  • [Anthemius] did not have any connection to the Theodosians and thus would not be considered legitimate.... Neither did have Leo I any connection to the Theodosians, so this is not an explanation.
    Added explanation. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 21:03, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anthemius would later become the Western Roman emperor. Consider mentioning that Leo I sent Anthemius to Rome to seize the imperial throne.
  •  Done
A final suggestion edit

I think the article is really close to FA. I accept your concerns regarding some of my above proposals. My final suggestion is about a summary of the Christological debates of the early 5th century. Several concurring Christologies are mentioned and even some prominent theologians, but but we are not informed about the core of the debate. I think Lee provides a good summary. He presents the two principal theological schools, the Alexandrian and Antiochene, and explains the main differences between them. (Lee (2013), p. 137.) I propose a summary based on his work which could be a good introduction to section Religious policy. Thank you for your patience. Borsoka (talk) 14:10, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Borsoka: Done. Thank you so much for your incredible effort and suggestions. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:33, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Legacy edit
  • Some later scholars... Consider naming some, as per WP:WEASEL. Borsoka (talk) 14:24, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sources edit
  • The chapter cited from Cambridge Ancient History was written by A. D. Lee. Use the proper template to attribute the work to him.
    Does this mean the entire CameronWard-PerkinsWhitby2001 reference should be A. D. Lee instead? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 03:06, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The chapter cited from The Oxford Handbook of Byzantine Studies was written by Clarence Gallagher. Use the proper template to attribute the work to him.

 Done

Infobox edit
  • In the infobox, Pulcheria is mentioned as his successor. Nothing verifies this in the main text.
  •  Fixed
  • What is the source verifying his full name?
  •  Done
  • Did he whenever styled himself as "Augustus of the Eastern Roman Empire"? Is there any reliable source using this title? It looks like a WP-invention.
    It's mostly a matter of differentiating the Eastern and Wester emperors; all of them would have the title Augustus, but there's commonly a reference to them as being a "Western Roman Emperor" or a "Eastern Roman Empire". In Wikipedia, this takes the form of his styled title of Augustus followed by "of the Eastern Roman Empire" as a measure of geographical area, rather than the full title. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 06:57, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    If it is only a WP invention, we should delete it, as per WP:NOR. Borsoka (talk) 07:15, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not an invention of Wikipedia, but of the sources. He's often referred to as the "Eastern Roman Emperor" by sources; although he certainly never called himself that. Along the same lines as the fact the Byzantine Empire never called themselves the Byzantine Empire, but they are universally known as such. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 08:07, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Does any source cited in the article uses the term "Augustus of the Eastern Roman Empire"? Borsoka (talk) 08:26, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Several of them call him Emperor of the Eastern Roman Empire; Fik Meijer, for instance, calls them the Emperor of the Eastern Roman Empire. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 08:53, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I have never questioned it. However, which of them uses the term "Augustus of the Eastern Roman Empire"? Borsoka (talk) 08:56, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    A source doesn't need to say that Marcian specifically was called Augustus of the Eastern Roman Empire; all Eastern emperors were. Every Wikipedia article on Roman emperors has this. Because that was their title; sources merely use Emperor of the Eastern Roman Empire because its less complex, and means exactly the same thing. The precedent behind its use is enormous. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 10:01, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    So it is a WP-invention: none of the Eastern Roman Emperors are mentioned as "Augustus of the Eastern Roman Empire" by academic sources. We are not here to create titles. What about simply mentioning his title Augustus? Borsoka (talk) 10:59, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    His title is Augustus, but only really Augustus of the Eastern Roman Empire; he wasn't a sole Augustus, he had no real authority over the Western Empire. I don't think the distinction between Augustus and Emperor is significant enough to actually matter; it means the same thing, but he would have called himself Augustus. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 11:07, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I do not like WP-inventions. If academic sources do not style him as "Augustus of the Eastern Roman Empire", neither can we use the title. I raised the issue on the Talk page of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome. Borsoka (talk) 11:41, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Borsoka: Favor for Emperor of the [x] Empire over Augustus of the [x] Empire seems overwhelming, I have corrected it here. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 21:06, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the source verifying his regnal name?
  •  Done

* Comments Support from Norfolkbigfish edit

Just nitpicking at the moment, feel free to ignore

  • domesticus, assume it is Latin so domesticus
  •  Done
  • Ardabur and his son Aspar – who are they?
  •  Done
  • patrician – what does it mean, language tag
  •  Done
  • patrician – language tag, perhaps punctuation is better than parenthesis for explanation
  •  Done
  • seven million solidi – is this a lot? Whats a solidi?
  •  Done
  • Enlisted – is the term correct for the period, would join be better?
    Enlisted actually works better, though this may only be true for the Roman Empires. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:49, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tatianus and Iulius are dead links, can we explain something about them
    What has been said about them is all that is known about them, unfortunately. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:49, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Up to Background, more to come Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:10, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From Rise to the throne

  • Chastity (and link) rather than virginity might be better
    I'd like to use chastity but almost all sources use virginity so I'm inclined to use it also. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 08:50, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • had direct ties to the throne isn't this supefluous, her being the previous Emperor's sister
    Helps set up the following sentences, even if it is superfluous, IMO. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 08:50, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • if Attila was loyal, loyal would seem to be the wrong word, frendly, peaceful, allied??
  •  Done
  • Comes et Magister Utriusque Militiae dead link
  •  Done
  • battle involved around 100,000 men how do we know?
    Sources estimate so. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 08:50, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • anyone should be any one
  •  Done
  • foederati, laeti, need language tags
  •  Done
  • ecumenical needs explanation
  • Has been removed. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 08:50, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • repression of Eutychianists and anti-Miaphysite terms probably need explanation
     Done
  • vir illustris language tag?
  •  Done
  • humilis dead link
    Not anything easy to redirect it to, hopefully the article will be made at some point. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 08:50, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmayeak Mamikonian, dead link
  •  Done
  • C. E. Stevens, Geoffrey Nathan, dead links. Also are these guys particularly notable? If yes, perhaps it needs expaning why. If no, is it worth attributing these opinions to a named source?
    They're all historians who could at some point have articles; don't really consider it a negative to have red links for now. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 08:50, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • while at a long religious procession surely on procession rather than at?
  •  Done
  • Marcian was received, would regarded be more appropriate than received?
  •  Done
  • Heptaconch Hall dead link
  •  Done
  • Some maps might help understanding of the geographic dsecription?
    For what parts? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 08:50, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not an area of which I am familiar but good work.

Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:02, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support—nice work Iazyges Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:50, 10 April 2020 (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) 20 April 2020 [24].

George Washington and slavery edit

Nominator(s): Factotem (talk) 10:47, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relatively little attention has been given in the sources to the subject of George Washington and Slavery in comparison to other aspects of the life of a founding father and first president of the US. This article draws primarily on the three books and four papers that focus specifically on the subject, supplemented with information from general histories that cover the subject in varying degrees. Factotem (talk) 10:47, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the estate map and ad
  • Some images are missing alt text
  • File:GW-painting.jpg: source link is dead
  • File:List_of_George_Washington's_taxable_property_in_Truro_Parish_Virginia_including_slaves_1788.jpg needs a US PD tag
  • File:Slave_Memorial_-_Mt._Vernon,_Virginia_-_Stierch.jpg should include the date of the original memorial. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:27, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Estate map doubled in size, alt text added, dead source link resurrected and date of original memorial added to image info on Commons. Factotem (talk) 09:20, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not quite sure how to correctly address the PD tag issue for the list of taxable property. As effectively a tax return, I would assume this is part of the Federal Govt and therefore in the public domain. I have, however, added a PD-USGov-Congress tag to the licensing info on Commons, based on the fact that the document is held by the Library of Congress. Is that acceptable? Factotem (talk) 09:20, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That tag is intended for works created by LOC, not held by them. Is the authorship of the list known? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:51, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK. There's no specific attribution, but logically it can only have been Washington himself, or possibly an agent of his. I also cannot find anything that would suggest a publication date. Grateful for any advice you might be able to give, otherwise I'll just remove it from the article. Factotem (talk) 12:56, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
After a little more digging, I have found the following:
  • The list is part of the collection of Washington's papers (source: Library of Congress, on whose website it is published). As such, can we make the assumption that the author is Washington, in which case PD-old-70 would apply?
  • The papers had all come into government possession by 1849, and the Library of Congress released microfilm reproductions in 1964 and digitised images on its website in 1998 (source: https://www.mountvernon.org/library/digitalhistory/digital-encyclopedia/article/george-washingtons-papers/), so failing the above, is there a license relating to a government-published document owned by the government, even if not originally created by it? Factotem (talk) 14:51, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be fair to assume the author died over 100 years ago, which would probably be the simplest solution. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:35, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I've replaced the LoC lic tag with PD-old-70 and added a statement about the assumption of authorship to the Commons info. Thanks for your help. Factotem (talk) 18:40, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Anythingyouwant edit

I will start with just a few comments, and maybe later will comment more.

  • Per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#Opening_paragraph, the first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what, or who, the subject is, and should be in plain English. Here, the lead sentence says, "The relationship between George Washington and slavery was complex, contradictory and evolved over time." The vocabulary is in plain English, but I'm not so sure the gist is plain English. The lead sentence basically says it's all a muddy mess, and does not even hint about whether he owned slaves, whether that was unusual in his social context, and whether he evolved from opposing slavery to supporting it or vice versa. I would suggest something like "George Washington and slavery coexisted in the Virginia culture where he grew up, and his Mount Vernon plantation relied heavily upon slave labor, but in the 1780s he privately advocated the abolition of slavery, and later commanded in his will that his slaves be set free." Tons of info is packed into a lead sentence like that. Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:44, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point. I will work on this. Leads are always difficult to get right, and it will take some time. Can you bear with me please? Factotem (talk) 11:36, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, take your time, there’s no deadline. Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:30, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've recast the lead to better introduce the topic. It means losing the bolded title usually included in that sentence, but per MOS:FIRST and MOS:BOLDAVOID, this requirement is not set in stone. How does that look to you now? Factotem (talk) 14:50, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks much better to me, I made a few minor tweaks. Regarding a bolded part of the lead sentence, the guidance is as follows: “If possible, the page title should be the subject of the first sentence.[3] However, if the article title is merely descriptive—such as Electrical characteristics of dynamic loudspeakers—the title does not need to appear verbatim in the main text.” I don’t care a lot one way or the other, but am not sure it’s impossible to use the article title. Keep in mind that we’re just getting started here, so it would not be out of the question to modify the article title if that would facilitate its use in the opening sentence. Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:57, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can suggest this, without any title change: “George Washington and slavery coexisted; he was a slaveowner his entire adult life, but became uneasy with an institution that was ingrained in the economic and social fabric of his native Virginia, and ultimately provided for the emancipation of his slaves in his will.” Then bold the first four words. Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:08, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That GW & slavery co-existed is self-evident and doesn't need stating. I think we should avoid trying to shoe-horn the title in just so that there's something to bold. That's how I ended up with the now rejected first sentence, and anyway MOS:BOLDAVOID advises against that. Factotem (talk) 16:19, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I agree. The rule says, “If the article's title does not lend itself to being used easily and naturally in the opening sentence, the wording should not be distorted in an effort to include it.“ Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:26, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I gave this another try. Feel free to revert. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:13, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's still stating the obvious in the first sentence, and "apprehensive" in the second is not at all an accurate way of describing it. The only way I can see of getting the bolded title into the first sentence is with "The relationship between George Washington and Slavery was complex, contradictory and evolved over time. He was a slaveowner..." This is basically the same construction as your now reverted edit. The advantages are that it allows the bolded title in a naturally flowing, accurate sentence. The disadvantage is that it does not state off the bat that GW was a slaveowner, per your original objection, but the few people in the world who don't know that quickly learn it in the very next sentence. Factotem (talk) 09:42, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It’s kind of tedious to dwell on the first couple sentences, but it usually turns out to be worth it. We can come back to it, maybe others will be able to cut the knot. Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:00, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed Factotem (talk) 13:09, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Food for thought: “George Washington and slavery paired a man known for advancing human freedom with its antithesis....”. This is the central contradiction of this article. Anythingyouwant (talk) 10:02, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Washington owned slaves from age eleven until his death at sixty-seven. Over that lifetime he set not one single slave free, nor did he ever publicly lend his weight, either in terms of his considerable personal reputation or the high office he held, to the abolitionist cause. I don't think it's appropriate to state in the very first sentence of an article on this topic that GW was known for advancing human freedom. Factotem (talk) 09:27, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, it is the central paradox of this article. Historians take that view as well: “[H]ow is it that the Revolution preserved slavery? George Washington, the slaveholder who led the war for liberty, personifies that paradox.” Wiencek, Henry. An Imperfect God; George Washington, His Slaves, and the Creation of America, p. (2013). “The challenge, for a colonial historian at least, is to explain how a people could have developed the dedication to human liberty and dignity exhibited by the leaders of the American Revolution and at the same time have developed and maintained a system of labor that denied human liberty and dignity every hour of the day. The paradox is evident at many levels if we care to see it….Virginia produced the most eloquent spokesmen for freedom and equality in the entire United States: George Washington, James Madison, and, above all, Thomas Jefferson. They were all slaveholders and remained so throughout their lives.” Morgan, Edmund. The Challenge of the American Revolution (1978). Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:39, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, but my objection to the wording still stands. What about "It is the paradox of George Washington and slavery that the man who successfully fought a war in the name of liberty owned slaves his entire adult life."? Factotem (talk) 11:31, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, although he was just getting started by winning the war. He also won the peace, by presiding over the constitutional convention and serving as president, in both instances establishing a very stable federal government that respected the political liberty and individual liberty of non-slaves. So maybe tweak it to say, "It is the paradox of George Washington and slavery that the man who successfully fought a war and established a government in the name of liberty also owned slaves his entire adult life.” But if you don’t like that, then your version would work, IMHO. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:32, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Seems that between us we've come up with quite a neat solution. Thanks for that. I'm not sure the short first para has any basis in guideline, and don't see the problem in merging the current first two paras, but meh. Factotem (talk) 14:52, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for working through it. Regarding the current two-sentence opening paragraph, I like it broken from the second paragraph for two reasons. First, the rule says “The first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being too specific.“ The current second paragraph is much more specific, containing several dates and other numbers. The second (stylistic) reason why I like the first paragraph as-is is because it gives a roughly chronological introduction, and the second paragraph starts again with the eleven-year-old Washington, whereas combining the two paragraphs would make the reader jump back and forth in time. By the way, I’m traveling for the rest of this week, but will try to come back to this FAC upon returning home (assuming a virus-free trip!). Cheers. Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:52, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • As for the rest of the opening paragraph, Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#Opening_paragraph says it should be written "without being too specific." If that guidance were more closely followed, I think the opening paragraph would be quite a bit shorter. Therefore, I would suggest moving this stuff out of the lead: "He put his slaves to work on his Mount Vernon estate, which in time grew to some 8,000 acres (3,200 ha) encompassing five separate farms, initially planting tobacco but diversifying into grain crops in the mid 1760s. Washington's early attitudes to slavery reflected the prevailing Virginia planter views of the day; he demonstrated no moral qualms about the institution and referred to his slaves as 'a Species of Property.'" The size and structure of Mount Vernon gets into the weeds, and naming the specific crops does not obviously illuminate his relationship to slavery, so consider moving it out of the opening paragraph. I would remove the quote about "a Species of property" entirely from the lead, because that is merely how slavery was defined, and it also seems kind of unbalanced to use this as the sole GW quote about slavery in the lead when he said so much else about it during his life. Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:44, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I will cut some of the detail about Mount Vernon's development, but the transition from planter to farmer was a significant point in the evolution of Washington's attitude to slavery and warrants a mention in the lead. You make a good point about the quote - I'll cut that. Factotem (talk) 11:36, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:57, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having three or four paragraphs in the lead is fine, but they are presently too long, and ought to be cut approximately in half, IMHO. Overly long paragraphs are hard to read. Much of this material could be moved out of the lead, and perhaps out of the article entirely to the extent that it merely describes the typical condition of slaves during the History of slavery in Virginia. I recall reading that James Madison equipped his slaves with umbrellas, and if Washington did anything unusual like that, then it would be more suitable for this article's lead. Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:44, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see what I can do about reducing the length, but the narrative about the slaves' condition at Mount Vernon is every bit a part of the subject as the evolution of Washington's attitudes to the institution. That slave narrative, as it relates specifically to Washington, is covered at length in the sources, most notably Thompson's work and the Mount Vernon website. To exclude that aspect from this article would be a failure to meet the FAC criteria (1b. comprehensive), and the coverage in the main body of the article is significant enough to warrant coverage in the lead, per MOS:LEAD.Factotem (talk) 11:36, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, I won’t suggest excluding any of it from the article body, it’s just a question of how much to put in the lead. Covering it in the lead is fine, if it’s not too long. A lot of generic material about slavery can go in this article body, and you can also link to it in the lead using “History of slavery in Virginia”. The lead should summarize the article’s main points in a nutshell. So the issue is whether you can convey how horrible slavery was without going into so much detail. Consider this material: “Field slaves were provided with a set of clothes each year which, due to the nature of their work, were quickly worn out. Domestic slaves who attended the Washingtons and came into regular contact with visitors were better clothed.“ Wouldn’t all of that have been just as true of paid workers? Keep it in the article body if you like, but for the lead it seems like too much. At most, it would seem sufficient to say in the lead that the slaves were often poorly clothed, if that was the case, and then all the detail can go in the article body. Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:39, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite sure what you're getting at with linking History of slavery in Virginia in the lead, which you've mentioned twice now. Everything in this article about the slave condition is specific to Washington's slaves, and I'm not sure what value linking to a generic article, which is anyway linked to as a hatnote at the beginning of the Background section, will bring. I do see what you mean about the second para in the lead though - I was never quite happy with that myself. I will look into reworking it to be a little more summary and a little less detail. Factotem (talk) 21:10, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've trimmed the detail from the sentences you've cited. Any better? Factotem (talk) 21:18, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You’ve said in the lead that his views reflected prevailing Virginia planter views of the day. Did his practices, that you describe in the lead’s second paragraph, likewise reflect prevailing practices at comparable Virginia plantations of the day, or were there substantial differences? Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:12, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good question and similar to the point raised by JohnWickTwo below. From memory, the only distinctions that spring to mind is Washington's recognition of slave marriages, which weren't recognised in Virginian law, and his later reluctance to sell slaves at a public venue or separate families by sale. Those are already covered in the article. I'll check through the sources tomorrow to see if there's anything that can be added on that subject. Factotem (talk) 22:29, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, if stuff in the second paragraph of the lead reflected general practice, then I think that ought to be briefly mentioned at the start of the second paragraph. My preference, though, would be to start the second paragraph by saying his practices matched general Virginia practice, but with limited exceptions such as X, Y, and Z (i.e. remove run-of-the-mill stuff from the second paragraph and only include the stuff Washington did differently). Both the run-of-the-mill stuff and the aberrations could go in the article body. Anythingyouwant (talk)
I'm not sure I understand what you're driving at here. The narrative in the main body about the slave condition, in the "Slavery at Mount Vernon" section, represents approximately one third of the article. Per MOS:LEAD and WP:WIAFA 2a, it is a requirement to summarise that in the lead. Factotem (talk) 13:10, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever you put in the lead about the practice of slavery at Mt. Vernon, the reader should be told whether it’s typical or atypical. Same for the article body. I personally find the atypical stuff more interesting, more revealing about Washington, and therefore more useful to put into this article. That’s all. Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:19, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done, insofar as the sources identify this info. Factotem (talk) 15:47, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Anythingyouwant (talk) 10:02, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have scanned through the main source on that aspect and added information in the main body about how Washington's practices compared with general practice. I've also recast the 2nd para of the lead to better summarise the key points of the "Slavery at Mount Vernon" section, including a mention about general practice. Factotem (talk) 13:10, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The external links give only one link to mountvernon.org but it might be very useful to list and briefly describe the relevant web pages at mountvernon.org. For example, this description of his changing views should definitely be in the external links, IMHO. Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:44, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. Added. Factotem (talk) 11:36, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:57, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is currently a hatnote containing three links: “Main articles: George Washington, Slavery in the colonial United States, and Slavery in the United States”. It would be better to work these links into the lead. Per WP:Hatnote: “Mention other topics and articles only if there is a reasonable possibility of a reader arriving at the article either by mistake or with another topic in mind....Ideally, limit hatnotes to just one at the top of the page or section. Multiple hatnotes may be appropriate when they serve different purposes, such as disambiguating topics with similar names and explaining redirects.” Moreover, per Template:Main, “When a Wikipedia article is large, it is often written in summary style. This template is used after the heading of the summary, to link to the subtopic article that has been summarized....Use of this template should be restricted to the purposes described above.” Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:34, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hatnotes removed and their links now embedded in the lead narrative. Factotem (talk) 14:54, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this article has a lot of FA potential. My comments so far have focused on the lead. I have to bow out for a while at least, so I hope other editors will go ahead and make suggestions regarding the body of the article. Take care. Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:15, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately it looks as though this candidate is headed for the archive bin for lack of reviewers. But thanks for your input; it has generated improvements. Take care & stay safe. Factotem (talk) 10:01, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I’m probably going to oppose FA as the lead stands now. The lead paragraph is much too long, the lead sentence is awkward, Washington is not wikilinked on first use, the article title could easily be used in bold within the first sentence but is not, and the article omits pertinent and well-sourced material about the paradox of fighting for liberty while engaging in slavery. It’s an interesting article, I just don’t think it’s the best of the best. But I will wait and see what happens before definitely opposing the gold star. Cheers. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:32, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Per MOS:LEAD, the lead summarises the most important details of the article. The guidelines on length are vague, and in a c.9,400-word article there is inevitably much ground to cover. Washington is not linked on first use per MOS:BOLDAVOID. Factotem (talk) 10:38, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article devotes the first paragraph of the American Revolution section to the paradox (and does so thanks to the input in these reviews). The question of how Washington, having fought a war in the name of liberty, could still tolerate slavery is discussed throughout the article, examples being:
  • as a slave owning farmer in the "Confederation years" section ("Washington did not let principle interfere with business; he still needed labor to work his farms, and there was little alternative to slavery.") and the "As Virginia farmer" section ("In addition to political caution, economic imperatives remained an important consideration with regard to Washington's personal position as a slaveholder and his efforts to free himself from his dependency on slavery.");
  • as president in the "As President" section ("He had a keen sense both of the fragility of the fledgling Republic and of his place as a unifying figure, and he was determined not to endanger either by confronting an issue as divisive and entrenched as slavery". Factotem (talk) 10:38, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's unfortunate that I cannot convince you that the article is worthy of a star, but I do appreciate the time you've given to reviewing it. Thank you. Factotem (talk) 10:38, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record, here are the first two sentences that I propose:

George Washington successfully led a war in the name of liberty, but it is the paradox of Washington and slavery that he owned slaves his entire adult life. He became uneasy with an institution that was ingrained in the economic and social fabric of his native Virginia, and ultimately provided for the emancipation of his slaves in his will.

This would be followed by a paragraph break. And here is the first sentence in the article now:

George Washington was a Founding Father of the United States and slaveowner who became uneasy with the institution of slavery but provided for the emancipation of his slaves only after his death.

The current opening paragraph is seven sentences long, instead of two as I propose. Maybe an RFC? Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:11, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I think it's time to close the review now. FWIW I feel the "paradox" wording suggests an essay rather than an encyclopedic entry, and the first sentence as it is (and as given immediately above) works pretty well. OTOH there might well be an argument to to make this first sentence a standalone paragraph, as it establishes immediately and by itself the main thrust of the article, whereas the following sentence and after is more in the way of background. I don't think that should be a deal-breaker for anyone though, so will leave that to post-promotion action (or not). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:41, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JohnWickTwo edit

A short comment about the narrative style and your general approach. Its currently an interesting theme article which might use a general reading with an eye to tighten the narrative in places. For example, the phrase "Any hopes Washington may have had that his example...", could be simplified to "Washington's concern that his example...". Also, there has been a 6-hr biographical miniseries about Washington on the History Channel that just aired which dealt in part with his relationship to antebellum slaveholding. It might be of interest to readers if a section were added to the article which dealt with Washington's viewpoint in comparison to the other Virginia slaveholders, like Jefferson and other Founding Fathers. JohnWickTwo (talk) 17:59, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to address any issues with the prose, but the example you provided is written that way specifically to reflect what the sources say. Wiencek writes, "Washington may have believed that, given his immense prestige, his will would have some lasting influence on the debate over slavery." Hirschfeld writes, "Perhaps it had been hoped that Washington's example of benevolence toward his slaves would carry over to other members of his family." Neither definitively state that Washington actually intended his act to set an example, which is why I have phrased it in the same speculative way the sources have rather than the simpler version you suggest.
To address your other points:
  • As much as I enjoy dramatised documentaries designed for popular consumption, I don't think they're the kind of high quality, scholarly source expected at FAC;
  • I will have another scan through the sources I have, but from memory, very little mention is made in the secondary sources of any comparison between Washington and other Virginia/Founding-Father slaveholders. Factotem (talk) 21:09, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Hurricanehink edit

I came here because I have an FAC up on Cyclone Chapala, and figured I should review someone else's article. I'm an American, getting that bias out of the way.

  • The opening sentence seems a bit dramatic for an encyclopedia entry, specifically the 4th word "paradox", which only appears in the first sentence. I feel like there's a better way of introducing that. I see there was a discussion above on it, and I'm not a huge fan of the wording. Maybe introduce it as "George Washington, the first President of the United States, was also a slaveowner." Short, sweet, unambiguous, and undramatic. The second sentence is good though
Other than the unnecessary "also", I'm inclined to agree. @Anythingyouwant: any thoughts? Factotem (talk) 16:18, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for pinging me. Of course, here's what the lead says now:

It is the paradox of George Washington and slavery that the man who successfully fought a war in the name of liberty owned slaves his entire adult life. He became uneasy with an institution that was ingrained in the economic and social fabric of his native Virginia, and ultimately provided for the emancipation of his slaves in his will.

I agree with User:Factotem and User:Hurricanehink that discussion of a "paradox" looks odd if it's only in the opening paragraph. So, regardless of what is done with the opening paragraph, I recommend paraphrasing the following material (already provided above) in the body of the article (with the two footnotes):

  • “[H]ow is it that the Revolution preserved slavery? George Washington, the slaveholder who led the war for liberty, personifies that paradox.” Wiencek, Henry. An Imperfect God; George Washington, His Slaves, and the Creation of America, p. (2013).
  • The challenge, for a colonial historian at least, is to explain how a people could have developed the dedication to human liberty and dignity exhibited by the leaders of the American Revolution and at the same time have developed and maintained a system of labor that denied human liberty and dignity every hour of the day. The paradox is evident at many levels if we care to see it….Virginia produced the most eloquent spokesmen for freedom and equality in the entire United States: George Washington, James Madison, and, above all, Thomas Jefferson. They were all slaveholders and remained so throughout their lives.” Morgan, Edmund. The Challenge of the American Revolution (1978).

As to whether the lead should be re-jiggered, I agree that it would be nice to get a link to GW in the lead sentence, as long as we also use the title in bold per usual Wikipedia practice, maybe like this: "George Washington successfully led a war in the name of liberty, but it is the paradox of George Washington and slavery that he owned slaves his entire adult life." Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:40, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for dropping by again. How the Revolution preserved slavery is not the concern of this article. How Washington approached the subject is, and is (I believe, otherwise I would not have submitted it to FAC) comprehensively covered in the article. The question of how Washington the farmer was able to preserve slavery is answered by the facts that his business was dependent on slavery and he did not have the cash to emancipate them. The question of how Washington the president was able to preserve slavery is answered by the facts that he believed it could be abolished only gradually by legislative means and that the unity of the nation was more important than resolving an issue that threatened to divide it. This is all covered in the article. Factotem (talk) 16:10, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hurricanehink suggests putting into the lead sentence that Washington was the first POTUS. I think it's much more relevant that he led a war in the name of liberty, and the sources cited in my previous comment seem to bear that out. In any event, it would be wise to include something in the lead sentence that briefly introduces Washington by stating one of his main accomplishments. Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:47, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My concern here is that the first sentence leans towards the wider question of how the Revolution fought in the name of liberty preserved slavery rather than the contradictions in Washington's attitudes towards the institution. I suggest the following:

This complies with the MOS:LEADSENTENCE and MOS:LEADPARAGRAPH guidelines by setting out the subject in a nutshell, rooted firmly in the content of the article itself. Identifying that Washington was a Founding Father establishes his significance without having to choose between POTUS or general. It also allows us to meet the bolded title tradition, which is not a requirement, at least half way. Factotem (talk) 10:48, 4 April 2020 (

The statement about slavery being ingrained into colonial Virginia is, I think, worth keeping, and can be moved to the the start of the next sentence. Factotem (talk) 10:48, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, I would point out that Morgan's work addresses that wider issue more than the specifics of Washington's position, and lists only four pages in the index for Washington (and the two of them that I can view in gbooks preview are pretty much passing references). Wiencek does indeed link the wider issue to Washington's personal position, but his work is squarely focused on the personal position. Factotem (talk) 10:48, 4 April 2020 (UTC) UTC)[reply]

Both Hurricanehink & I have said the second sentence of the lead is fine, you did a good job on it, and it says “He became uneasy with an institution that was ingrained in the economic and social fabric of his native Virginia, and ultimately provided for the emancipation of his slaves in his will.” So, my advice would be to leave it as-is.
Regarding the first sentence of the lead, I still think it is much more relevant that he led a war for liberty, than that he was a founding father. Slavery, after all, is the opposite of liberty. Readers would like to know if George Washington was a hypocrite for supporting liberty but also practicing slavery, or at least how he dealt with that apparent paradox. Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:56, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think the proposed sentence by Factotem works well, as his role as founding father refers to both his status as president and his role in the revolution, and it provides a good summary. I was waiting on commenting to see how you would resolve the first paragraph, which remains my main issue with the FAC. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:32, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The story of Washington and slavery as discussed in the sources that deal specifically with that subject is not about the question of how a man who led a war in the name of liberty could own slaves. It is about the evolution in the attitude of a man who went from unquestioning acceptance of the institution to disillusion with it, but retained slaves anyway. The article reflects that, and now the consensus appears to be that the Founding Father sentence I proposed properly introduces the article, per MOS guidelines. I'm going with that. Factotem (talk) 16:55, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Much appreciated. I wonder whether the first sentence needs a comma or two - after "slaveowner" and "slavery" is what I'd suggest personally. I think the lead is a lot stronger than what it was. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:40, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I did consider commas, but I don't think they work. Certainly, commas after slaveowner and slavery would create a parenthetical clause where none should exist. Factotem (talk) 19:48, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In adulthood his personal slaveholding increased through inheritance, purchase and natural increase, and he gained control of dower slaves belonging to the Custis estate on his marriage in 1759 to Martha Dandridge Custis." - because you don't use the oxford comma in the first part of the sentence, it becomes a rather lengthy sentence. I suggest you split it into two to improve the writing.}}
Agreed & done. Factotem (talk) 10:24, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • " He provided his slaves with basic food, clothing and accommodation comparable to general practise at the time but not always adequate, and with medical care." - the "medical care" part feels like an afterthought, but it could arguably be mentioned alongside food/clothing/accommodation
"comparable to general practise at the time but not always adequate" does not apply to the medicalcare, hence separation. Factotem (talk) 10:24, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and as another source of income, feigning illness and running away." - I'm probably reading this wrong, but how can feigning illness be another source of income? The wording is unclear
No, I think I read it the same way once or twice during reading through. Amended to read "by feigning illness, and by running away." The "by" reinforces the comma in separating the items in the list. Work for you? Factotem (talk) 10:24, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yea that works. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:47, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Washington's first doubts about slavery surfaced in the 1760s, when the transition from tobacco to grain crops at his Mount Vernon estate left him with a surfeit of slaves, prompting him to question the economic viability of slavery. " - this could be clearer why exactly the economics of the situation changed. Also, you you use the term "surfeit of slaves" three times in the article. Is that normal terminology when referring to a number of slaves? I realize it's long out of practice, but IDK, I had to look up what that word was. I'm all for fancy writing, as long as the average reader doesn't get lost
I replaced surfeit with surplus throughout. Is that also enough to clarify what changed about the economics? I'm hesitant to expand on that in the lead as it would be too much, I think, for the lead. Factotem (talk) 10:24, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Surplus works better. As for the economics, I was thinking something like - "Washington transitioned his estate from tobacco to grain crops, which left him with a surplus of slaves; this prompted him to first question the economic viability of slavery." IDK, some wording like that would more clearly explain the sequence/narrative. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:47, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've thought long about this. The key point here is that Washington's first misgivings about the institution of slavery were based entirely on economic considerations. That's the first step in the sequence that the rest of the paragraph details. Leaving it until the end of the sentence weakens the prose, IMO. How about "Washington's first doubts about slavery were entirely economic, prompted by his transition from tobacco to grain crops in the 1760's which left him with a costly surplus of slaves." Factotem (talk) 18:21, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yea I think that's much stronger. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:40, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he initially refused to accept blacks, free or slave," - ehh, really?
Not sure what the issue is here. If it's the use of the term, then I've been very careful throughout to replicate the terms used in the sources. Factotem (talk) 10:24, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, it's an issue with the term. Is "blacks" really the best term to make it non-biased and encyclopediac? Later in the article you say the much more appropriate "African Americans". ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:47, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not being a part of that history, I'm only vaguely aware of the difficulties of terminology. One difficulty, as I understand it, is that a newly imported slave was an African, not an African-American. If this is a major issue then I can revisit it, but believe me, I know this is a minefield, which is why I was fastidious in using the term used by the source (and which is why African-American is sometimes used). Factotem (talk) 16:03, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, I'm sorry to be a stickler, but it doesn't sit right with me. Even the article on Black people says "For many other individuals, communities and countries, "black" is also perceived as a derogatory, outdated, reductive or otherwise unrepresentative label, and as a result is neither used nor defined, especially in African cultures with little to no colonial history. Some have pointed out that labeling people groups "black" is erroneous as the people described as "black" have a brown skin color." I just quoted that from its lead, but it makes me think that you should use African-American consistently, or some other wording, like "people of African descent". ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:40, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Fixed. Factotem (talk) 19:48, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You mention the "exigencies" of war, when "needs" would be five characters fewer
Use "demands" instead. Factotem (talk) 10:24, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The first indication of moral doubt appears during efforts to sell some of his slaves in 1778, when Washington expressed" - inconsistency of tense
Now consistently tensed. Factotem (talk) 10:24, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Politically, Washington was concerned that such a divisive issue as slavery should not threaten national unity,"- how come you link slavery again here?
The two links are to different articles, the first on slavery in the colonies, the second on slavery in the USA. Factotem (talk) 10:24, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Slavery was introduced into the British colony of Virginia when the first Africans were transported to Point Comfort in 1619" - for such an important and academic discussion about slavery, I don't think you should use passive voice. Also, was it really British back in 1619?
I have spent quite a lot of effort over the years trying to educate non-Brits about the difference between England and Britain, so I feel hugely embarrassed to have been caught out here. Thanks for catching that. Struggling to come up with a way of conveying the sentence with a more active voice. Any suggestions? Factotem (talk) 10:24, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It only caught my eye because I saw another British reference to an early American colony in GA review for another article. I suggest something like - "The English colony of Virginia first imported African slaves to Point Comfort in 1619." Is that still accurate? Something like that would make the writing stronger, being in active voice. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:47, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not knowledgeable on the subject of slavery in the colonies, but from what I have read, it appears the origins are not fully known. The Wikipedia article on slavery suggests that the first slaves were taken by privateers from a Portugese ship, not imported by the colony of Virginia as a deliberate act of commerce. I would also note that the source also uses the passive voice: "...the first Africans were brought to Jamestown in 1619..." Factotem (talk) 16:13, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that's fine then. The article is about GW, not explicitly about the slave trade. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:40, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Those who accepted Christianity became "Christian servants" with time-limited servitude" - why the quotes?
The source uses them. Factotem (talk) 10:24, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1671, Virginia counted 6,000 white indentured servants among its 40,000 population but only 2,000 blacks, up to a third of whom in some counties were free." - this should be two sentences
Don't see this myself. Where are you suggesting the split, at "but" or at ", up"?
Ehh it's fine actually. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:47, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "where some forty percent of the population" - I believe this should be written as "40%"
  • "Washington inherited slaves from Lawrence, acquired more as part of the terms of leasing Mount Vernon and inherited slaves again on the death of Lawrence's widow in 1761." - this writing just sits wrong with me. Not just because it is morally wrong, but I feel like it could be written stronger, like "Washington inherited slaves through inheritance from Lawrence and later Lawrence's widow in 1761, as well as part of the terms of leasing Mount Vernon." - IDK, I think the writing has to be really careful when dealing with slavery, to be objective without being callous towards history and the truth. I'm not saying you are, either, I just want to have the strongest possible writing.
Struggling to see what's wrong with the original wording. Will come back to this, but I will say that "inherited slaves through inheritance" is not, IMO, an improvement. Factotem (talk) 10:24, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's the lack of the oxford comma and the "inherited slaves again" that doesn't sit well with me, but it's not a big deal. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:47, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Always been an Oxford comma person myself, but for some reason I stopped using them in WP articles. I've put one in here. Factotem (talk) 17:17, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On his marriage in 1759 to Martha Dandridge Custis, Washington gained control of eighty-four dower slaves which, although he had no legal title to them – they belonged to the Custis estate and were held in trust by Martha for the Custis heirs – he managed as his own property." - this should be two sentences, as it almost lost its meaning by the end. Also, "eighty-four" should be 84 per WP:MOSNUM, ditto "seventy-one" later
Agreed; horribly constructed sentence. Per MOS:NUMERAL, though, two-word numbers can be spelled or enumerated. Factotem (talk) 10:24, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but continued to acquire them, mostly through natural increase and occasionally in settlement of debts." - natural increase feels wrong
I can think of no alternative way to express this, and it's the term used in the sources.
That's fine then if it's the term used in sources. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:47, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Appreciate your input. I've responded above and made changes to the article accordingly. There are some points I need to think on further. Factotem (talk) 10:24, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "For Washington, "lost labour [sic] is never to be regained," and he required "every labourer (male or female) [do] as much in the 24 hours as their strength without endangering the health, or constitution will allow of." " - is this quote also from the former slave, mentioned in the previous sentence?
"For Washington..." changed to "In Washington's view..." to clearly attribute the quote. Factotem (talk) 15:58, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Factotem (talk) 15:58, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although Washington insisted on an emotional distance between master and slave, there are examples of genuine affection, such as was the case with his valet William Lee" - I see you mention Lee in the lead, and later on he was freed, but if there was genuine affection, could you go into a bit more detail about Lee here?
Don't see that as necessary. The point is the genuine affection, with Lee provided only as an example, not about Washington's relationship with Lee. I think that level of detail is best left to the article on Lee. Factotem (talk) 15:58, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There is evidence to suggest that white overseers – working in close proximity to slaves under the same demanding master and physically and socially isolated from their own peer group, a situation that drove some to drink – indulged in carnal relations with their charges." - the "there is evidence" doesn't sit well with me (seems vague/peacock-y), and the last part (in bold) just feels like it's out of a history book written in the 1800s. The article on Carnal knowledge even says that the term is archaic. The "their charges" specifically seems out of place
Fair point. Changed carnal to sexual. I'm not sure what the issue is with "charges"; isn't that recognised as meaning people the overseers were in charge of? I could write it as "sexual relations with the slaves over whom they were in charge" or similar, but that seems unnecessarily wordy. Factotem (talk) 15:58, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, I think you should make it wordier, I didn't get it immediately that "chargers" were the ones who were in charge. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:40, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced "their charges" with "the slaves they supervised". Factotem (talk) 19:48, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "betray the level of resistance" - this wording also feels needlessly complex. IDK, it doesn't sit well with me; you want the wording to be strong and engaging, but you don't want to confuse the reader either.
Reworded to "indicate the resistance displayed by the slaves against the system." Factotem (talk) 15:58, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Thus it was that Judge, an especially talented seamstress, and Hercules escaped in 1796 and 1797 respectively and eluded recapture." - you mentioned Hercules earlier as the chef. Is it worth mentioning that occupation again here? Might be worth it, IDK
I'm working on the principle that we don't duplicate links or full names after the first instance, so why do it for professions. Factotem (talk) 15:58, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He opposed the use of the lash" - link lash here? Or whip? IDK
  • on both male and female slaves if they did not "do their duty by fair means." - why the quote? Who said it?
Attributed quote to Washington. The quote is there as a window on Washington's attitude to slavery, that he saw their diligent acquiescence to slavery as their duty. Factotem (talk) 15:58, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are accounts of carpenters being whipped in 1758 when the overseer "could see a fault", of a slave called Jemmy being whipped for stealing corn and escaping in 1773 and of a seamstress called Charlotte being whipped in 1793 by an overseer "determined to lower Spirit or skin her Back" for impudence and refusing to work. - ditto
These are the overseers words. Isn't the strong inference that these are the overseers' words enough? Do we really need to spell it out? Factotem (talk) 15:58, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Washington did not himself flog slaves, but he did on occasion lash out in a flash of temper when they failed to perform as he expected. - what does lash out, if not flogging?
Maybe it's a britishism, but "lash out" does not mean to whip someone, it means to lose one's temper in an aggressive manner, either by striking someone or ranting at them. Is there an equivalent phrase in American English? Factotem (talk) 15:58, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If by "lash out" you include striking someone, then that would be notable, and contradictory to GW not flogging the slaves. You could say "did on occasion verbally berate when they failed..." ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:40, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The slaves received both harsh words and more physical rebukes, but a hefty clip round the ear or a pair of boots being launched at the head is not a flogging, which has a very specific meaning. Factotem (talk) 19:48, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The physical rebuke by Washington is certainly notable. Even if it's not a "flogging", it's still a physical assault. Hell, we have an article on a president getting hit by shoes, so a president hitting someone with their boots is worth noting, even if it requires a few extra words. I'd rather the article be specific, if possible, than use the more generic "lash out". ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:05, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The details have always been there in the footnote at the end of the sentence, but I've expanded the sentence now to read "but he did on occasion lash out in a flash of temper with verbal abuse and physical violence when they failed to perform as he expected." Does that work for you? Factotem (talk) 13:12, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Much appreciated! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:24, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The historian Henry Wiencek concludes that the repugnance Washington felt at this cruelty in which he had participated - repugnance feels like a strong word here, especially when you say later "The historians Philip D. Morgan and Peter Henriques[d] are skeptical of Wiencek's conclusion and believe there is no evidence of any change in Washington's moral thinking at this stage"
It's the word that Wiencek himself uses. Factotem (talk) 15:58, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This could be a case where it would be more useful to directly quote the historian. "Historian Henry Weincek wrote that Washington felt a sense of repugnance or whatever the quote is. Otherwise, the "repugnance" isn't the worst term to use here, I won't make a stink. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:40, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, then, I'll leave it as is. Factotem (talk) 19:48, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You vary between "the" Continental Army and "a Continental Army"
There's one instance of the indefinite article - "...a Continental Army that was more integrated..." - which is, I believe, a perfectly legitimate construction (and an elegant one IMO). Factotem (talk) 15:58, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "But there is no indication Washington ever favored an immediate end to slavery." - don't start sentence with "But"
Nothing wrong with starting a sentence with "But", unless it's done too many times. Factotem (talk) 15:58, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • " but refused to promise her her freedom after his death" - double word?
No. Object pronoun followed by possessive adjective (if it was male it would be "promise him his freedom") Factotem (talk) 15:58, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I personally think it reads better with the single "her", but I won't make a fuss. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:40, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK. The original is technically correct, but the single "her" is not wrong, and it's only a matter of time before someone else removes it thinking it is a duplicate word error, so removed. Factotem (talk) 19:48, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Such reports were colored by the innate racism of the well-educated" - is "colored" really the right term here?
Don't see the issue myself, but changed to "influenced" anyway. Factotem (talk) 15:58, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's much better, since "colored" is an archaic term for people of African descent in the US. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:40, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As of late 2017, an archaeological project begun in 2014 has identified, without disturbing the contents, sixty-three burial plots in addition to seven plots known before the project began." - any update?
Just checked the source, and no, nothing after 2017. Factotem (talk) 15:58, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So I finished the article. I'm leaning oppose at the moment, because some of the wording feels more dramatic like it would be in a novel, rather than an encyclopedia article. I identified the places I had issues with, so it shouldn't be too difficult to address these issues. Please let me know if you have any questions, and thanks for the replies so far. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:47, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. I appreciate you taking the time out of your day to provide feedback. I've addressed the majority of issues you've raised in this second tranche, though in some cases with a pushback. Factotem (talk) 15:58, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the replies! The article is really looking to be in good shape, and it won't take me much to support. There are just a few points that still don't sit well with me, which I replied to. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:40, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for all of your hard work on this significant historic article. I hope my comments weren't too arduous or pedantic, but I truly believe they helped the article, and so I'm happy to Support it for FAC. Great job! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:24, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha, yes, you certainly did give me a hard time in places, but that's only to be expected at FAC. I'm grateful for the support, but even more than that, I'm grateful for the time and effort you've given to reviewing the article, and the consequent improvements that have been made to it. Thank you. Factotem (talk) 13:28, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Ykraps edit

I carried out a partial/mini peer review in June last year and lots of work has been done on the article since. It looks in good shape IMHO - neutral, well-researched, comprehensive etc. I consider the prose to be of an FA standard and understand why you have chosen your words with caution. I do have some comments though:

Lead

  • As this hasn't been adequately explained yet, either link Mount Vernon in the lead or change to 'his family's estate'. My preference would be to do both say something like, "...317 slaves at his family's estate, Mount Vernon". Or similar.
Good catch. Done. Factotem (talk) 09:58, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think 'practise', even when used as a verb, is 'practice' in Am Eng (para 3)
Americanised Factotem (talk) 09:58, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think you mean Americanized :) --Ykraps (talk) 10:50, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
: ) Factotem (talk) 11:07, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Some three-quarters of the slaves labored in the fields, while most of the remainder..." If only 'most' of the remainder, what were the remainder of the remainder doing?
Unnecessarily pedantic of me in the lead. Simplified by removing "most of". Factotem (talk) 09:58, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the others might have been employed as general handymen, fixing outbuildings for example.--Ykraps (talk) 10:50, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see now that this is all explained in the main body.--Ykraps (talk) 10:56, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The original wording reflected the fact that there were one or two artisans employed somewhere other than the main residence (if memory serves, carpenters at the Dogue Run mill), but this is a level of detail that does not need covering. Factotem (talk) 11:07, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Not a level of detail required in the lead.--Ykraps (talk) 19:47, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it's now been linked earlier, remove link to Mount Vernon.
Done Factotem (talk) 09:58, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Background

  • I like to re-link things in the main body, so probably would add a link to 'slavery' here but up to you. If you're not the sort who does this, consider whether the link to 'Mount Vernon' needs removing.
Slavery isn't linked because the hatnote immediately above serves that purpose. Factotem (talk) 09:58, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That seems reasonable.--Ykraps (talk) 10:50, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He leased Mount Vernon two years after Lawrence's death in 1752 and inherited it in 1761". I don't understand how Washington could lease land in 1754, that he apparently didn't own until 1761.
The vagaries of English; Washington was the lessee, not the lessor. Factotem (talk) 09:58, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bing! Of course. I don't know why I didn't consider that scenario. Worth some extra explaining though, I think.--Ykraps (talk) 10:50, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably the clarification mentioned below about leasing from accomplishes that extra explaining, or do you think it needs more? Factotem (talk) 11:07, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, no further action required here.--Ykraps (talk) 19:47, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Agricultural land required labor to be productive, and in the 18th-century American south that meant slave labor". I think that needs a (paranthetical) comma after 'south'.
I think not. "...and in the 18th-century American south..." is not parenthitical. Factotem (talk) 09:58, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On a second reading, I agree with you. I don't know why but that wasn't how it sounded in my head when I initially read it.--Ykraps (talk) 10:50, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Washington inherited slaves from Lawrence, acquired more as part of the terms of leasing Mount Vernon,..." Acquired how? Did he buy more at the lessee's request?
As above Factotem (talk) 09:58, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... and inherited slaves again on the death of Lawrence's widow in 1761". I think I'm beginning to understand this better now. Presumably there was some sort of covenant in the will whereby Washington managed the estate but didn't actually own it until his brother's wife died. I think this probably needs explaining earlier on but as yet don't have a suggestion. A footnote perhaps?
I've clarified the leasing by rewording the sentence to state "He leased Mount Vernon from Lawrence's widow two years after his brother's death in 1752..." Factotem (talk) 09:58, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... making him one of the largest slaveholders in the area". Can we define area better? Do we mean Virginia?
Replaced "area" with Fairfax County, Virginia Factotem (talk) 09:58, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1786, he controlled 216 slaves... Six were listed as dead or incapacitated..." I don't think he controlled the dead ones. Presumably we don't know the actual number of dead so deducting them isn't an option. Perhaps we can reword slightly? Again, as yet, no suggestions.
Ha ha, yes. Good point. Reworded to state "listed" rather than "controlled". The six were mentioned to avoid the eagle-eyed doing maths and pointing out that the numbers don't add up, but I've moved that into a footnote now. Factotem (talk) 09:58, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More to come.--Ykraps (talk) 08:25, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Appreciate you looking at this. Factotem (talk) 09:58, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Slavery at Mount Vernon

*"Washington provided them with good, sometimes costly medical care...." Do the sources consider this to be unusual thing to do? I provide my car with costly servicing and fuel but only because I want it to continue working.

Sorry, should have read the following sentences first.--Ykraps (talk) 11:16, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Living conditions

*"At the main residence..." Are we talking about Washington's family home or the slaves main residence?

  • "Other slaves at the main residence..." Ditto.
  • "...small enough to be moved with carts". I think perhaps 'on carts' is better or may be 'with horse and cart', as it's the horse that's doing the moving.
  • "...the interiors were smokey" I think 'smoky' is preferred Am Eng.
All good points. All addressed with edits to the article. Factotem (talk) 11:48, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Resistance

  • How does washing sheep before shearing prevent the theft of wool?
The source does not explicitly say, but my assumption was that shorn wool is easier to steel than wool still attached to the sheep, and the washing of wool gave more opportunity for theft than the washing of sheep. Factotem (talk) 08:47, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mmmm, okay. I thought sheep were always washed before because it's easier to wash wool while it's still on the sheep. Happy to let it stand though. BTW I think you mean steal, steel wool is something entirely different :) --Ykraps (talk) 11:09, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The ability to spell correctly is one of the first casualties of a poor night's sleep :) Factotem (talk) 12:50, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • '"...in a spate of livestock theft and ruled that slaves who nevertheless kept dogs without authorization..." Is the word 'nevertheless' necessary here?
Forgot to report back on this one earlier. Not necessary and removed Factotem (talk) 12:35, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Philadelphia (para 3)
Done Factotem (talk) 08:47, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Potomac (para 4)
Done Factotem (talk) 08:47, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

American Revolution

  • In the opening sentences, there are two quotes from Washington that mention slavery. What do the sources say he means? I have heard both quotes before, and in a different context, they sound like Washington is referring to himself and his fellow colonials as slaves of the British Empire, and not indicating that he is against slavery in all it's forms.
It is unambiguously clear from the source that Washington is referring to the colonials as slaves of the British, not to the institution of slavery in the colonies. Factotem (talk) 09:35, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How deeply do you feel that these quotes are relevant and necessary? Again, on a second reading, I can see what is being said but because this section (and indeed much of the article) is about Washington's attitude to slavery, it does seem that they are included for the purpose of suggesting Washington had anti-slavery sentiments at that time.--Ykraps (talk) 11:09, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a sentence about the apparent hypocrisy of slave owners fighting a war to free themselves from what they saw as enslavement by the British. As you might see from other discussions above, it is a paradox that the nation which rebelled in the name of liberty preserved slavery when that rebellion was won. Whilst that paradox is not central to this article, it would be remiss not to mention Washington's contribution to it. So yes, I think the quotes are important. Factotem (talk) 12:50, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's only a paradox if you believe liberty was the reason for going to war.--Ykraps (talk) 17:20, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A discussion I have no intention of going anywhere near :) Factotem (talk) 17:36, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "During the war, some 5,000 blacks served in a Continental Army that was more integrated than..." Were they integrated or did they serve in separate regiments as they did in the American Civil War?
The sources are not clear, though there are implications that African-Americans served alongside whites in mixed-race regiments and Wiencek quotes a primary source that explicitly states they did so. Factotem (talk) 09:35, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I don't see how anything can be improved here.--Ykraps (talk) 11:09, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They represented less than three percent of all American forces mobilized, though in 1778 they provided between six and thirteen percent of the Continental Army". I think I understand what's being said here but I had to read it more than once. Are we saying that throughout the war, on average, 3% of all forces but during 1778 it could've been as high as 13% (and therefore very much lower than 3% in other years)?
Hmm. Not sure about the "on average" bit. The source basically says that by the war's end, some 200,000 men had been mobilized, of which some 6,000 (i.e. 3%) were African-Americans. It's slightly vague because the only year for which actual figures are available is 1778, so the rest represents the conclusions of research by modern scholars. Factotem (talk) 09:35, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I don't see what can be done to make things clearer.--Ykraps (talk) 11:09, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The first indication of a shift in Washington's thinking on slavery... ...in correspondence of 1778 and 1779" This suggest that the two quotes made in 1774 weren't an indication of a change in attitude towards slavery.
Answered above, I think. Factotem (talk) 09:35, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confederation years

  • Link manumission
Done Factotem (talk) 09:35, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Presidential years

  • "...plus clauses that guaranteed the transatlantic slave trade for at least twenty years" It seems too much of a coincidence that this takes us to 1807. This leads me to question whether the act actually stipulated 20 years or whether there was some undetermined clause and it is the author's observation that after 20 years, the trade was dying out. Or is that indeed what we are trying to say?
The agreement was not to attempt to halt the trade for at least 20 years. Factotem (talk) 09:35, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, it's just a very neat coincidence that 1807 is the year the Abolition of the Slave Trade Act came into force.--Ykraps (talk) 11:09, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I did wonder why you picked up on the year. From memory, the abolitionist tendency began agitating for the end of the slave trade as soon as it was permitted per the terms of the agreement, i.e. 1807, but the law stopping it did not come into effect until 1808. Factotem (talk) 12:50, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As president

  • "...provided material and financial support in French efforts to suppress the Saint Domingue slave revolt" Do you perhaps mean materiel?
Not sure that it matters, but changed anyway Factotem (talk) 17:36, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Posthumous emancipation

  • "...that betrayed a continuing prioritisation..." Prioritization in Am Eng, I think.
Yep. Good catch. Factotem (talk) 17:37, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath

  • "Five freedwomen were listed as remaining..." I think freed women is two separate words.
  • "...illegal to teach freedpeople to..."' Again, two words, I think.
No, I think the concatenation is valid. See https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/freedman Factotem (talk) 17:36, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, live and learn.--Ykraps (talk) 19:00, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

General

  • The lead is possibly too long but the article is very large. I can't see much that can be removed here but if you can, go ahead. It's important to keep in mind however, that the lead should properly summarise the article. Perhaps consider losing -
Some three-quarters of the slaves labored in the fields, while the remainder worked at the main residence as domestic servants and artisans. They supplemented their diet by hunting, trapping, and growing vegetables in their free time, and bought extra rations, clothing and housewares with income from the sale of game and produce. They built their own community around marriage and family, though because Washington allocated slaves to farms according to the demands of the business without regard for their relationships, many husbands lived separately from their wives and children.
Because many of his slaves were married to Martha's dower slaves, whom he could not legally free, Washington stipulated that, with the exception of his valet William Lee who was freed immediately, his slaves be emancipated on the death of Martha. She freed them in 1801, a year before her own death, but her dower slaves were passed to her grandchildren and remained in bondage.
But up to you.
I don't see that the lead is any longer than other articles of comparable size I or others have successfully put through FAC. And to my way of thinking, there is something very dubious indeed about excising from the lead the enslaved community's story, a narrative that accounts for some one third of the article and therefore warrants the summary it receives in the lead. Factotem (talk) 19:21, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the article is focussed. It is long and I've looked at ways of cutting it down but all seems to be relevant, in my opinion.

I don't see why these last two minor quibbles need hold up my support however. Although my support is conditional on a successful source review.--Ykraps (talk) 19:00, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the thorough review. I'm very happy for the support, but even if you had chosen to oppose, your input has materially improved the article, for which I am grateful. Factotem (talk) 19:21, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt edit

  • "Martha for the Custis heirs" I think these were her children (at least at that time) I might at some point say who they were.
Some heirs are named in the article, but only those relevant to the subject, and only at the end of the article when they become relevant. Factotem (talk) 08:59, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I might say when Jefferson made the quote-box quotation.
Added and cited to primary source (secondary does not date the quote). Factotem (talk) 08:59, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1799, nearly three-quarters of the slaves, over half of that quantity female, worked in the fields. " I might say " ... over half of them female ..."
Done Factotem (talk) 08:59, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Washington provided slaves with a blanket each fall at most, which they used for their own bedding and which they were required to use to gather leaves for livestock bedding.[51]" at most?
To quote the source, "...the slaves received at most only one blanket per year." Thompson discusses the ambiguity in the primary sources surrounding whether blankets were issued annually. Factotem (talk) 08:59, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There is evidence that slaves passed on their African cultural values through telling stories, among them Joel Chandler Harris's tales of Br'er Rabbit which, with their origins in Africa and stories of a powerless individual triumphing through wit and intelligence over powerful authority, would have resonated with the slaves.[71]" This is confusing. They couldn't have been Harris's tales as he hadn't been born yet.
Good catch. Deleted the reference to Harris. To explain, the tales were in circulation before Harris published them (and in fact he learned of them as a teenager from slaves) Factotem (talk) 08:59, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and some of the Mount Vernon slaves are known to have been christened before Washington acquired the estate." This implies he put an end to such things.
I don't see that implication myself, even after it's been pointed out. Not sure how to address this. Maybe "and some of Lawrence's slaves are known to have been christened."? Factotem (talk) 08:59, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The output of seamstresses dropped off when Martha was away, and spinners found they could slacken by playing the overseers off against Martha.[88] " Is the first Martha meant to be George, or Washington?
Awkward prose. Martha both times, but changed the second instance to "her". Factotem (talk) 08:59, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1774 he was a key participant in agreeing the Fairfax Resolves which, alongside the assertion of colonial rights, condemned the transatlantic slave trade on moral grounds.[118][109]" "agreeing the Fairfax Resolves" sounds a bit less US than I'd like, maybe start "In 1774 he was a key participant in the adoption of the Fairfax Resolves ..."
Done Factotem (talk) 08:59, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Up to the years as president. All looks good so far.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:53, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Much appreciated. Factotem (talk) 08:59, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and how willing the antislavery faction was to sacrifice abolition on the altar of national unity" This seems a bit flowery. And are we talking about abolition of slavery, or abolition of the slave trade?
I did wonder when I wrote that whether I would be allowed to get away with it. Reworded to "...how willing the antislavery faction was to accept the preservation of slavery to ensure national unity and the establishment of a strong federal government." Slavery, not the slave trade. Factotem (talk) 09:17, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a statement that presaged Washington's emancipation of his slaves in his will a decade later." Isn't this opinion? Washington's inconsistent words and actions re slavery are clear but you seem to be drawing a connection here as a matter of fact.
No. The statement recorded by Humphreys and the terms of the will are both public record, and the similarities between the two are specifically mentioned by Wiencek ("The statement bears a striking resemblance to the emancipation clause in Washington's will...") and Philip Morgan ("Here is an intimation of the emancipation clause in his will..."). Maybe the word "presaged" gives the wrong impression (and I've reworded it now to read "...a statement that resembled the emancipation clause in Washington's will..."), but I don't see how I've drawn any connection as a matter of fact. I do devote that paragraph to Wiencek's conclusion that the statement is evidence of a moral epiphany and the opinions of other historians who dispute that conclusion, per NPOV. I hope I have done it in a way that is neutral, fair and representative, but happy to have any failure in that pointed out. Factotem (talk) 12:49, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He had a keen sense both of the fragility of the fledgling Republic and of his place as a unifying figure, and he was determined not to endanger either by confronting an issue as divisive and entrenched as slavery." Again, is this fact or opinion? Should statements about what was going on in Washington's head be stated as fact?
To quote the sources, first Kenneth Morgan...
  • "Washington's cautiousness...stemmed from his sense of his own leadership positions and from the divisive nature of slavery in the young republic."
  • "...Washington knew that the eminence of his public positions made it imprudent for him to speak openly about slavery."
  • "Recognizing his public and symbolic role as figurehead for the revolution and the new nation, he realized that to speak out on such a sensitive issue would be foolhardy."
...then Twohig...
  • "...he had an extraordinary grasp of the symbolic function of his office as a unifying force for the new nation. Even the most cursory examination of the political correspondence of the period indicates how important Washington was in holding the fabric of the new nation together."
  • "He was not about to risk this role in what he certainly regarded as a quixotic attempt to challenge the South's peculiar institution."
  • "...he was acutely aware how fragile it all was and how easily the slavery controversy could destroy it."
I understand the need for caution in conflating fact with opinion, but the sources on which I've based that sentence are pretty clear in their assertions, it's not for us to second guess them, and there are no other sources that I know of which dispute what they are saying. Factotem (talk) 14:03, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He presided over an administration that passed a resolution in 1790" Congress passed it.
My ignorance of the early American political system (and indeed, the system generally) is probably showing through here. Reworded to "He was president of a government that passed...", but happy to hear of any better alternative. Factotem (talk) 14:14, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • " the antislavery North" Given that slavery was legal as far north as New York, this seems a sweeping statement.
Removed the anti/proslavery adjectives Factotem (talk) 14:22, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the estate had grown by only 10 percent to some 8,000-acre (3,200 ha)" Is this a reference to what he owned (some of which was operated by tenant farmers) or what he himself operated?
Clarified by rewording to state "...the Mount Vernon estate had grown..." Factotem (talk) 12:56, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Washington concluded his instructions with a private passage in which he expressed his repugnance at owning slaves and declared the principle reason for selling the land was to raise the finances that would allow him to liberate them." How was this more private than the rest of the letter?
Washington specifically marked it as "Private". Factotem (talk) 13:31, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In November the same year, Washington demonstrated in a letter to his friend and neighbor Alexander Spotswood that the reluctance to sell slaves at a public venue, first seen in his letter to Lund Washington in 1778, had become an emphatic principle against "selling Negroes, as you would Cattle in the market..."" Again, can we get inside Washington's head to that extent? I don't doubt that the source says that, but does that make it a fact that it was an "emphatic principle" of his that he "demonstrated"?
Reworded to "Washington declared in a letter to his friend and neighbor Alexander Spotswood that he was "...principled agt. [sic] selling Negroes, as you would Cattle in the market..."" Factotem (talk) 14:29, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The deferral was intended to postpone the pain of separation that would occur when his slaves were freed but their spouses among the dower slaves remained in bondage, a situation which affected twenty couples and their children." What facts is this based on? I'm talking about the "intended".
Washington's own words as written in the will: "To emancipate them during her life, would...be attended with such insuperable difficulties on account of their intermixture by Marriages with the dower Negroes, as to excite the most painful sensations..." Factotem (talk) 14:34, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Washington went beyond the legal requirement to support and maintain younger slaves until adulthood, stipulating that those children whose education could not be undertaken by parents were to be taught reading, writing and a useful trade by their masters and then be freed at the age of twenty-five." Did Virginia law dictate that juvenile slaves could not be emancipated until age 25? The cynic in me says that this gives the master eight or ten years of mature labor.
The law did not set any age limits on emancipation, only that males under 21 and females under 18 and anyone over 45 had to be supported by the person who freed them. The sources don't make an issue of the fact that they remained enslaved until age 25. Factotem (talk) 13:19, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The able-bodied slaves were cut loose and left to support themselves and their families." Cut loose? That's an odd synonym for "freed".
Re-worded to "Able-bodied slaves were freed and left to support themselves and their families." Factotem (talk) 13:22, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and Washington's unsuccessful efforts to free his own slaves in the mid 1790s.[146]" He didn't try very hard to actually free them immediately.
Reworded to "Washington's attempts to disentangle himself from slavery..." (based on the source which words it as: "attempts to extricate himself from the institution") Factotem (talk) 14:48, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He [Lafayette] became a leading figure in antislavery movements in France and Great Britain." When? Lafayette had a lot on his plate starting not long after 1786 and I'm not aware he spent much time in Britain.
The source does not answer the question "When?" Lafayette's leadership of the French movement against the slave trade (which I've clarified in the edit) is based on the statement in the source that he was "instrumental in founding the first French society for the elimination of the slave trade." Clarified that he became a corresponding member of the British movement against the slave trade. Factotem (talk) 15:01, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article seems to accept the narrative that Washington became something of a closet abolitionist in the final two decades of his life. An alternative view, that he did and said the things he did with an eye to his place in history seems to be present in footnote k. Why is this a footnote rather than main text? The "closet abolitionist" view seems to be given more credence than alternative views throughout the article, generally it is given the last word and is sometimes set forth in Wikipedia's editorial voice, something less true for contrary views. For example, at one point you say he "expressed his repugnance at owning slaves". That says he felt repugnance. Can we conclude that in editorial voice, or is it that he just expressed repugnance?
That footnote comes from the paragraph which discusses the idea that Washington freed his slaves out of concern for his reputation. It is not, however, an idea that receives significant coverage in the sources. Note that in the footnote, of the four sources quoted, only Henriques specifically links this concern of Washington's to his motivation for freeing his slaves. It's a good point, though, and I've moved Henriques out of the footnote and into the main body. I would also point out that Washington's "closet abolitionist" sentiments are a matter of public record in his writings and covered extensively in the sources, so merit Wikipedia's voice; the contrary view that he freed his slaves because of his concern for his place in posterity is only ever found in the analysis of historians, so warrants a little more care in how it's presented in the article, surely? Factotem (talk) 09:05, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose so. The issue with "expressed repugnance" with "expressed his repugnance" is the latter implies he felt it. Compare "expressed sadness" vs. "expressed his sadness".
I did not see that at all. Removed "his" from the three places where this wording was used Factotem (talk) 07:30, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Footnote 2 seems to be formatted oddly.
Fixed Factotem (talk) 13:23, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's it for right now. I do feel you might want to look things over with an eye to my comment re closet abolitionist narrative just above.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:13, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Washington's concern about how posterity would judge him is not a "contrary" or "alternative" view, but a complementary theme. The number of sentences Philip Morgan devotes to this aspect in his 27-page paper doesn't hit double figures. Henriques disposes with it in maybe two sentences of a 22-page chapter. I don't see what more I can add to the article on this aspect that isn't already there. I've spent the best part of the day looking into this, and I'm not sure the article accepts the "closet abolitionist" narrative so much as reflects its preponderance in the sources. Can you clarify your concerns about the "repugnance" example? I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at there. Factotem (talk) 17:57, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've addressed that there.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:28, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I think the article sums up this difficult topic well, as well as chronicling Washington's ever-inconsistent words and actions.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:28, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This one really had me searching. Thank you. Factotem (talk) 07:32, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley edit

  • "His public words and deeds at the end of the American Revolutionary War betrayed no antislavery sentiments." It would be helpful to add the date here.
Done Factotem (talk) 19:52, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Privately, Washington considered plans in the mid 1790s to free all the slaves he controlled, but they could not be realized because of his failure to secure his own financial security and the refusal of his family to cooperate." Is "could not" too strong? Maybe "were not".
I don't think it too strong and would prefer to keep it. Factotem (talk) 19:52, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The institution was rooted in race with the Virginia Slave Codes of 1705". Rooted in race because the code said that only Africans could be slaves? If so, you should say so.
The source is not very expansive on this. It simply says "[By about 1700], racial slavery and the necessary police powers had been written into law...In 1705 Virginia gathered up the random statutes of a whole generation and baled them into a 'slave code'..." Factotem (talk) 19:52, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "among them the tales of Br'er Rabbit which, with their origins in Africa" I am doubtful about this. According to the article on Br'er Rabbit the character is first recorded in the stories of Joel Chandler Harris, a late nineteenth century defender of slavery.
The stories were being told by slaves long before Harris published them. Factotem (talk) 19:52, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "From the late 1760s, Washington became increasingly radicalized against the North American colonies' subservient status within the British Empire". "radicalized against" sounds odd to me. I suggest "opposed to".
Radicalized is more appropriate. Although it's not necessary to relate the details in this article, Washington was amongst the first to talk of a resort to arms and, whilst most of the rebellious colonials were still appealing to the King for the redress of their grievance, the first to talk of independence. Factotem (talk) 19:52, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "provided materiel and financial support in French efforts to suppress the Saint Domingue slave revolt in 1791" "for French efforts"?
Indeed. Much better. Factotem (talk) 19:52, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Factotem (talk) 19:52, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Much appreciated. Factotem (talk) 07:33, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note edit

Just noting I've seen that there's a request for a source review at WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:09, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ian Rose. Given the substantive reviews this candidate has received, it would be a shame for it to drop out for want of a source review. If it gets to the stage where the Coords are considering archiving for this reason, would it be possible to give me a heads up and a final chance to see if I can't interest someone into undertaking such a review? Factotem (talk) 12:35, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I don't think we've ever archived a nom for want of a source review and I wasn't planning to set a precedent now -- let's see what turns up... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:41, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Thanks. I'll hang tight and hope something turns up. Factotem (talk) 12:45, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Mike Christie edit

I'm not familiar with the material at all, so can't comment on whether the best sources have been used, but the sources look scholarly and reliable -- there's a 1925 book, and a Youtube video, but both are fine for the use to which they're put. The websites all seem appropriate sources; I spent some time looking at the Westport Museum one to see if I could see more about what organization runs it, but it's used for one sentence that is supported by sources reproduced in the article, and there's clearly editorial control. Formatting looks perfect, and everything in the article is sourced. I have not done any spotchecks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:10, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Factotem (talk) 11:31, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Although not stated explicitly above, the ES provided with this SR states "Source review pass". Is there anything more required on this front? Factotem (talk) 11:40, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I meant to be clear that the source review passed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:04, 19 April 2020 (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) 14 April 2020 [25].

Ghostbusters II edit

Nominator(s): Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:20, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 1989 film Ghostbusters II. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:20, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from John M Wolfson edit

My comments

(DISCLAIMER:I intend to take WikiCup points from this review.) Unfortunately, I do not believe I can do anything but oppose this nomination at this time. It appears you had a bit of a spat with Laser brain the first time this was at FAC about incorporation of sources regarding the themes of the film; while I wasn't one to comment on the sources as I didn't see any from a cursory GSearch and would have procrastinated a deeper search, I looked further in that FAC and saw that Josh Milburn provided you with sources to that effect, which you appeared to rebuff and have not added. Given that those appear to be high-quality sources, I must oppose and suggest withdrawal of this FAC to work on their incorporation. (I messed that up incredibly, see below.) On an unrelated note, there should be NBSPs between such figures as "$215.4 million", etc. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 06:11, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@John M Wolfson: I'm glad you agree with Laser brain and I that scholarly sources need to be incorporated, but I do note that of the four sources I identified in the previous FAC, three are now cited several times in the article, as is a scholarly book identified by Aoba47. (One of the four sources I identified isn't cited; perhaps Darkwarriorblake couldn't get hold of it, or perhaps the contents weren't useful.) Am I misunderstanding your reason for opposition? Josh Milburn (talk) 19:13, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I went through every source given and included every one that had any relevant information. There's a giant section called "Thematic analysis" now in the article. If a source wasn't used it was mainly because Ghostbusters II was literally only mentioned in regards to the main topic of discussion and otherwise not analysed. I'd suggest reading it before opposing it. Thanks for your review. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:16, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this is extremely embarrassing. I had looked through the sources in the source code and it appears that the one I selected for checking is the one that didn't appear. Consider my oppose suspended for a further look and accept my apologies for any offense you might have taken from the above. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:18, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, here's my real review (I still intend to take WikiCup points):

  • As said above, there should be NBSPs for such figures as "$215.4 million", etc.
  • on the Manhattan borough's Second Avenue I believe "on Second Avenue" is sufficient given that we already know that filming was in NYC. If there's doubt to the borough just say "on Manhattan's Second Avenue".
  • "Los Angeles, California" should just be "Los Angeles" per the MoS
  • 100,000 gallons of slime should include a conversion to metric; ditto to any other units that don't currently have one.
  • I agree with TheJoebro64 in not using "contemporary" to mean "present-day"; in art it usually means the opposite, "at the time", and indeed "contemporaneous" is used in the article to that effect. Use "retrospective", "present-day", "modern", or other words as needed. Better yet, consider rewording them to be more temporally specific per MOS:CURRENT, but I don't think that's needed. Any material likely to become dated should, however, be marked with {{As of}} templates.
  • I have to disagree with TheJoebro64 on not including the "many variations" of the script. Even if it is common knowledge that movie scripts change a lot in their lifetimes (which it might not be), the radical changes of the script detailed in the section warrants special note of it.
  • A lot of the images have empty alt texts; this needs to be fixed for accessibility purposes.

That's all for now. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:16, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Done all of these as far as I can tell. I left the Manhattan part in (as in Manhattan's Second Avenue) because for some people, myself included, I can confuse Manhattan with another name for New York City, like the Big Apple. Might just be I'm bad at geography though. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 00:21, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This looks okay to me now. Support. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 04:01, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from TheJoebro64 edit

Imma skip the plot, since I've never seen the Ghostbusters movies (beyond the first ten minutes of this one), but I'll try to do a thorough prose review. I might be slow over the weekend because I'm busy but I'll make time. JOEBRO64 20:27, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Whole lotta comments
  • "As with the first film, Aykroyd and Ramis collaborated on the script, which went through many variations." The fact that it went through many variations should be obvious even if it's not stated. It's common knowledge that film scripts go through many drafts.
  • "... large sections of the film were scrapped after poorly received test screenings." I could be incorrect, but should there be a hyphen in "poorly received"? Again, if you don't agree just ignore this, but I think a hyphen could be added since the "-ly" adverb is part of a larger compound adjective.
  • "... family-friendly. The performances of ..." There's nothing in particular wrong here, but I think these two sentences could benefit from a better transition. Maybe something across the lines of "... family-friendly, although the performances of..."
  • "... making it the eighth-highest-grossing film of the year." Link to 1989_in_film#Highest-grossing_films?
  • "Although some contemporary retrospective audiences appreciated the film..." I know you're talking about contemporary as in the present here, but I think "retrospective" is better because it's more clear that you're referring to modern-day audiences.

More soon. JOEBRO64 20:37, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Done all except the first. I understand what you're saying but there are script variations and then effectively a completely different film. Some films don't have much script turmoil at all but there are significant differences between what was originally proposed versus what we got. Also watch both films soon Joe, jeez. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 00:21, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't worry, I haven't forgotten. Just busy—will get to more soon (and this is a promise). JOEBRO64 20:28, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After the massive success of Ghostbusters, a sequel was considered an inevitability inevitable even though that the film had been developed as a stand-alone project." Just some copyediting that could help
  • "Columbia had experienced a long series of box-office failures since Ghostbusters,[ref] and Ghostbusters II was seen as the best way of reversing their fortunes."
  • "... with filming scheduled for Summer 1988 in anticipation of a mid-1989 release." "Summer" should be replaced per MOS:SEASONS

More later today JOEBRO64 12:48, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "He wanted to eschew New York City, set the film overseas, and provide a contrast..." I'm a huge fan of the Oxford comma, but it's fine if you aren't.
  • "He chose to avoid making movies films until he returned for Scrooged." Just for some formality.
  • "... was restricted because of the visit of leader of the Soviet Union Mikhail Gorbachev, leader of the Soviet Union." I just think this flows nicer
  • "Freezing temperatures combined with the liquid slime made the actors very uncomfortable." "Substitute 'damn' every time you're inclined to write 'very'; your editor will delete it and the writing will be just as it should be." - Mark Twain
  • "Filming officially concluded on March 7, 1989." I don't think anyone will assume it was unofficial.
  • Link to test screening at the beginning of the post-production section
  • Perhaps link to Independence Day (United States) at "Ghostbusters II had been scheduled for release on the July 4th holiday weekend..."? I know it isn't just celebrated in the US (my parents went to Ireland for their honeymoon and they say that for some inexplicable reason they celebrate it there) but some readers who aren't familiar with America may not recognize its significance.
  • "The film's final battle with Vigo was removed and replaced, and the way that Vigo was to exit the painting to confront the Ghostbusters changed completely." Missing conjunction?

JOEBRO64 02:31, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I like that Mark Twain quote. I put "July 4th Independence Day holiday weekend", I don't know if that's too unwieldy. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:27, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "wanted to hire Bobby Brown, who had had a recent..."
  • "Food coloring was added; the colors included green (to match Slimer) and blue." I think this would just read better with parentheses.
  • "The film required approximately 100,000 US gallons (380,000 litres)..." I'm just bolding because I'm pretty sure this article is written in American English (aka a real man's English), but "litres" is British English.
  • "Dane revised the designs of the proton pack weapons, the ghost trap;, and also revised the Ectomobile, which became the Ectomobile 1A."
  • "... makes it the eighth-highest-grossing film worldwide of 1989..." Same as I said before in the lede
  • "Ghostbusters II received generally negative reviews on release." "Upon release" or "on release" is redundant 99% of the time
  • "He noted that MacNicol and Moranis were the highlights of the film..." Incorrect use of "note". "Note" should only be used when stating an objective fact. For example, "He noted it was raining" is OK, but "He noted the film was good" is not.
  • "He also noted that Murray's normally comedic indifference seemed to be lacking commitment." Again with "note".
  • "... genuine human warmth, which he Thomas felt did not work." Clarification
  • "... and the addition of an infant to add novelty..." The two "add"s in such close proximity is a bit distracting, I think you can just chop off the second without losing any meaning
  • "... of the original, and singled out MacNicol's performance."
  • "The reviewer noted that Murray is central to the film because of his ad-libbed dialog." Another "note"

Almost there. Should be done by the weekend. JOEBRO64 23:38, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Hard to find other words than "said". Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE!

Just finished reading and there wasn't really anything significant that stood out to me. Consider this my declaration of support. Now I just need to go watch the movies. JOEBRO64 20:00, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Indrian edit

Support. I did an extensive review of the prose in the last FAC and worked closely with Darkwarriorblake over several weeks to make improvements, so this is not a drive-by support. I am glad to see this back again and that a good compromise appears to have been reached on the disagreements in round one. I am satisfied that my concerns were addressed in the previous FAC, and I am happy to support. Indrian (talk) 20:47, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Indrian. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:33, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie edit

Oppose. I've only looked at the critical response section and I think this is not yet at FA quality. Almost the entire section is structured as a bullet list of opinions converted to prose. This is the "A said B" problem (see WP:RECEPTION). I think this can be fixed fairly easily (WP:RECEPTION has some worked examples): there has to be some sense in reading the commentary that it has been organized for the purposes of the article, usually by grouping reviews with related opinions together and then wordsmithing to avoid simply listing each opinion. Once that's fixed I'll be happy to strike the oppose and will look at the rest of the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:08, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've reworked the entire section Mike Christie, please let me know what you think. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 10:20, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely an improvement, though I think some prose tweaks could still be made. I've struck the oppose and will try to find time today to read through today. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:27, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hola Mike_Christie, gentle ping reminder. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:19, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reading through now; I'll make notes as I go through. Please revert any copyedits I make that you don't agree with.

  • After this, the film was rushed into production, with filming scheduled for summer 1988 in anticipation of a mid-1989 release. Months of negotiations followed the lunch with Reitman, Murray, Aykroyd, and Ramis to negotiate a minimal salary in exchange for a percentage of the box office profits. A couple of things here.
    • Was it a lunch or a dinner? For many readers these are not synonyms.
      Changed to "meeting", it doesn't specify what time of day it was and what meal was being eaten. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:15, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • How can it have been rushed into production if the dinner had to be followed with months of negotiations, which presumably had to precede production?
      Casting is part of production, negotiation included. At least is my understanding. It was already well into development because they'd been trying to get this far for 5 years. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:15, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The pair wanted negative emotions to have consequences and found humor in New York City having to be nice or face destruction, though at this point they did know what form the destructor would take. Presumably this should be "...did not know..."? And "destructor" is a bit clumsy; can we just make it "...what form that would take"?
  • Suggest changing the section title "Cast and crew" to "Cast"; there's nothing about crew in there, is there?
  • Reitman began working on Ghostbusters II almost immediately after concluding directing his comedy film Twins (1988). That "(1988)" is ugly and seems unnecesary. And can we rephrase to avoid "...ing ...ing"?
  • realized there were issues with the film that had to be changed: wordy; can we cut this to something like "realized changes would be needed"? Or even cut the sentence completely? It doesn't say anything not covered by the following sentences, though it does serve as a topic sentence for the paragraph.
  • Medjuck said the test screenings identified that audiences liked the film but felt: suggest "The test screenings made it clear that audiences liked the film but felt" -- the citation will tell the reader who said this, if they care; it's not useful information in this sentence.
  • the audiences were not aware of the concepts of positive and negative slime: this makes it sound as though these are real concepts. Perhaps "the audiences did not realize that the slime in the film could be either positive or negative"?
  • The ghost train was added to add a sense of an unseen force trying to keep the Ghostbusters away. The scene was filmed at the Tunnel night club in New York. These are from two sources, but it would flow more smoothly to make it something like "The ghost train scene, which was filmed at the Tunnel night club in New York, was added to give a sense of an unseen force trying to keep the Ghostbusters away." (Regardless of how you rephrase it, please get rid of "added to add".)
  • The film's final battle with Vigo was removed and replaced, and the way that Vigo was to exit the painting to confront the Ghostbusters changed completely. Suggest: "The film's final battle with Vigo was reshot, and the way that Vigo left the painting to confront the Ghostbusters changed completely."
  • Editor Sheldon Kahn was responsible for the idea of the "Five Years Later" opening credit at the start of the film. This seems out of place at the end of the Post-production section; was it added as a late idea? Is it even worth mentioning?
  • Afterman offered Brown's music label, MCA Records, the lucrative rights to the soundtrack in exchange for Brown's participation: much too closely paraphrased from the source, which is: "Afterman went to MCA Records, Brown’s label, with an offer: MCA could have the lucrative rights to the Ghostbusters II soundtrack if Brown agreed to participate".
  • That made me take a closer look at sourcing for that paragraph, and I have a couple more concerns:
    • Aiming to replicate the success of the original, soundtrack producer Peter Afterman wanted to hire Bobby Brown, who was at the peak of his popularity following a succession of hit songs: several minor things wrong here. The source can't say he was at his peak -- it's a contemporary source and from 2020 that statement implicitly refers to his whole career. I'm perfectly willing to believe it's true, but it can't be sourced by a 1989 article.
      Got rid of "peak". I might try to find a 1989 source later but it isn't vital. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:15, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, this sentence, which precedes the one I just quoted above, doesn't stand on any additional sourcing -- the sentence above starting "Afterman went to..." supports both the sentences in the article. It's not exactly wrong as it is but I see no reason why we should expand into two sentences with no additional information.
      I'm gonna be honest, I'm a bit confused with this one. Can you elaborate? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:15, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then we have "Brown agreed on the condition he would receive a cameo in the film"; he got a cameo but the source only says he asked for a role -- perhaps he asked for more than a cameo.
      Changed to "role" Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:15, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is "cameo" the right word for the music video appearances? A music video is so short that it seems unnecessary to draw the distinction. If this is common practice, though, that's fine.
      I don't know if it's common practice, I just consider random appearances by non primary performers to be cameos, but I've changed the word to "appearances by". Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:15, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ray Parker, Jr. helped write an updated version of his hit song "Ghostbusters", which was co-written and performed by hip hop group Run-DMC. Again some unnecessary duplication; we don't need both "helped write" and "co-written". And was the co-writer Run-DMC? The source doesn't seem to explicitly say so, unless I'm missing something.
      The Collider source says co-written by parker and performed by RunDMC. Run DMC were writers on it, I'll try to find a clearer source. Changed "help write" to "develop". Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:15, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

-- More to come; looks OK so far. a bit concerned by that last paragraph. The sourcing is not completely wrong, but it feels imprecise. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:01, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to pick a couple more sentences and random and take a look at the sourcing.

  • The concept for both the painting and physical form of the central villain Vigo went through many changes, including a plan to transform him into a large monstrosity.
    • The first clause is sourced to this, which says "The whole Vigo concept went through various design changes" and then adds some details. This is a bit too closely paraphrased, and as above I don't think is very precise -- the concept for the painting did not go through design changes. If you mean that at one point Vigo was supposed to emerge from the painting, that's not clear.
  • The second part comes from page 45 of this pdf, but I don't see clear support there for this. There's a discussion of elaborate makeup and horrendous drawings, and the concept was toned down, but not of a "large monstrosity". I don't think it's fair to say that "the concept for both the painting and physical form of the central villain Vigo went through many changes", is close to "The whole Vigo concept went through various design changes.", it's a basic fact, you couldn't say it many other ways but the two sentences are wildly different. I removed mention of the painting, I personally consider mention of him moving out of the painting to be discussion relating to the painting, but it is discussed further down so nothing is lost. The second source needed an additional page number, but it says separately in the last paragraph "monstrous" and "huge", it is of course paraphrased because otherwise there are issues with too close paraphrasing. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:15, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another issue was the quantity of films being released close together and unexpected successes that meant films were staying in theaters longer than anticipated. By only mid-July, some theaters were alternating Ghostbusters II and The Karate Kid III on the same screen because of their diminishing returns to play Batman and Lethal Weapon 2 on other screens.
    • This is sourced to this. I see more imprecision here; it wasn't the overall quantity of films being released that was the issue, it was the unexpected successes.
      I think reading the source that both quantity and success is established there, they don't literally use the word "quantity", but the opening in particular discusses the "glut" of films, that films are open, other studios want them to open but there's no space, Peter Pan causing James Bond to delay, "crunch", and the latter paragraph states that the summer season is barely over and there's this huge list of films incoming. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:15, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why "only" mid-July? That's not in the source, and I don't see other dates in the discussion in our articles that make it apparent why we should say "only".
      The article was written in mid-July and mentions Lethal Weapon 2, which was only released on July 7. The "only" is because this was just under a month of release later it was flailing despite being a follow up to this huge blockbuster. I can remove the "only" if it is an issue though.Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:15, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The "diminishing returns" is supported in the source, but you can't say "some theaters" -- the article is talking about one small market; I think one cineplex, in fact.
      Changed to one theater. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:15, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Weak oppose. I'm sorry to oppose here, because I think there's been a good-faith effort to use relevant sources, and I think there's a lot of good material here. I'm opposing because looking at these last three examples makes me concerned that some sources are imprecisely represented in the article. I think the fix will not require major changes to the text, but it will require some tedious work to review each source's use and to be sure it's been accurately used. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:05, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do hope you will give it another chance Mike Christie, you have to remember that it's been copy edited about three times since I wrote it, meaning can get lost sometimes from what I originally wrote, but the examples you're finding should be few and far between. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:15, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to weak oppose as none of what I found was terrible -- I just don't think it's our best work. I certainly have sympathy for the effects of multiple copyeditors on source-text integrity; I've seen that problem many times and it is hard to manage.
We had a COVID-19 case at one of the offices I work in so I'm having to deal with setting up scores of people to work from home, which is just to say I don't know how available I'll be to review this again. To be honest I would like to get another opinion from someone with a lot of FAC experience. David Fuchs, would you mind taking a look? If David has time to look, and if his spot checks find nothing similar to what I'm complaining about, I'd be willing to strike the oppose, and I would then try to go through again and, I hope, support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:00, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can try and take a look tomorrow or Thursday. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 01:34, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I went through statements attributed to current refs 2, 4, 5, 6, 9, 11, Eisenberg 1989 (refs 23, 76, 79), Mccabe 2016 (refs 19, 20, 24), 25, 81, 89, 156, and 166.

  • Text: Then-Columbia Pictures executive David Puttnam was blamed for Ghostbusters II's lengthy production, though director Ivan Reitman said it was more the fault of the reluctant cast and crew. does not appear to be adequately cited to 4 (seems to barely discuss II at all, and doesn't go into the production or mention Puttnam.) Likewise, it doesn't mention needing buy-in from the principals for As co-creators, Reitman, Murray, Aykroyd, and Ramis all had control over the franchise, and their unanimous approval was required to proceed.
  • Text: Principal photography began on November 28, 1988, in New York City. does not appear cited to 6 and the additional reference 11 doesn't support the specific November 28 date either.
    • I changed this to "november" for now, the 28th date is accurate it is in the DVD liner, but I can't recall where it came from, a reference must have been moved. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 00:17, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 79 points to page 8 of the Cinefex article, which is just a photo spread and has no text.
    • Changed to 6-8, numbering oversight.
  • Ref 19 points to page 60 but most of the content is on page 61.
  • Ref 89/90 asser Ghostbusters II opened on 2410 theaters compared to the original's 1339. The Box Office Mojo source gives the 2410 figure, but the LA Times article only says Although the sequel played on 1,073 more screens . While normally I wouldn't have an issue with performing that subtraction, 2410-1073 = 1337, not 1339 as asserted.
    • 1,339 is used in the article and is backed up by BoxOfficeMojo, so either their 1,073 figure is wrong or they're referring to opening day figures versus widest release figures. But the figures used in the article are as reported. Pinging David Fuchs Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 00:17, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 00:55, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Christie, David Fuchs? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 18:34, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to hear David's comments on what he found. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:11, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Uninvolved comment) @Mike Christie: For the record, because you've used a bolded oppose three times, the software is reading that as thee individual opposes; it doesn't recognise striking them through  :) So at the moment the nom page says theer are "5 supports/3 opposes", whereas it's ("only") "5 supports/1 oppose". Not a comment on your oppose, btw, just a commment on the mechanics. ——SN54129 13:56, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the note. I think I’ll leave the bolding as it is; there are other problems with the nominations viewer anyway, and I know the coords will read through, and I think it’s probably easier for them to see my various changes of mind if they’re bolded. Darkwarriorblake, I’m striking my oppose. What David found was real but minor and that increases my confidence there is not a pervasive problem here. I can’t in good conscience support without reading through again, and I can’t commit to doing that in a reasonable time. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:19, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from NowIsntItTime edit

  • In the lead's third paragraph is this quote: Critics responded unfavorably to what they perceived as largely a copy of the original and a softening of its cynical, dark humor to be more family-friendly. although the performances of Peter MacNicol and Moranis were repeatedly singled out for praise. There is a period between "family-friendly" and "although" instead of a comma.
  • Raymond Stantz owns an occult bookstore and works alongside Winston Zeddemore as unpopular children's entertainers. Does Zeddemore and Stantz both own the bookstore, or just Stantz? Elaborate further.
Changed to "Raymond Stantz owns an occult bookstore and works a side job alongside Winston Zeddemore as unpopular children's entertainers. " Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:25, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vigo orders Janosz to bring him a child to possess, allowing him to live again and rule the world. How does possessing a child = being able to rule the world? Or does he want to rule the world and inhabit a kid's body while he's at it? This sentence is incredibly confusing on its own. Please include the main idea of Oscar (I think that's the kid's name) into the plot to better explain this feat.
I changed it to this "Vigo orders Janosz to bring him a child to possess, allowing him to escape the confines of his painting and live again to conquer the world. Because of his infatuation with Dana, Janosz chooses Oscar." Any better? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:25, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • [...] Aykroyd's niece Karen Humber portrays a schoolchild, and director Ivan Reitman's children Jason and Catherine portray, respectively, the rude child at the opening birthday party and a girl with a puppy that is part of Egon's experiments is the girl or the puppy part of Egon's experiments?
I removed the bit about the puppy, couldn't think how to reword it, as she is the subject not the puppy. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:25, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Everything else in the article looks good besides these issues that stuck out to me. Interesting article too. -NowIsntItTime(chats)(doings) 23:24, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is an interesting film, the failure despite everything working for it allows for a much more interesting backstory than the unmitigated success of the original. Thanks for taking the time to review it NowIsntItTime Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:25, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome; you addressed the issues. Support. -NowIsntItTime(chats)(doings) 22:26, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Hurricanehink edit

I came here from my FAC on Cyclone Chapala. Hopefully me reviewing this will get you to review one of the other four tropical cyclone related articles up for FAC (just not mine)

  • Something is up in the infobox when it says "Characters

by Dan Aykroyd Harold Ramis"

Removed. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:34, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As the sequel to the highest-grossing comedy film, Ghostbusters II was expected to dominate the box office but the film earned $215.4 million during its theatrical run compared with the original's $282.2 million, making it the eighth-highest-grossing film of the year." - it's a long sentence. Could you split it up into two?
Changed to "As the sequel to the then-highest-grossing comedy film of all time, Ghostbusters II was expected to dominate the box office. Instead, the film earned $215.4 million during its theatrical run compared with the original's $282.2 million, making it the eighth-highest-grossing film of the year."
  • "In the courtroom, the slime sample reacts to the judge's angry outburst, releasing the ghosts of two brothers he sentenced to death." - this could be clearer
Any better- "In the courtroom, the slime sample is presented as evidence. It responds physically to judge Wexler's angry tirade against the Ghostbusters and then explodes, summoning the ghosts of two brothers he sentenced to death.? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:34, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Much better. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:31, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Learning of Hardemeyer's actions" - this would be stronger if this paragraph was combined with the previous one
Done Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:34, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The ghostbusters abseil through the ceiling" - I'm not familiar w that verb, and so might other users
Changed to "rappel" Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:34, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A chorus of "Auld Lang Syne" sung by the gathered crowds outside neutralizes the slime, weakening Vigo and forcing him to return to the painting and free the Ghostbusters." - this would be better as two sentences, it feels rushed
Changed to " The collective crowds gathered outside begin singing a chorus of "Auld Lang Syne", and their positivity weakens Vigo. He is forced to return to the painting and the Ghostbusters are freed." Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:34, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the cast photo under "Cast", I have two issues. "Stars of the film include (l–r) Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd, Sigourney Weaver, Ernie Hudson, Harold Ramis, and Rick Moranis." - first, perhaps you should indicate which row, so we're not left to assume that it's clockwise. Also, you end with a period, even though it's not a sentence
I added (top row) and (bottom row). Is that what you mean? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:34, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, thanks! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:31, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Puttnam had publicly criticized Murray for allegedly taking from Hollywood without giving back." - I don't get this
The most direct quote is “an actor who makes millions off movies but gives nothing back to his art. He’s a taker.” It's not explicit in what he didn't give back, though I assume he means the disappearing for ages at a time and no really being into promotion. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:34, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:31, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Others suggested Ghostbusters was part of former Columbia executive Frank Price's legacy" - who?
Removed the others part. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:34, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In particular, David Puttnam, who became chairman of Columbia Pictures in June 1986,[7] was reported to have been removed from his job for alienating Murray and his talent agent Michael Ovitz." - this feels like it should go after "In September 1987, Puttnam left Columbia and was replaced as its president by Dawn Steel."
Reworked the section for this Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:54, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "By May 1987, Aykroyd and Ramis had been working for over a year" - so I expected something in the "Development" section to mention something in 1986 about when the sequel was being conceived/given the go-ahead. If Aykroyd and Ramis started in May 1986, I don't get why you start by focusing so much on David Puttnam becoming chairman a month later. Like, did Reitman get signed on as director around this time? I don't really know how the whole Hollywood business works. Just an observation
There isn't much information that I can find regarding pre-Puttnam. Guy McElwain was producer between 1983 and 1986 but he just had a long succession of flops, there's no mention of Ghostbusters II under him. The information I can find seems to suggest that the Aykroyd just started writing, similar to how he wrote Ghostbusters III in the 1990s despite there not being a film in production, but the film itself wasn't going ahead because Murray was not participating. I did search for info re: McElwain and Ghostbusters previously but I will take another look if I can clarify the timescales better. EDIT: Reading the source, it seems like most other films, where someone writes a script hoping to get it turned into a film. Aykroyd/Reitman were working on a script, though by May the same time, Reitman was surprised that Puttnam said they were starting production in November, when he hadn't even heard production was starting. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:54, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Max von Sydow provided the voice of Vigo the Carpathian." - you also have a period ending this, even though it's not a sentence
Done Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:34, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Soundtrack producer Peter Afterman wanted to hire Bobby Brown who had, had a recent succession of hit songs." - what?
Done Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:34, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Hudson was filmed against a blue screen so he would appear in the river; his motion in the river had to be animated by hand against the river's natural movements." - you mentioned in the previous sentence three actors falling into the river, but only one here, why?
Only Hudson is present in the particular shot being discussed. I've elaborated this point a bit. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:34, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • " which was too small to let the Ghostbusters peer out" - is this relevant?
It just establishes scale between the real thing and the larger-than-life copy. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:34, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Five remotely controlled baby strollers were used to create the "possessed" stroller" - why the quotes
Removed Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:34, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Based on its gross and an average increase in ticket price of 22% since Ghostbusters' release, an estimated 2 million more people went to see the film. " - that weekend, or overall?
Added "opening" Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:34, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "MacNicol's performance was consistently praised for his performance." - redundant
Good eye, removed.
  • "Financially, Ghostbusters II was a relative success but it failed to meet studio expectations as a sequel to the highest-grossing comedy of all time, and despite being predicted to outperform its rival films before its release it failed to do so." - that's a lot for a sentence starting a section, and I suggest splitting it up
Done Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:34, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This is demonstrated during the courtroom scene, when the executed Scoleri brothers' return to wreak havoc, demonstrating a failure of the legal system. " - you use "demonstrated/ing" twice in the sentence. Also, the Scoleri brothers came back from the dead. If you consider it thematically a failure of the legal system, I suggest you state who specifically compares these concepts.
  • "Others have analyzed the slime as a symbol of pollution." - see above, re: attribution. You can say who the "Others" are
  • "defining it outside the atypical American stereotype of purity." - I feel like "outside" and "atypical" cancel each other out. "atypical American stereotype" seems like an odd construct
  • "In 2009, Den of Geek listed it as one of the 25 best blockbuster sequels of all time"- what did it rank?
Changed. They've changed their site design but I'd swear they were unranked before. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:34, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ghostbusters: The Return (2004) was the first in a planned series of sequel novels before the publisher went out of business.' - is it worth adding the publisher?
Done Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:34, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All in all it's a decent article. I hope my comments aren't too troublesome. I also hope you consider reviewing another tropical cyclone article (there are four on FAC that aren't mine and could use an outsiders' review). Cheers! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:50, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to review this Hurricanehink. I am looking to go through your notes tomorrow. I'm also off next week so I'll be happy to look at one of the articles you mentioned. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:29, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hurricanehink I've addressed most of your issues. I'm going to be a little longer with the comments re: Puttnam as it will require a greater restructuring of that section since other things feed out of it. BRB Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:34, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the replies so far! Lemme know how the restructuring works out. Sorry to be picky on that front, but I think the article will be even stronger with that extra bit of clarity. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:31, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hurricanehink, I've addressed the last few issues raised. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:01, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to support the article. Thanks for your edits, research, and hard work! I hope you consider reviewing one of the five other tropical cyclone articles that aren't mine (yes, there's one more than when I first left my comment five days ago). Cheers Darkwarriorblake ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:15, 13 April 2020 (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) 13 April 2020 [26].

Interstate 82 edit

Nominator(s): SounderBruce 23:31, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a relatively minor Interstate highway that took over 30 years to build because of inter-city disputes on where it should go. This highway passes through one of the most productive agricultural areas in the U.S., especially when it comes to hops and wine. It was promoted as a GA over a year ago and went through a project A-Class Review that only got one review. SounderBruce 23:31, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Yakima_River_Canyon_highway_paved_in_1924_Washington_State.jpg: where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:14, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Nikkimaria: I was unable to reach the Ellensburg Library to find out more (as they are closed for an indefinite period), but their catalog lists this as having been published in 1924 and thus now passing into the public domain. The license on the Commons page has been updated accordingly. SounderBruce 02:29, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is a link to that catalogue available? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:49, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Nikkimaria: It's here under the Washington Rural Heritage Collections. This is also linked from the Commons page. SounderBruce 02:52, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per review at ACR. My one hesitation was the lack of publishers in the newspaper article citations - not necessarily because I think they're needed but because I've been told that is generally required at FAC. But open to input either way. --Rschen7754 05:15, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Lee Vilenski edit

  • First paragraph is a little short. If you combined 1&2 it would be the same size as the fourth para. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:22, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Took a section of the second paragraph and grafted it onto the first, and expanded the second paragraph.
  • WP:INFOBOXCITE - the length is in the body, doesn't need to also be sourced in the infobox. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:22, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Road articles normally have the length cited in the infobox.
      • Why though? The information is clearly cited in the prose. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:36, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm going to start a discussion at WT:HWY since it seems that this is now part of MOS. --Rschen7754 04:05, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel like the original table seems a bit out of place. Either needs a move, or preferably a cull. It's information that's easy to put into prose. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:22, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Removed it, seeing as other two-state Interstates seem to omit it.
  • A branch highway between PSH 3 and the Columbia River near Plymouth—across from Umatilla, Oregon - could we say "Plymouth, Washington", rather than it be confused with Plymouth? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:22, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The section already references several Washington cities without using the state, and Plymouth is already mentioned in the Route description as being in Washington. I don't see the need to disambiguate.
  • hearing board is a weird redlink. I'm not saying it's definately not notable, but as it doesn't redirect anywhere, it might be worth either relinking (say to hearing (law).) Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:22, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Created a redirect. The concept of a hearings board is somewhat unusual to the U.S. public, but we have some exposure out West due to their significance in land use decisions.
  • Could we link the first instance of $? There are so many dollars Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:22, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Links to the dollar article aren't common for U.S. articles, and MOS:CURRENCY only mentions linking for lesser-known currencies.
@Lee Vilenski: Thanks for dropping by to start a review. I've left replies to your suggestions above. SounderBruce 03:03, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I left this one hanging. Happy to support. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:38, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Dough4872:

  1. In the lead, you might want to indicate what Interstate it intersects in what town.
    1. Added, though I may rework this later.
  2. You already defined the abbreviation for Interstate 82 in the lead, do not need to do it again in route description.
    1. Removed.
  3. You do not need wikilinks in image captions if those terms are already linked in the prose.
    1. WP:CAP does not say much about wikilinks, but I prefer having them in captions to help catch the attention of readers scrolling through.
  4. Do you know the name of the BNSF line? I know the FRA has a map that shows names of railroad lines. This may be useful information to add.
    1. Added subdivision names.
  5. Referring to SR 397 as a "recently-built highway" will eventually become outdated, so I would remove the part of it being "recently-built".
    1. Fixed.
  6. What freight railroad's track does Amtrak's Empire Builder use? I would add this along with the name of the line as I noted above.
    1. Added.
  7. How many lanes wide is I-82? I see no mention of that detail in the route description.
    1. Added, but I don't think it would fit to include every mention of an auxiliary lane.
  8. I would not use the term "federal numbered highway system" and instead refer to it as the "United States Numbered Highway System"
    1. I don't think it's necessary to use the official title here.
  9. The sentence "$25 million in funding (equivalent to $141 million in 2018 dollars)[37] for the 28-mile (45 km) addition was eventually authorized by the federal government in 1968." should be reworded so it does not begin with a numeral.
    1. Fixed.
  10. "A proposal to add climbing lanes for trucks on the steep grades in the Manastash Ridge between Ellensburg and Yakima was made in the 2000s and remains unfunded as of 2017.", any updates on this? Dough4872 13:45, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    1. @Dough4872: No updates so far, and no mentions from local newspapers. SounderBruce 02:02, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - My issues have been addressed. Dough4872 03:35, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Hurricanehink

  • I see you have the traffic data as of 2016. Washington has eliminated their annual traffic count, and instead has a website with data from 2018, so you might want to update the traffic figures
    • I'd prefer not to use the portal because it is harder to cite and verify data compared to the spreadsheet. The 2016 figures are still relatively current, so I don't see a problem with keeping them until a more permanent solution is found for all Washington articles.
  • "The freeway reaches its highest point at Vanderbilt Gap, which is 2,672 feet (814 m) above sea level and only 300 feet (91 m) lower than Snoqualmie Pass on I-90, the lowest major pass in the Cascade Mountains, and begins its southwesterly descent into Yakima County." - this is a bit long, I recommend splitting up
    • Split up.
  • I-82 and US 395 travel southward and ascend the Horse Heaven Hills to an intersection with SR 397, a recently-built highway that provides alternative points of access for Kennewick and Finley - 1992 isn't that recent
    • Fixed.
  • "$301,000 (equivalent to $5.72 million in 2018 dollars)" - more recent USD?
    • The figure is generated by a template that will be updated by maintainers.
  • "The highway incorporated several built county roads and planned but unbuilt roads from Ellensburg to Pasco" - I feel like this could be stronger, but I'm not sure how. It tripped me up when I got to it.
    • Merged the two and shortened it.
  • "after it was modified to terminate further west near Stanfield" - farther, not further, I believe

All in all, a good read, typical of the road project. Lemme know if any of these comments are problematic. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:56, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • @Hurricanehink: Fixed. Thanks for the review. SounderBruce 02:10, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Great work! Thanks for the quick fixes. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:12, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • BTW, would you mind reviewing one of the hurricane FAC's that are up? We sometimes have difficulty getting reviews from non-storm people, but those kind of reviews are most important to make sure it isn't too jargon heavy. If not, no prob, but we'd appreciate that. If you road folk ever need reviews, there are plenty of folks from the hurricane gang. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:05, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

Will do this later. Kees08 (Talk) 16:49, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing this revision.

  • Does ref 5 need Port of Grandview in the title field?
    • Removed.
  • Is it possible to reduce the page range of ref 10 down so it is easier to verify?
    • As the entire section is used to source the individual mileposts in the Exit list section, I'm afraid not. I can offer a tip: the "ARM" column represents route mileage and page 624 (734 with the native PDF viewer) has the total length in Washington (132.57 miles).
  • Ref 28, is HistoryLink a reliable source? (and ref 36, and any others)
    • HistoryLink is written by historians from around the state, including those with newspaper columns and books from reputable publishers (e.g. University of Washington Press). The reliability question has been brought up in a few of my previous FACs (e.g. Arlington, WA) and resolved in favor of keeping it.
      • Well that wasn't exactly a glowing recommendation, so I did a quick check. The about us page says ...by staff historians, contract writers, volunteers, and consulting experts., so I double checked the authors of each entry that Interstate 82 references to make sure they were not just volunteers in the sense that Wikipedia defines them. According to their staff page and additional searching on the internet, they are all historians, so HistoryLink should be fine to use. No action needed. Kees08 (Talk) 17:39, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same page number comment for ref 34. It isn't ideal to have to read ~10 pages to verify something. Can you break them up more? Anything over maybe 3 pages seems excessive.
    • Fixed, but I might replace it with a different book source.
  • Possible to switch to a https link for ref 42?
    • Fixed.
  • For all the open access links (for example in ref 40), I believe they are presumed open access and the lock symbol is not required/preferred (which is why it doesn't work in CS1)
    • Removed for now, but I will have to research further to see what these clippings should be marked with (if at all). Either way it'll affect a lot of my editing.
      • I used to include them, dug into it further, and have excluded them ever since. If you find anything different that makes it sound like including them is a good idea let me know. Kees08 (Talk) 07:24, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • For ref 52, and any other references where it might be ambiguous, can you add the location parameter? I don't think its needed for things like the Seattle Times (though it is nice for consistency and doesn't hurt), but for references like Tr-City Herald it is useful.
    • For the intended audience, "Tri-City Herald" isn't particularly vague (and the locale is explained in the prose). I have added locations to less obvious ones (e.g. Idaho State Journal).
      • Well the intended audience is the English-speaking world, so while I think newspapers like The New York Times and The Washington Post do not have to have city names, newspapers like Spokesman-Review, Yakima Herald-Republic, Aberdeen Herald, Tri-City Herald, Corvallis Gazette-Times, The Daily Chronicle, Ellensburg Daily Record, Walla Walla Union-Bulletin (PS, this isn't linked in the first instance), Capital Journal, Oregon Statesman, Albany Democrat-Herald, The Oregonian (I could back off of The Oregonian and Oregon Statesman), it would help with WP:VERIFIABILITY. I didn't find a policy on this so I guess do whatever you prefer, but don't expect people to know where Capital Journal or The Daily Chronicle are located. Kees08 (Talk) 07:24, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • For ref 55, I think if you wikilink something like United Press International you are supposed to do it in all the references.
    • Never heard of this requirement, but I'd rather keep things consistent with the "link at first appearance" format used in the rest of the citations.
      Well I wouldn't call it a requirement, but see MOS:DUPLINK, and my real short discussion with Wehwalt at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Apollo_15_postal_covers_incident/archive1. Since there is little to no actual policy on formatting, practically everything I suggest is that, only a suggestion. I agree with Wehwalt that they stand alone, and if a reader clicks on a reference and there isn't a wikilink on it, I doubt they are going to scroll through the references, find the first instance, and click on it. Your call on what to do. I prefer to not have them at all :), but if they are to be included, I prefer Wehwalt's thoughts of linking all of them (similar to wikilinking in tables). Kees08 (Talk) 07:24, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did High Beam change their URL system? Could be useful to find the current versions, archive those, and have the live link.
    • HighBeam is now defunct, and the replacement (Questia) does not include many back issues of the Yakima Herald-Republic.
  • For ref 152, believe its just Los Angeles Times
    • Fixed.
  • This citation is missing a location: Weird Washington: Your Travel Guide to Washington's Local Legends and Best Kept Secrets
    • Though a location for a book may not be required. I was surprised that I was not able to find a policy requiring it. Kees08 (Talk) 07:24, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, per Wikipedia:Guidance on source reviewing at FAC Books should be defined in terms of author, title, year and/or edition, and publisher. Publisher location and, where possible, ISBN are usually added, but they are not required by WP:CITE. Consistency requires that these optional fields are either added in all instances or omitted in all instances (except where a book does not have an ISBN). SO based on that, as long as you include locations for all of them or exclude locations for all citations you are in compliance with the minimum standards. Kees08 (Talk) 07:27, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Should be enough for now. Let me know if you need further clarification or disagree with any. Kees08 (Talk) 05:49, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kees08: Thanks for the source review. I have left replies to your comments above. SounderBruce 06:38, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Kees08: I've added the location tags for newspapers without placenames in their title (missed a few the first time around) and to the book citation you mentioned. SounderBruce 07:35, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review complete and the article satisfies requirements. Kees08 (Talk) 17:42, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Featured_log/April_2020&oldid=954158360"