Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/August 2018

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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 20:02, 29 August 2018 [1].

---

Kate Sheppard

Nominator(s): gadfium 05:52, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

This article is about the leader of the New Zealand suffrage movement, which gained votes for women 125 years ago on 19 September 1893. The first election in which women could vote was held on 28 November 1893.-gadfium 05:52, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I will be on holiday and unavailable to respond from 6 August to 21 August. Please don't close this FAC due to lack of response during this period. Other editors may be able to address issues raised while I'm away.-gadfium 20:12, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

I will be unable to make any substantial contributions from now until 22 August, as I will have limited internet and only a mobile phone to access it with. I remain committed to the featured article process.-gadfium 06:02, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Now back in New Zealand.-gadfium 08:45, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest scaling up the comic and petition
• File:Julius_Vogel,_ca_1870s.jpg: when/where was this first published? Same with File:Women's_Suffrage_Petition_1893_(9365778997).jpg, File:National_Council_of_Women,_Christchurch,_1896.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:01, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I've scaled up the images suggested. I think perhaps the petition is now too large but I'll leave it for further comment.
  • Each of the three images you identify have rationales as to why they are in the public domain in New Zealand. I'm not a copyright expert, and if these rationals are not sufficient, I'm happy to remove the images from the article. The photographer of the Vogel portrait died in 1919 and the photo was taken in the 1870s, so it is clearly public domain as New Zealand uses life of author plus 50 years.[2] For the petition, if you accept the copyright belongs to the original petition and not the much later digitisation of it, Sheppard was the author and she died in 1934. The photo of the National Council of Women has an unknown photographer, so its copyright status depends on when it was published. I am not clear on whether this photo was published in the NZ Graphic in 1896, or a similar photo was published there. @Schwede66: might have more information.-gadfium 18:45, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
    • The primary issue in these cases is the US status - they currently use tags indicating a pre-1923 publication, not simply creation. If a pre-1923 publication can't be demonstrated, a different tag would need to be used. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:26, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
      • I would happily change the tags of the first two to PD-old-70, but that tag says it also needs a US-specific tag. This needs someone well-versed in copyright law to sort out.-gadfium 20:55, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
      • I have changed the tags of these three images to PD-US-unpublished. If there is evidence found that any have been published, then the original tags were correct. If this is not an acceptable solution, I will request assistance at Commons:Village pump/Copyright.-gadfium 23:01, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
        • I've looked into the issue whether the third photo (New Zealand Council of Women) was published in the 16 May 1896 edition of The New Zealand Graphic as implied by the National Library entry. I'd say this is highly likely (what else would they mean by giving this reference?). But one way to know for sure is to go to a library and have a look. Nine libraries hold copies of this journal and the closest one to me is the Canterbury Museum Documentary Research Centre. If needed, I'd be happy to enquire with them (a) whether they hold this edition and (b) whether they give me access. Let me know if it's needed. Schwede66 05:57, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
          • Yes please. If you find you don't have time, I can look in the Auckland Museum library.-gadfium 08:04, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
          • @Schwede66: I can go to the Auckland Museum today if you have not already had a chance to look at this.-gadfium 20:36, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
            • Oh, I didn't see the previous reply - sorry. This page wasn't on my watchlist (it is now). Let me know if you have success today / find the time to go. If not, I'll ask at the local museum here. Schwede66 20:48, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
              • The Auckland Museum was not able to supply this to me today, although they do have it, so I found a copy at University of Auckland. The photo was published in 1896, and I have updated the Commons description accordingly. Thanks to @Schwede66: and @Susan Tol: for their help.

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 00:32, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your copyedits, and your support. You have a great ability to turn convoluted prose into plain English!-gadfium 03:00, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks. Your writing is in very good shape, and easy to follow. - Dank (push to talk) 12:00, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments

Looks good.

• fn 100, 101, 106, 108, 116 and 117 differ from the rest. Suggest moving them down into the sources to match.
• On the other hand, "Women and the vote: Introduction" and "1893 women's suffrage petition" from New Zealand History are not used in the article. Suggest moving them to the Further Reading section.
• I had to click on the link to find out what they call "football" in New Zealand

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:51, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I'll tackle these in the morning, about 12 hours from now.-gadfium 06:54, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Done.-gadfium 23:07, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Support Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:48, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestions, which definitely improved the article. And thank you for your support.-gadfium 19:10, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

• " a position through which she elevated the cause of suffrage in New Zealand" A bit clumsy. Maybe " and she used the position to advance the cause of female suffrage in New Zealand"
• "Kate Sheppard promoted suffrage" I think you need to say female suffrage each time.
• "she successfully advocated for women's suffrage" I think the wod for is not needed.
• "Failing health provoked a return to New Zealand" provoked is an odd word here.
• "George Beath, the partner of Kate's sister Marie" What does partner mean here - lover? fiancé? business partner?
• "also Classics Master at Christchurch High School at the time" I think "at the time" is superfluous.
• What are Relative Statistics?
• "prohibition and women's suffrage would be the organisation's central aim." Presumably aims.
• "he eventually did so on 19 September, which granted women full voting rights" This sounds awkward. I suggest deleting "which granted women full voting rights" and moving it to replace "enabling women's suffrage" at the beginning of the paragraph.
• " it was not until 1933 that the first woman was elected to parliament" No change needed, but I see Britain was ahead of NZ on this, and presumably on first woman cabinet minister with Margaret Bondfield in 1929.
• "but also found time to promote " I would delete "found time"
• "Sheppard bought new furnishings and appeared to be planning for a permanent residence" This is unclear. New furnishings for a house in Canterbury?
• A first rate article but some minor niggles. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:42, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

•  Done.
• Re George Beath: In modern New Zealand, "partner" means romantic partner, possibly more so than in other Western countries, but I agree it is inappropriate and confusing in this context. I considered "boyfriend" but I think that would also be inappropriate for that era. The source does not say they were lovers at that point, nor whether they were engaged. "Suitor" might work, but I went with "future husband" which makes no assumptions at all.
• Relative Statistics seems to be a term used by the prohibition movement and I cannot find a definition of it. In the American temperance movement, the equivalent position was at one time called "Relation of Intemperance to Labor and Capital with Relative Statistics" (source: "A brief history of the Woman's Christian Temperance Union : outline course of study for local unions", section 36, from which I gather it means the comparitive consumption of alcohol between the working classes and the capitalists. Perhaps the term was used differently in New Zealand, so I am reluctant to add such an explanation to the article.
• Thank you for your review, and if my changes are not satisfactory I am very happy to discuss further improvements.-gadfium 22:53, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Support - and sorry I forgot to do it earlier. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:35, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Support. The article has now certainly reached FA standard. (I went ahead and made a few last-minute copy edits rather than compiling a list of further matters requiring attention.)--Ipigott (talk) 14:16, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you.-gadfium 22:17, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Coord notes

• I think ref formatting has been checked above but we still need signoff on source quality/reliability.
• Also as this appears to be the nominator's first FAC, I'd like to see a spotcheck of sources for accurate usage and avoidance of plagiarism or close paraphrasing.

You can make requests for these at the top of WT:FAC (unless any of the reviewers above would like to do the honours). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:14, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I have made a request as suggested.-gadfium 08:45, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Source review

Checking now...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:37, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

• No copyvio detected.
• Sources look reliable.
• FN #3 - used twice and material faithful to source.
• FN #8 - used thrice and material faithful to source (can't check the school bit).
• FN #118 - used once and material faithful to source

Ok I am happy....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:52, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Closing comment: I will be promoting this shortly. Just a few little points that don't need to hold up promotion but I would be grateful if someone could take a look at them. Sarastro (talk) 20:02, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

• We have no publisher for West! 1858–1966.
• As we are referencing a print version of The Dictionary of New Zealand biography, do we have an ISBN?
• We are not consistent with the giving the location of a publisher. It needs to be one or the other. Sarastro (talk) 20:02, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

• 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. Sarastro (talk) 20:02, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 22:31, 24 August 2018 [3].

---

Herman Vandenburg Ames

Nominator(s): Chetsford (talk) 22:14, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Some time ago I discovered, to my great surprise, we had no article on Herman Vandenburg Ames. In the early 20th century Ames was instrumental in the development of government archives and the preservation of official records in the United States, two things which are very much in the spirit of this project. Originally I'd intended to just write a stub article to remedy this oversight, however, it ended up growing into a much longer article and - for purposes of thoroughness - I also created separate articles on his predecessor and successor as Dean of the Pennsylvania graduate school to fill out the "academic offices" template. I'd nominated this for GA, however, due to the current GA backlog and the lower level of interest in Law articles, after a number of months it didn't appear to be vectoring towards a review and a peer review request met with similar disinterest. Ergo, I've decided to move this straight to FA. That said, Blackmane gave it a good copyedit, and I've also taken care to archive all the web links with Perma.cc. I apologize that some of the references are offline and, in one case, may be difficult to acquire (i.e. I had to order reference 15 from the University of Pennsylvania through interlibrary loan). Thanks for the consideration. Chetsford (talk) 22:14, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Dank

• "becoming a "brilliant, fervent, and impressive" Congregational preacher": Per WP:INTEXT, quoted text needs attribution in the text, not just in the footnote.

updated Chetsford (talk) 00:59, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

• "serving as ... chaplain of state institutions of Rhode Island": Feels indeterminate to me. One, two, three institutions? What kind of institutions?

updated Chetsford (talk) 00:59, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

• "parents — Herman": If you want to pass FAC, read MOS:DASH carefully, both on this point and the things I mention below. Here, it should be an unspaced em-dash or spaced en-dash.

thank you much - fixed throughout Chetsford (talk) 01:14, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

• "The Ames family were descended": In AmEng, it's usually "was", but even better would be to rewrite it, since "was" sounds awful to most Commonwealth ears.

good point - rewritten Chetsford (talk) 00:59, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

• "of Bruton, England in": Wikipedia's MOS is slightly behind the times here ... we need a comma after England, and after any similar construction. Check throughout.

updated and checked Chetsford (talk) 00:59, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

• "which would become among the largest university scholarships in existence at that time": It seems to me this would be better without "which would become" ... if it's not, then I don't understand the sentence.

I agree - rewritten Chetsford (talk) 00:59, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

• "1901-1902": en-dash.

fixed Chetsford (talk) 00:59, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

• "would note that - though they had": en-dash.

fixed Chetsford (talk) 00:59, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

• Someone else will probably bring this up, but FAC style (and Wikipedia style, generally) never relies as heavily on quotes as you do.

Thank you - on reading this through I can see what you mean. I've rewritten this to remove the block quote as well as four in-paragraph quotes. Chetsford (talk) 01:14, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

• I did some light copyediting up through "Writing and research". That's probably it for me. I apologize, but I won't have time to finish up. I'm as surprised as you are that this wasn't a Wikipedia article before you tackled it, and I think you've done an excellent job of giving the flavor of the man and his accomplishments, at least as far as I read. I hope this passes FAC, either this time or the next time this comes to FAC. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 00:10, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Dank - thanks very much for this review. Please see my amendments above and let me know if I've missed anything or you notice anything else! Chetsford (talk) 01:14, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Happy to help. The dashes need a little work, but someone will probably be along to fix those soon. Best of luck. - Dank (push to talk) 02:33, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support on prose per my standard disclaimer (but note my earlier comments). Well done. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 17:50, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Image review

• Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods. Also, if there's only one thing in the image and only one thing mentioned in the caption, it isn't helpful to say "pictured"

• File:Delta_Upsilon_Amherst_chapter_house.jpg: when/where was this first published? Same with File:University_of_Pennsylvania_College_Hall.jpg, File:Herman_Vandenburg_Ames_(1865–1935),_portrait_photograph.jpg, File:Ames_note_1918.jpg

• File:Herman_V._Ames_signature.png would also need an original publication with that tag, but see COM:SIG
• File:BenFranklinAtPennCropped.jpg needs a copyright tag for the original work. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:32, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Nikkimaria. I've made these changes except for the last one as I can't find an image called BenFranklinAtPennCropped.jpg. Chetsford (talk) 06:01, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

It's in the UPenn navbox. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:24, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Oh, thanks for the catch! I've removed the navbox. Chetsford (talk) 20:47, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Support from KJP1

A very well-written and well-sourced article. Happy to support. A few comments/suggestions for consideration below, but nothing to stand in the way.

Lead

• "the inaugural recipient of the American Historical Society's Justin Winsor Prize" - can a work, rather than its author, be the recipient of a prize? I'm genuinely not sure.
• "Ames was a driving force behind the establishment of the Pennsylvania State Archives, specifically, but also influenced the widespread establishment of government archives throughout the United States" - not sure the "specifically" is necessary, or the "but" quite apposite? Perhaps, "Ames was a driving force behind the establishment of the Pennsylvania State Archives and influenced the widespread establishment of government archives throughout the United States"?
• "the acquisition of materials in American History" - does the History require capitalisation?

Early life

• "He was ultimately ordained to the clergy" - is the "to the clergy" necessary? You could link Ordination.
• "In the 16th century Amyas was frequently confused with Ames" - just checking this should be "Amyas" and not "Amyias" as in the previous sentence?

Education

• "Though his interest was in American History" - see lead comment on the capitalised H. I see in the following section, it's used without the capitalisation.

Career - Teaching

• "Other notable students of Ames' included Herbert Eugene Bolton" - a plural start but a singular finish. Did you mean to include John Musser, although you mention him above?
• "However, Musser offered contravening recollections of Ames' academic manner" - a few points. Is the "However" necessary? Is "contravening" quite the right word, or would something like "contradictory" work? And "manner" seems a little odd, "approach"?

Archival preservation

• "examining Pennsylvania's state records, which were poorly organized and largely diffused across various state offices" - "scattered", or "deposited in various …"?
• "Ames continued his attempts to inventory Pennsylvania public records" - is "inventory" a verb? "to compile an inventory of Pennsylvania's public records"?
• "Ames and Shimmel ended their work with several recommendations.[18] First, they recommended" - to avoid the double "recommend" perhaps replace the second with "advised"?

I'd be pleased to pick up the Source review, if no one else volunteers. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 09:04, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

KJP1 - thanks so much for your excellent review and I will gladly accept your offer of a source review, too. I've made all the edits above with two exceptions. In the matter of "American H/history" the University of Pennsylvania capitalizes "H" when referring to the Ames Fund, which seems to invoke it as the academic discipline of American History but "h" when referring to history of the Americas (as in International Relations as a discipline vs international relations as in the relations between nations). The only other item was in the question of "inventory" as my Merriam-Webster dictionary says it can be either a noun ("a list of property or assets") or a verb ("to make a list of property or assets"). Chetsford (talk) 02:01, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

• "Ames' portrait, by Alice L. Emmong, is cataloged in the United States National Portrait Collection." I do not think this is worth mentioning in the lead.
• I would also mention here where his papers are housed rather than his sister's fund.
• You mention where he studied but not what he studied at each college. This should be stated.
• " a room which he shared with the rest of the graduate school offices" I am not sure what this means. All the offices were in one room?
• "an $80,000 endowment from the late Frederic Courtland Penfield, among the largest university scholarship funds in existence at that time" I would say "which was among the largest."
• "During the 1901—1902 academic year, Ames was one of Ezra Pound's professors" But you say he became a full professor by 1908. If assistant professor this should be clarified - and when was he promoted to this position?
• "the eighteenth amendment" I think this should be explained, not just linked.
• You could link presentist to Presentism (literary and historical analysis). Also to relativism, although I am not clear that you are using the word in the same sense as in the linked article.
• "Ames' portrait, by Alice L. Emmong, is cataloged in the United States National Portrait Collection." It seems more important that the portrait is owned by the University of Pennsylvaia. Is it known whether it is on display?
• I do not understand the pedigree chart and it is not referenced.
• He was obviously important as an archivist but as a historian? He was liberal and conservative on the constitution, presentist and relativist on history, he saw WWI as a wonderful opportunity for historians to influence public opinion in favour of the government but also believed in impartiality. He seems to have had no coherent views? Dudley Miles (talk) 21:43, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Dudley, thanks so much for this thorough review. I've made notes below. Please let me know if you have any questions or you see that I've missed anything.

• "Ames' portrait, by Alice L. Emmong, is cataloged in the United States National Portrait Collection." I do not think this is worth mentioning in the lead.

done

• I would also mention here where his papers are housed rather than his sister's fund.

done

• You mention where he studied but not what he studied at each college. This should be stated.

I agree. I actually don't have this information, oddly none of the sources specify his major at Amherst. While I assume it was History I can't say so with absolute certainty.

• " a room which he shared with the rest of the graduate school offices" I am not sure what this means. All the offices were in one room?

Correct. (As an aside, IIRC, Pennsylvania didn't begin offering graduate degrees (outside of specialist degrees like MD) until the 1890s.)

• It still does not sound right to me. A person shares with other people, not with offices. Maybe with other staff and/or with graduate students. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:53, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

• "an $80,000 endowment from the late Frederic Courtland Penfield, among the largest university scholarship funds in existence at that time" I would say "which was among the largest."

done

• "During the 1901—1902 academic year, Ames was one of Ezra Pound's professors" But you say he became a full professor by 1908. If assistant professor this should be clarified - and when was he promoted to this position?

changed "professors" to "instructors"; to the other point, in the U.S. system of academic ranks, assistant professor is the lowest grade in the tenure track so it would be the initial point of entry and there would be no date of promotion

• "the eighteenth amendment" I think this should be explained, not just linked.

done

• You could link presentist to Presentism (literary and historical analysis). Also to relativism, although I am not clear that you are using the word in the same sense as in the linked article.

done

• "Ames' portrait, by Alice L. Emmong, is cataloged in the United States National Portrait Collection." It seems more important that the portrait is owned by the University of Pennsylvaia. Is it known whether it is on display?

I don't believe it is currently hanging, though this is personal observation and I can't cite a RS that says it is or is not on display.

• I do not understand the pedigree chart and it is not referenced.

updated the image file with references

• This should be referenced in the article, not just in the image file. I would suggest a note explaining with each name linked. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:53, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

• He was obviously important as an archivist but as a historian? He was liberal and conservative on the constitution, presentist and relativist on history, he saw WWI as a wonderful opportunity for historians to influence public :opinion in favour of the government but also believed in impartiality. He seems to have had no coherent views?

I'd agree that's potentially a valid critique.

Chetsford (talk) 20:12, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

• See two replies above. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:53, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

• Dudley Miles I've made these changes now (substituted "staff" for "offices" and added a note "B" to the image caption) Chetsford (talk) 22:18, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support. Look fine now. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:40, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Coordinator comment: Unless I've missed it somewhere, we still need a source review. This can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. Sarastro (talk) 10:08, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Chetsford, Sarastro1 - No worries, I promised to pick this up and am sorry for the delay. It'll be done this afternoon. KJP1 (talk) 10:21, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Sources review

I'll go through them all, obviously, but will only list any that have issues. A general point, but certainly not standing in the way - like you, I think links to the book sources can assist readers. But some of our esteemed colleagues at FAC hate them, unless they give a snippet. One point that was made to me, which I thought had some validity, is that links to Google give an advantage to a commercial seller. I therefore use Worldcat as my linking site, unless Google Books does give a snippet. But, as I say, it's a preference and something to bear in mind, not something that needs amendment. KJP1 (talk) 12:05, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

• Source 1 - do we want to indicate you need a Harvardkey to access? You indicate a "subscription" site elsewhere, e.g. Source 20.
• Source 2 - this lists the collection, but doesn't appear to permit online access to it. I can't therefore check the content.
• Source 30 - it might just be my computer but this one displays the text very oddly!
• Source 43 - this appears to be an unpublished PHD thesis. But the statements it supports aren't controversial and I think it meets Wikipedia:SCHOLARSHIP. I'm assuming its author isn't the Alan Ginsberg, otherwise you'd need an authorlink!
• Source 50 - more a prose query - should the quote read "Funeral services lor Dr. Herman V. Ames..", in which case it needs a (sic), or is it a typo? Similarly, what's "21st and Walnut sts"? Is that a US way of writing 21st and Walnut Streets? Ignore me, if I'm just not getting the variation.
• General - I can't access the offline sources and, realistically, it's unlikely to be practical to do so from the UK. Of the online sources, a number are "paywalled" or similar. But they do take you to where they say. Nevertheless, I can access a good number; 3/21/24/26/31/32/34/36/38/39/41/45/51/54/56/58/60/62; and these support the content. That, and the fact that the nominator isn't new to FAC, lead me to be satisfied with the Source Review and I hope the coordinators are content. I should also say that the nominator's made the commendable effort to archive the online sources. KJP1 (talk) 13:43, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

KJP1 - thank you again for the excellent review! To your comments:

• Source 1 - do we want to indicate you need a Harvardkey to access? You indicate a "subscription" site elsewhere, e.g. Source 20.

I've located a different link that doesn't require a Harvardkey and have updated the URL. (That said, it doesn't actually permit you to view the thesis which is only in paper form, it only permits you to confirm authorship/date/title, however, the source is just used to support a statement of author/date/title in the infobox rather than any content.)

• Source 2 - this lists the collection, but doesn't appear to permit online access to it. I can't therefore check the content.

On this one, I also did not go into the Ames papers; the reference here is just to the short biographical note on the index page.

• Source 30 - it might just be my computer but this one displays the text very oddly!

No, it was my fault. One number was off in the URL which is fixed now.

• Source 43 - this appears to be an unpublished PHD thesis. But the statements it supports aren't controversial and I think it meets Wikipedia:SCHOLARSHIP. I'm assuming its author isn't the Alan Ginsberg, otherwise you'd need an authorlink!

I neglected to insert the URL but have corrected now.

• Source 50 - more a prose query - should the quote read "Funeral services lor Dr. Herman V. Ames..", in which case it needs a (sic), or is it a typo? Similarly, what's "21st and Walnut sts"? Is that a US way of writing 21st and Walnut Streets? Ignore me, if I'm just not getting the variation.

Lor/For - it was my sloppy transcription! I've now changed "lor" to "for". On the questions of "sts" ... it's an anachronistic US way of writing "streets" (i.e. no longer commonly used; a la "drs" as a plural abbreviation of doctor).

Chetsford (talk) 16:10, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Tony1

Lead:

• "Notable students of his included Ezra Pound, John Musser, and Herbert Eugene Bolton."—If there really were other notable students you're not listing right here ("included"), what about "Among his notable students were Ezra Pound, John Musser, and Herbert Eugene Bolton."
• "A member of the Ames family, Herman Ames was born in ..." — OK, I see why you repeated: to link to the Ames family. And perhaps calling him just by his first name here would be a little informal. Alternatively, "Herman [[Ames family|Ames]] was born in ...". But you're a better judge, knowing the topic.
• I've never been a fan of the "would" future tense (bit journalistic?); and whenever I see "also", I explore ways of dumping it. What about: "He went on to receive honorary doctorates from the University of Pennsylvania and LaSalle College."
• Perhaps a comma before "and influenced"?
• Are you ok about a single, stubby, dangling paragraph finishing the lead? "Ames' papers are housed at the University of Pennsylvania's University Archives."

Further:

• Consider removing the comma, for flow, after "valedictorian".
• "He was ultimately ordained in 1854, ..." — You haven't set up the context for "ultimately". Can it just be removed?
• "later also serving as" — checking "also": he simultaneously ministered throughout the state, right? Seems like a heavy load, and that he might have taken those positions to settle down.
• WP:MOSDASH says no spaced eM dashes. The choice for interrupting dashes is closed em or open en dashes (despite my use of open ems here, for clarity in separating quotes from comments ... maybe I should stop it!).
• MOSLINK discourages bunched links, and links to items every person on the planet knows: "England". And "Germany".
• "rectifying" is an unusual choice here: "played a central role in rectifying an intra-fraternity dispute". Sounds like correcting a dispute. Resolving?
• "Ames graduated from Amherst with his A.B. degree in 1888, and thereafter entered Harvard University." — "an" A.B. degree? "Thereafter" sounds pretty permanent.
• American History: why the H? It's not a departmental title. I see "advanced studies in history" later.
• He would later recollect: why not plain past tense? Perhaps you could get away with the previous "would" (admit). But do ration them.
• There's a wrong em dash for the year range. It defies all the major US and UK styleguides, including our MOS.

You're a good writer. Nice work. And I've done enough. Try printing it out and reviewing with a pen—make your brain apprehend it differently. For prose quality, this is at FAC standard, but why not go through the rest carefully. Tony (talk) 08:31, 23 August 2018 (UTC) PS AND this has been on the list too long. Tony (talk) 08:32, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Tony - thank you very much for this review. I think I've made all the changes now but let me know if I missed something. Chetsford (talk) 15:19, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Closing comment: I think we have a consensus to promote now. Just a couple of things; it's not worth holding this up any longer, but if someone could fix these after promotion I'd be very grateful. Sarastro (talk) 22:31, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

• Can we check for consistency in giving locations for the publication of books; we generally omit these (which is fine) but we include a few. It may be easier to remove the locations we give.
• For consistency, the image of the letter to W.E.B. DuBois should have alt text. Sarastro (talk) 22:31, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

• 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. Sarastro (talk) 22:31, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 22:17, 24 August 2018 [4].

---

Battle of Halmyros

Nominator(s): Constantine ✍ 11:09, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

The Battle of Halmyros was a pivotal event in medieval Greek history, ending the first century of the Frankokratia with the rout of the Duchy of Athens and the installation of the Catalan Company as masters over much of central Greece, much to the consternation of pretty much every other power in the region. The article has been worked on-and-of since 2014, and has passed GAC and more recently, MILHIST's ACR, much to its benefit on both cases. I feel it is complete both content- and context-wise, and includes the best relevant scholarship. Any further suggestions to improve it will, of course, be most welcome. Constantine ✍ 11:09, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 13:29, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks a lot as usual, Dank, your edits are fine. Constantine ✍ 17:20, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest scaling up the map

• File:Gran-Companyia-Catalana-segell-1305.jpg needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:57, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Tag added, I am working on a better-quality version of the map (based on File:Map of the southern Balkans, 1410.svg), but this will take time. Constantine ✍ 17:20, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Support it is a comprehensive article and nicely researched. Only comments regard the citations number 1 and 37. It will be nicer if 1 can be in the sources and 37 turned into a note. But I will leave this to the judgement of the nominator as it is not very important and wont affect this high quality aticle.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 17:31, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Support I went through this article in detail at Milhist ACR, and could find precious little to nitpick about then, with the proviso that I knew practically nothing about this period of Frankish Greek history when I first read it. I've taken a look at the changes and additions since then, and consider it meets the FA criteria. Well done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:33, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Sources review

• None of the three "primary sources" listed is cited in the article.
• There are no publisher details for the Jacoby work cited in ref 37. Can you also confirm the language for this source?

Otherwise, sources seeem to be in good order and of the appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 18:14, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

The primary sources are given because they are well, the primary sources. They have not been used in the article, except to check up on the facts reported by the secondary sources. Should I remove them to a separate section? I've also asked Phso2, who is very knowledgeable about Frankish Greece and the relevant scholarly literature, to take a look at the article, so there may be some additions, including new sources, over the next few days. Constantine ✍ 18:57, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

If you have not used these sources directly, they should not appear in your list of sources. They could be listed as Further reading or External links. Though, if you've used them to confirm information included in your secondary sources, perhaps they should be cited. Incidentally, you've not answered my query with Jacoby. Brianboulton (talk) 18:21, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Brianboulton, I've moved the primary sources down to a separate section "Primary accounts", but have considerably reworked and expanded the sources part in the main article. I've also used Jacoby to rewrite the localisation debate, and expand a bit on the comments that Phso2 already made on the similarity with Courtrai. Please have a look. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 17:45, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

What you've done satisfies my concerns. Brianboulton (talk) 19:57, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Support Fifelfoo

Support on: Citation style; HQRS; Primary & Tertiary use; plagiarism by style check; historiography check; white myth/clean wehrmacht check. Fifelfoo (talk) 14:46, 6 July 2018 (UTC) Fifelfoo (talk) 02:30, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

• Citation out of style "David Jacoby, Catalans, Turcs et Vénitiens en Romanie…"; Last, First (Year).
• Short citation out of style "Setton (Catalan domination of Athens, p. 11)" Author Year, p. nn.
• Kalaitzakis 2011 is a popular encyclopaedia article, but appropriately used
• Brittanica is appropriately used
• Miller, William (1908). is heavily used. Is this text still approved of by other scholars in the historiography? cited as a seminal and standard text. Good work.
• Historiographical commentary inline is good.
• I don't see a "white myth" problem in this article.
• I read style for plagiarism. Style is consistent to me.

Hi Fifelfoo, I have reworked some sections of the article, and addressed your reference formatting issues. Please have another look. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 17:45, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Note to coordinators: nominator has not responded for almost 2 weeks. Brianboulton (talk) 21:42, 14 July 2018 (UTC) Please note I will be on vacation and possibly without a good internet connection until early August, so my response to any new comments may take some time. Constantine ✍ 09:41, 18 July 2018 (UTC) I am back from vacation, for anyone interested in commenting here (sorry, forgot to update this). Constantine ✍ 21:24, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

• 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. Sarastro (talk) 22:17, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 10:29, 19 August 2018 [5].

---

SMS Elsass

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 17:51, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Another article on a German battleship up for FAC, part of this topic - this ship was one of the few German pre-dreadnought battleships to actually see battle during World War I, and she was one of a handful that were retained after the war by the postwar navy. Like the other articles I've nominated here recently, I originally wrote the article in 2010 and then completely rewrote it with new sources last year. It has since passed a MILHIST A-class review (here). Thanks to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 17:51, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 21:41, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Support I reviewed this in detail at Milhist A-Class earlier this year, and it hasn't had any appreciable changes since. I consider it meets the FA criteria. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:36, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Support as WikiProject Germany Coordinator. –Vami_IV✠ 11:20, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:41, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Support. I made very minor changes, please check. I think we don't need the Elsaß footnote. In German, the ship's name is also Elsass, and I learned years ago that ship names always have ss because they are all capital letters. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:18, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a good point, Gerda. Parsecboy (talk) 23:02, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Source review the sources are all of high quality and reliable, mostly by acknowledged specialists in the naval field. No issues formatting-wise, but I do have a question about the Dodson source in Further reading. Does it have anything unique to say about this ship, or the class in general? Nate, I wonder if it should be used as a source rather than in a Further reading section? What's your thinking on that? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:45, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

The article has more to do with the class than individual ships, though what it does cover on the ships' activities is focused on their post-war careers, and it doesn't have anything to say beyond what's in Hildebrand et. al. Parsecboy (talk) 12:31, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Closing comment: Although there has not been much in terms of comment here, we have four supports and a fairly detailed A-class review. As this has been open for a month, I think we have a consensus to promote. Sarastro (talk) 10:28, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

• 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. Sarastro (talk) 10:29, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 10:14, 19 August 2018 [6].

---

Operation Retribution (1941)

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:16, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

This article is about the German bombing of Belgrade which heralded the Axis invasion of Yugoslavia in April 1941. Over two days, damage was caused to about one quarter of the city, up to 4,000 were killed, and Yugoslav military command and control was paralysed, contributing to the swift defeat of the Royal Yugoslav Army over the following fortnight. The principal Luftwaffe commander, Alexander Löhr, was executed after the war for his part in Operation Retribution. This article recently went through a Milhist A-Class review. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:16, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Dank

• Tripartite Pact says: "Yugoslavia's accession provoked a coup d'état in Belgrade two days later, and Italy and Germany responded by invading Yugoslavia". The first sentence in this article uses "retaliation". It's above my pay grade to pick the language, but I'd be more comfortable if there's a discussion about whether "response" or "retaliation" is best, and if the language is consistent across articles. I know there's no perfect answer, because some readers take a word like "retaliation" to be damning, and others take it to be exculpatory.
• Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 18:21, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

• G'day Dan, thanks for the c/e. Regarding your comment above, what I am trying to convey is that the bombing of Belgrade was basically in retaliation for the coup (as ordered by Hitler, explained in the body), the actual invasion was a strategic response to the coup. I hope I'm not parsing this too finely. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:56, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

• Sure, that works for me. - Dank (push to talk) 02:26, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments Support from Indy beetle

Great work as always, PM. My comments:

• Might as well mention Alexander Löhr by name in the lead.

• Done.

• Some generic info on the pre-war strength of the VVKJ, if available, would make for a nice addition.

• Done.

• According to Uki Goñi (The Real Odessa: How Perón Brought the Nazi War Criminals to Argentina p. 236), Vladimir Kren pointed out targets in Belgrade that he thought the Germans should bomb specifically

• Added.

• Were there any civilian preparations for the bombing, such as air raid sirens or shelters?

• mentioned info about the locations of civilian shelters, but other than that, not anything I could find.

• It should be stated that the attack forced the government to flee the city (War and Revolution in Yugoslavia, 1941–1945: Occupation and Collaboration p. 50).

• Done.

• Aside from the rubble collection, were there any reconstruction or repair efforts?

• I remember reading somewhere that there wasn't really much done until after the war, but can't place my finger on where.

• Is there any background on the political decisions that led to the British retaliation on Sofia?

• Not that I've seen, but I added that Knell considers the justification for them "strange and implausible".

• Was the "official casualty figure" a Yugoslav or German calculation?

• It was from the occupation authorities, which were a puppet regime appointed and supervised by German military headquarters. Added a bit to clarify.

• The article has a photo of the monument to the VVKJ's vain defence of the city. Is there any textual information on commemoration of the bombing?

• Good point. I found a B92 article about the 75th anniversary service in 2016 and added it.

• Kren was executed by the Yugoslavs in 1948 for a myriad of offenses. Is it worth mentioning this as well?

• Now added (not by me).

-Indy beetle (talk) 14:51, 14 July 2018 (UTC) G'day Indy beetle, all done I think, let me know if you think anything further is needed? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:16, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

All my comments have been addressed. 'Twas a pleasure to read. -Indy beetle (talk) 04:12, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:39, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments from 23 editor

A bit short, imo. Could be expanded with Vladimir Terzic's book . 23 editor (talk) 20:53, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

G'day 23 editor. Kicking myself for not checking Terzic before nominating. I have added a bit from him here and there, but he deals with it in a very general way, and doesn't say a lot that isn't already in the article. It is good that he agrees exactly with the number of bombers in the first wave though, which is a good sign the other sources are accurate. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:26, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

The background section could use some info on the state of the Yugoslav Air Force. I recall reading that it was plagued by fuel shortages, a lack of spare parts, reduced flying hours, etc. The intro could also be expanded. I think info regarding Kren's betrayal, the state of the Yugoslav Air Force, and the fact that Belgrade was an open city is currently lacking. 23 editor (talk) 19:52, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

The open city and Kren's betrayal were already covered, although his later execution for unrelated crimes was not (and now is, thanks). I've added material on the overall strength of the VVKJ, and the strength of the 1st Fighter Brigade (which was the relevant formation). Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:38, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

G'day 23 editor Anything else you think needs adding, tweaking? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:54, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Looks good. Support. 23 editor (talk) 17:08, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Support Comments from Ian

Recusing from coord duties...

• Copyedited as usual so pls let me know any concerns there. Outstanding prose points:
  • "Two weeks later, Bulgaria joined, and the next day, German troops entered Bulgaria from Romania" -- if you're going to say "the next day" I think you should spell out the date Bulgaria joined instead of saying "two weeks later".
    • Done.
  • "anti-aircraft defenses" -- date format is British, so should it be BritEng ("defences")?
    • Many hands etc. Fixed.
  • "74 Junkers Ju 87 Stuka dive bombers, and 160 Heinkel He 111 medium bombers and Dornier Do 17 light bombers at 8,000–10,000 feet (2,400–3,000 m). They were escorted by Messerschmitt Bf 110 heavy fighters at 11,000–12,000 feet (3,400–3,700 m) and 100 Messerschmitt Bf 109E fighters " -- just want to confirm there's no breakdown of He 111s vs. Do 17s, or the number of Bf 110s?
    • No, the totals are recorded in sources, but not the breakdown.
  • "the squadron conducted raids on 6–7 April and 12–13 April" -- can we assume these were night raids, in which case it should be "6/7" and "12/13"?
    • I looked again at the source (Knell), but it isn't made obvious (they given the dates as 6-7 and 12-13, but that is probably a formatting difference between them and WP). Shores, Cull and Malizia don't even mention these raids. I think it is a reasonable assumption they were night raids given they were British and early in the war, and given the way the dates were presented in the source. Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:24, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
• I felt the article was succinct but quite comprehensive, I'll wait and see the outcome of 23 Editor's suggestion of another source. For that reason I won't look at any kind of source review yet.
  • I've added some material from Terzic but it wasn't a massive amount of new material. Much of it confirms material from other sources already used.
• I'll take Nikki's image review as read.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:16, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

G'day Ian Rose, all done I think. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:24, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Tks PM, I've reviewed changes/additions since I last edited and tweaked a bit. One thing in that area:

• "The historian Herman Knell calls the retaliatory justification for [the RAF raids on Bulgaria] 'strange and implausible'" -- just for possible balance, any sources come out and say yes, the raids made some kind of sense?

• G'day Ian, added a bit from Shores, Cull and Malizia, who indicate that they were more of an attack on the German lines of communication, and that there were other raids on Bulgaria during the Balkans Campaign. It may be that Knell is over-egging the pudding a bit, but I think the addition balances his view. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:17, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, well I guess you could always argue that if the enemy of my enemy is my friend then the friend of my enemy is my enemy... Anyway the addition works for me, it also fleshes out an otherwise very short section. Happy to support. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:37, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

• Source review:
  • I don't see any prima facie issues re. quality, though no harm in someone more familiar with the subject looking things over as well.
  • All links checked out except one, which I fixed.
  • Formatting looks okay.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:43, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

@WP:FAC coordinators: I reckon this one is good to go. Can I have a dispensation for a new nom please? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:29, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Sure thing. --Laser brain (talk) 15:03, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

• 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. Sarastro (talk) 10:14, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 23:10, 17 August 2018 [7].

---

British logistics in the Falklands War

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:30, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

This article is about an aspect of the Falklands War. If you've heard of this war, you're probably Gen X or older. It has long since become an historical footnote, but is of great interest to logisticians as a high-intensity conflict fought with modern weapons in a remote location lacking roads, thousands of miles from the nearest bases. The article has an A class review. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:30, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

SC

Reads nicely and very little to pick up on (unsurprising, as it's had the A Class review). I'm having to nit-pick to find even these two so far, but:

• "to the height of a mexeflote" – just to help those of us who need to click away, perhaps "to the height of a mexeflote landing raft"?

  Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 13:29, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

• "supply was therefore Freetown in Sierra Leone": I'm not sure the "therefore" is needed

  Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 13:29, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Done to the end of "Logistical", with more to come. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 13:25, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

• "650 Argentine Prisoners of War" - should that be "prisoners of war"?

  Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 13:29, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

• "defuze" - that's rather archaic in normal language - it is used with that spelling in military circles, or would "defuse" serve better?

  The normal form in BrEnglish. And yes, we always used that form in the US too, per the DoD dictionary. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 13:29, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

That's it from me. It reads very well and is very informative. I have absolutely no knowledge of logistics, particularly in the military, so this is a prose review only, per my caveat. - SchroCat (talk) 17:16, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

CommentsSupport from PM

Nice article, I remember reading blow-by-blow accounts of the Falklands War over breakfast in the Australian as a teenager... Formed part of my motivation for joining the Army a couple of years later.

• I'm not familiar with Hercules aircraft being used to do airdrops to ships. How did that work?

  The goods are parachute dropped in a waterproof container. Added this. I looked for a more technical description, found details of the missions flown and aircraft involved and even photographs of the drops. Also added a bit about Mission "Ursula", in which a colonel was parachuted into the ocean. Hope this is enough. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:44, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

• yomp is a bit colloquial/jargonish

  It is so associated with the campaign that I felt it should stay. It is linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:44, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

• the bit in the lead about Sandy Woodward's observations isn't covered in the body, which also needs further explanation of what other factors drove this assessment

  Moved to the body. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 13:17, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

• in the lead, suggest "from the Falkland Islands, which had an airfield." I assume it also had a port which was important logistically? This port detail seems to be missing from the Ascension Island section as well.

  Added "There was an anchorage, but no port facilities, just a lone jetty" to the Ascension section. The port at Stanley is discussed in the Aftermath section. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:44, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

• might be worth mentioning in the lead that the 500 rnds per gun was stocked by helos

  Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:44, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

• might be worth explicitly pointing out when first mentioned that 3 Commando Bde was a RM organisation and that the paras and 5th Bde were Army.

  Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:44, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

• what were the prime movers? Or were these just Bedford trucks? And if the tpt sqn wasn't taken, where did the 54 "prime movers" come from (sounds like most of a sqn to me)

  Looking at its TOE, the transport squadron had 82 4-ton trucks. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:44, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

• trim "Over the next few weeks the BFSU ballooned to over 800 personnel in the first three weeks"

  Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:44, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

• worth mentioning that the Herc is a transport

  Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:44, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

• 1000 meals a day on the island? Shouldn't that be 3000 for 1000 pers?

  That's what the source says. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:44, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

• suggest "For this reason, peacetime financial restraints had precluded the RN from practicing beaching manoeuvres."

  Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:44, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

• link Mexeflote on first mention

  Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:44, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

• I think a bit more is needed regarding the bow loading of the LSLs and the impact it had. Were they reloaded, and how were they discharged into the mexeflotes and LC, by crane?

  By hand and forlift through the stern doors. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 13:17, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

• STUFT were a poor substitute? As it appears to be used here in a plural sense.

  Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:44, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

• suggest "The STUFT also took 90,000 rations with them"

  Changed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 13:17, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

• what was done to discharge the STUFT that Clapp withdrew?

  Eventually discharged by landing craft and helo, as described below. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 13:17, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

• Herc airdrops to ships? How did that work?

  See above. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 13:17, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

• "These were reserved for night operations. To allow the crews to rest, and necessary aircraft maintenance to be performed, they were not employed during the day. " contains a bit of redundancy

  Yes. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 13:17, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

• "On 24 May 11" needs a comma

  Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 13:17, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

• "exceeded the forecast"?

  Not done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 13:17, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

• "The final four-days"

  Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 13:17, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

• 59 Sqn is referred to differently in different spots, making it unclear it is the same unit

  Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 13:17, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

• 50 Fd Sqn? Where did they come from?

  England. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 13:17, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

• Did the workshops remain afloat until Stanley was captured, or did they move into the BMA before that?

  One detachments remained on each LPD, the others joined the BMA. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 13:17, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

• operated by the NAAFI or EFI?

  NAAFI. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 13:17, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

• the original version of fn 15 is now 404 so can be dispensed with

  Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 13:17, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

• fn 105 is now 404

  Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 13:17, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

That's me done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:56, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Looks good. Supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:03, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Support Fifelfoo

Support. Reviewed on: 1b weighting, 1c (completeness, sourcing, HQRS, historiography, PRIMARY/TERTIARY use, "white myths," class / gender / colour query, plagiarism style check, plagiarism spot check, if sources support claims spot check), 1d neutral, 2b weight & structure, 2c citation check Fifelfoo (talk) 11:23, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

• 1a: Good. I found some smart quotes… “”. So yeah, I checked your double quotes throughout. IFTFY.

  One fixit: Minor: "It was also missing 383 Commando Petroleum Troop, as this was made up of reservists, who were not called up." What was missing? The noun can't be readily located in previous sentences. 3 Commando? 54 Commando Logistics?

  The Commando Logistic Regiment. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:29, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

  lmftfy en versus em in body

• 1b: Done: Comprehensive (weight)
• 1c: Done: Research completeness
• 1c: Done: checked what are the major sources, their dates, their use structure
• 1c: Done: Checks out: Where are the HQRS used, and the lower QRS? Check whether analytical claims are cited against authorative/seminal HQRS?
  • Done: Full cite in citations: lQRS used for trivium, appropriate to their level.
  • Done: Bibliography, PRIMARIES: Uses checked as appropriate (Movements, reassignments, orders, construction actions, no analysis hangs on them): Clapp, Fursdon (in EXPERT area, cited supplementary to HQRS narrative for EXPERTise), Gardiner, Hellberg, Jolly, Pook (double cited against other unknown on trivium), Thomson 1985, Van der Bijl
  • Done: Bibliography, publishers/modes not known to reviewer, Brown (EXPERT, gpreview), Burden (lower QRS, trivium weight appropriate)
  • Done: Checks out: sandbox, strip (what you consider) primaries / lQRS, check HQRS narrative as you do it. (Why did I do this?, because I could identify PRIMARY uses easily when reading, but couldn't identify lQRS uses as well and wanted to check weight/structure)
• 1c: Done: Query: Was there any historiographical debate WEIGHTY to include?

  High-quality sources are used throughout. The article is only about British logistics, and the islands are called the Falklands throughout, per WP:COMMONNAME, but obviously a NPOV issie. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:54, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

  I definitely agree on this, but I more meant, did the history itself generate interesting historiographical debate, "Despite the Joan School emphasising X, a new appreciation has extended this in the Bob School." I don't expect that such would exist here, but I think it is worth asking for our high quality history articles. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:39, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

  None within the scope of the article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:32, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

  Thanks, expected this, had to ask. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:06, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

• 1c: Done: Query: For debates in military science as a discipline, "For the RAF, the primary lesson of the war was the utility of aerial refuelling…" Did the Argentinians, or other powers, react with military science findings as a result of the war? Privratsky, Kenneth L. (1 April 1986)? Valovcin, Paul (February 1992)?

  Expanded the lessons to an entire section. I would like to editorialise here. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:54, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

  Brilliant. I expected this might be the , as the British military science response already existed in the article. I can understand the temptation to editorialise given Thompson's block quote, which translated from bureaucratese is very hard on deficiencies. Thanks, will read as I complete this review. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:39, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

• 1c: Done: Checking for appropriate use of PRIMARY TERTIARY sources. Full citations in footnotes checked. Bibliography checked (see above in relation to HQRS/lQRS use).
• 1c: Done: Query: One problem identified in wikipedia is the sanitisation of articles, often by not-reflecting HQRS consensus / scholarly consensus. This can be called "white myths" or "Myth of the Clean Wehrmacht". Improper military conducts could be (based off unpalatable military history in general): improper putting down of the PoW riot; forced requisition, billeting and housing (civil population); and, improper labour use of PoWs. When you were reading did any of these emerge in the sources?

  No issues of this kind. Alfredo Astiz was wanted by France and Sweden in relation to crimes committed elsewhere, but the Geneva Convention did not permit prisoners to be handed over to a third party, and he was returned to Argentina. I don't know if this is worth mentioning in the article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:54, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

  Glad to hear there were no issues. I don't think Astiz's correct treatment is weighty for Logistics, but it would of course be to a PoW article. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:39, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

• 1c: Done: Query: A similar problem is blindness to the major categories of social history. Based on your reading of the HQRS consensuses do you feel the article appropriately covers class / gender / race? In this article I'm particularly thinking of gender, and in relation to STUFT—class (owner complaint? seaman industrial issues?).

  Added a bit about the Hong Kong Chinese crewmen on the RFAs. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:54, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

  Cheers for doing this. I didn't view this as a weight deficiency in this article, but I think it is worth asking after in our highest quality history articles generally. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:39, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

• 1c: Done: Clean: Plagiarism style check
• 1c: Done: Clean: Plagiarism spot check [7 (futon)]
• 1c: Done: Clean: Spot-check if claims are in sources [7 (futon, trivium)]. Didn't have the time resource to check HQRS
• 1d: Done: Appears neutral over repeated rereadings to do this.
• 1e: Done: Its stable
• 2b: Done: Query: When you developed the article's structure and weight what HQRS literature inspired the article's consensus?

  The article draws mostly on Privatsky, Freedman and Thompson. Its structure is similar to Privratsky, in that it is geographical-chronological-topical, but this is also the structure I employed in my PhD thesis. I discussed the logistics of the campaign with Thompson in 2005. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:54, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

  Many thanks for the reply. These sources already stood out in the rereadings of the article so far. I'm sure I'll attend to their use while finishing the content / research portions of the review above. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:39, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

• 2c: Done: Citations checked: consistent. Footnotes checked: consistent.
• 2c: Done: Miscited: lmftfy so far.
• 3: Done: Query: The image captioned, "Key locations and the routes taken by British land forces during the Falklands War" is rather terse about unit designations. M&AW, for example, meant nothing to me until I'd spent some time searching?

  Added a legend explaining that SAS = Special Air Service; SBS = Special Boat Squadron; M&AW = Mountain and Arctic Warfare Cadre (the Special Forces of the British Army, Royal Navy and Royal Marines respectively) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:54, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

  Many thanks. I can picture some readers stumbling over SBS or even SAS when they're excited by the map. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:39, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

• 3: Done: Query: I'm assuming the map reflects your understanding of consensus of the war?

  It hasn't been fully translated from German, but was chosen as the best one we had that showed the locations mentioned in the article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:54, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

  Good stuff! Fifelfoo (talk) 03:39, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

• 3: Done: The blockquote "The majority of senior officers and their staffs were handicapped by a dearth of understanding of the logistic realities…" is appropriately chosen.
• 4: Done: I can't see a useful possibility of reducing length. Sub-articles wouldn't stand well on their own. This makes me think the length is appropriate.

Support Comments from JennyOz

Hi Hawkeye7, thoroughly readable, fascinating and informative. (And yes I remember it, seemed to come out of nowhere and be over quickly.) As usual most of my comments are gnomish plus suggested wlinks...

• For the first time in British history - in British military history?

  I think it is clearer this way. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

• One British prisoner was held in Argentina, Flight Lieutenant Jeffrey Glover, who was released on 16 July. - read better? One British prisoner, Flight Lieutenant Jeffrey Glover, was held in Argentina; he released on 16 July. (You could link him, it redirects to the skirmish.)

  Done. The grammar becomes more convoluted n the process. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

• opened by Prince Andrew - too trivial to mention that he had served there?

  It's alright. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

• it was supplied by Toronto through a dracones moored offshore - is that one or plural?

  Singular. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

• sea-keeping - wlink?

  Why not. Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

• caption: landing map - SBS = Special Boat Squadron needs dab already fixed
• Argentinian prisoners v Argentine prisoners

  Settled on "Argentine". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

• Argentine prisoners at Goose Green - wlink Goose Green?

  Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

• and other stores including tent accommodation - 'other' not necessary or are the helicopters considered stores?

  Added "along with their tools and spare parts" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

• dispatched v despatched

  Settled on "despatched" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

• Brigadier Julian Thompson - refine wlink to Brigadier (United Kingdom)?

  Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

• had been dismantled for maintenance work - 'the' maintenance work (because maintenance already mentioned prev sentence)

  Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

• take on sea water as ballast - seawater one word?

  No; that US English, which is heavily influenced by German. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

• producing potable water - wlink potable or add (drinking)?

  Wlinked potable water

• low intensity patients - is that definitely low 'intensity' not low 'dependency' patients?

  Should be "low dependency". Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

• As minor injuries such as trench foot were anticipated, this was undesirable. - it was undesirable for them to be treated on Uganda?

  Yes. Reworded to "Due to the distances involved, this meant a prolonged absence for casualties, even those with minor injuries" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

• Royal Naval Reserve doctors were called up for service in the UK - ambiguous? from UK to go with task force or used in UK to treat homecoming?

  Added "to replace those headed for the Falklands" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

• but these were soon swamped by the requirements - overwhelmed

  Changed (Everyone knows Hawkeye lives in the Swamp.) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

• all contractors or employees, or the families of contractors or employees, - just 'and their families'

  Doesn't read right

• sending people back on the planes they arrived on - to where, UK?

  Or Sierra Leone. Hawkeye7 (discuss)

• parachuted into the sea and plucked from the water - was plucked already fixed
• 30 Signal Regiment - wlink

  Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

• H-hour - wlink

  Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

• Rick Jolly - wlink

  Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

• The Queen Elizabeth 2 was met by a veritable fleet - is 'the' needed?

  To avoid any confusion with Queen Elizabeth II Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

• Farnella - RV Odyssey Explorer

  Created a redirect. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

• Snowcats - wlink

  Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

• prize crew - wlink

  Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

• Aftermath "Built in the 1970s, the airfield" - Port Stanley Airport doesn't seem to have been linked yet. Do here or at "matting earmarked for repairing the airfield at Port Stanley"?

  Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

• para starts "With the end of hostilities," but further in says "By 20 June 10,250 prisoners had been repatriated. Only 593 remained, including Menéndez. These were held for intelligence gathering, and to encourage Argentina to end hostilities" - But Menéndez surrendered 14 June, hmmm I went back and looked at A-class review..., maybe add 'other' before hostilities and maybe with link to Operation Keyhole?

  Don't see the problem here. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

  Added a bit about Operation Keyhole. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:30, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

• King Edward VII Memorial Hospital - wlink

  Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

• British Forces Falkland Islands - wlink

  Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

• where it was the subject organised teaching and research at - subject of?

  Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

• Atlantic Conveyor - not linked in lede per others

  Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

• Hecate - wlink HMS Hecate (A137)

  Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

• RMS St Helena - wlink RMS St Helena (1963)

  Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

• Farnella - RV Odyssey Explorer

  Created a redirect. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

• Leeds Castle - HMS Leeds Castle (P258)

  Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

• In the meantime it was supplied by Toronto - should be Fort Toronto?

  Yes. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

• ordered to advance to Estancia House - I wondered what this building was, maybe precede with 'the settlement of'?

  Changed to "Estancia", which is how it appears on our map. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

• ref Brown, David (1987). The Royal Navy and the Falklands War - check OCLC

  Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

• Rick Jolly - author link

  Linked. Didn't know he had an article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, JennyOz (talk) 14:57, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your review! Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Very happy to sign support. (Hee hee, you added the snowcats wlink here instead of article?) Thanks for all. JennyOz (talk) 05:42, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:30, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Tony1

• The hyphen in "re-take" is rare, and here an unnecessary disruption in the opening phrase.

  Changed to "recapture" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:09, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

• Is there a sense in the opening sentence that the campaign was specifically designed to do it in 1982?

  Changed to "The 1982 British military campaign to recapture the Falkland Islands" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:09, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

• Why repeat the year in the third sentence? And could we abbreviate the name so soon after? Perhaps: "Argentina's invasion of the Falklands in April had come ...".

  Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss)

• That's a very long sentence. Could there be a semicolon after "down"?

  Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:09, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

• "Ships Taken Up From Trade "—The linked article does not upcase, and nor should it. I don't care what ignorant military clerks write (they upcase everything in sight); on WP we minimise capping.

  De-capped, per MOS:CAPSACRS. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:09, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

• Is there a rationale for using nautical miles in the second para, but not in the first? And I must say that it really gums up the text to flash three units at readers every time. Naval experts know how to convert, silently, if it matters that much to them.

  Switched to nmi + km only. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:09, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

• "there was only a small hardstand area for parking aircraft, and no parallel taxiways"—grammar. Same problem in the subsequent sentence, which also contains a comma splice.

  Removed the first comma? Not sure what to do with the other sentence. @Dank:

• "This was used". What is the referent: "an anchorage"?

  Changed to "Ascension". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:09, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

• "and as a base for Hercules transport aircraft, which were modified by the addition of auxiliary fuel tanks and aerial refuelling capability"—was the modification in situ, at the time, ongoing? If not, "had been" might be better.

  Yes, it was. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:09, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

• "which were modified by the addition of auxiliary fuel tanks and aerial refuelling capability. With the support of Victor tankers, they were able to deliver priority supplies to the South Atlantic." First, does "they" refer to the fuel tanks? Second, did these aircraft actually deliver, or just have the ability to do so? And it's not clear whether it's their modifications + support of Victor tankers that enabled the delivery. Pity about "capability ... able", but I can't think of an alternative. Perhaps that region of text needs recasting to clarify the causality.

  Changed to "the transports". Added "these modifications" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:09, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

That's the opening two paragraphs. Not yet ready for promotion. Tony (talk) 05:31, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Hawkeye, good changes, but watch the passive voice where you have to wait for a phrase before getting the agency. The Argentine military has already been referred to; then we have:

• "A base was developed at Ascension Island, a British territory in the mid-Atlantic 3,700 nautical miles (6,900 km) from the UK and 3,300 nautical miles (6,100 km) from the Falkland Islands with an airfield." Could we repeat the actor at the risk of repetition?
• "The Royal Navy developed a base with an airfield at Ascension Island, a British territory in the mid-Atlantic 3,700 nautical miles (6,900 km) from the UK and 3,300 nautical miles (6,100 km) from the Falkland Islands." This also solves (does it?) the ungainliness of the airfield right at the end.

  Changed to "The British Army and Royal Navy developed a base at Ascension Island, a British territory in the mid-Atlantic 3,700 nautical miles (6,900 km) from the UK and 3,300 nautical miles (6,100 km) from the Falkland Islands." There is a repetition of "British" now. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

• "There was an anchorage, but no port facilities, just a lone jetty." You haven't fixed the comma splice. Is this a solution? ""There was an anchorage, but no port facilities—just a lone jetty." Or less marked: ""There was an anchorage, but no port facilities aside from a lone jetty."

  I didn't know how to resolve it. Changed comma to em-dash per your suggestion. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

• Some of the long sentences need taming, and the grammar is a bit la-de-da at the start: "A serious loss was that of SS Atlantic Conveyor, which was struck by a missile and sank with three Chinook and six Wessex helicopters still on board, ..." What about: "The loss of SS Atlantic Conveyor was a setback: it was struck by a missile and sank with three Chinook and six Wessex helicopters on board, ...". Note my removal of "still".

  Then we have adjacent sentences starting with the same phrase. Changed to "SS Atlantic Conveyor was struck by a missile, and sank... The loss of the helicopters on Atlantic Conveyor was a serious blow;

• "Yomp"—the article linked says it's slang. Is this appropriate? Readers shouldn't have to click on a link to extract a non-technical meaning.

  The issue here is that it does have a technical meaning. In the Australian Army, we would call it a "route march"; the US Army calls it a "forced foot march"; in the British Army it is a "loaded march". Our article is called loaded march; the others redirect to it. If I just wrote "marched" the reader might well visualise parade marching. So I would need to use and link loaded march. The question then becomes whether that is a better term and article than yomp, which is more evocative of the Falklands War. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

• Again, some passive voice is ok, but: "were destroyed ... were established ... were stocked ...".

  Changed to "The Brigade Maintenance Area (BMA) was struck by an Argentine air attack on 27 May that destroyed hundreds of rounds of mortar and artillery ammunition. " Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

• Another snake tamed? "Some 500 rounds per gun were stocked at the gun positions by helicopters to enable the artillery to support the attacks on the mountains ringing Port Stanley, resulting in the surrender of the Argentine forces on 14 June." What about: "Some 500 rounds per gun were stocked at the gun positions by helicopters, enabling the artillery to support the attacks on the mountains ringing Port Stanley. The result was the surrender of the Argentine forces on 14 June." I might have changed the meaning at the end undesirably, but you could find a way that suits.

  Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Now that's just the lead. Tony (talk) 15:25, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

WCM

Thank you for inviting me to review your nomination, I have some knowledge of the Falklands War, though my speciality is really Falklands history.

• YOMP or Your Own Marching Pace (allegedly). This is a term unique to the Royal Marines, the Paras TAB (Tactical Advance to Battle). After the loss of the Atlantic Conveyor the Paras and Marines TABbed/YOMPed across the islands. You may have inadvertently favoured one side in a cap badge battle.

  Removed from the lead, added "tab" to the article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:33, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

• South Georgia - maybe a little too much information but it may be worth mentioning that the "scrap workers" included Argentine Marines, their parading and raising of the Argentine flag pretty much kicked off the confrontation.

  Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:29, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

• I don't see it mentioned anyway but the original Argentine plan called for a much later invasion. If the Argentines had invaded to their original schedule, Invincible would have been sold to Australia and both Fearless and Intrepid would have been in mothballs. It would have been more difficult for the British to respond, ironically when they moved up the schedule, they made the British recovery possible.
• The Rapier missile system shown is the wrong version, this is from a much later development. Are there no photos available for the period?

  Have a look at commons:Category:Rapier missiles and see it there's one you like. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:56, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

• I believe you've missed a significant incident from the first day. Argentine forces at Fanning Head ambushed 3 helicopters, shooting down 2 Gazelle and damaging a Sea King that was dropping supplies. Dealing with this threat caused a significant delay.

  Added the loss of two Gazeles. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:37, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

• Regarding the Red and Green Life Machine, there is a fairly amusing anecdote from Rick Jolly concerning a "Water Heater, Field Kitchen, Portable". This was the sole source of hot water for the surgical team at Ajax Bay. It was loaned from an American unit for a crate of beer, the British kit they were supposed to use never made it ashore.

  I can include this if we have a source. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:56, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

  [] I can ping you a photo of the pages if it helps? WCM_email 02:33, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

  I'll take your word for it. Added. I have that book, but am away at the moment. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:56, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

• Foxtrot 4, an LCU from HMS Fearless was lost on 8 June.

  Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:40, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

• The repairs to the airfield at Stanley after the conflict, its worth mentioning that the Argentine attempts to repair the airstrip were somewhat amateur affairs. Effectively they had to dig the lot out and start again.

  The Australian experience at Tarakan was that repairing craters is a lot more difficult than it looks.

• Not sure if its worth mentioning, the Argentine cemetery was built in 1983 after the personal intervention of Margaret Thatcher, the Argentine military was posturing still about the dead and refusing to help in their identification. A significant portion of the Argentine dead were buried as unknowns as a result.

  The treatment of the dead differs greatly from one country to another. In Turkey, they put a skull with a bullet between the eye sockets on display in a museum as "Turkish soldier with .303 bullet that killed him"; this would not happen in Australia. I don't know if they put much on identification of the dead in Argentina. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:56, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Its a really excellent article and clearly a lot of work has gone into it, my compliments. WCM_email 00:15, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I've tried to address your concerns as best I can. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:26, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

They're not really concerns mate, merely suggestions to help. WCM_email 02:35, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Coord note

Don't think we've had an image review here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:22, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

For the sake of my time I'll comment only on images which actually have problems:

• File:RFA Tidepool (A76) underway c1982.JPEG: Source link is broken. Also, I don't see that ship mentioned in the section.

  Three paragraphs down. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:43, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

  The link isn't broken, but you now need a US military login. I've uploaded (and switched to) NARA's version of the same image (File:A port bow view of the British large fleet tanker HMS TIDEPOOL (A 76) underway.jpg). It is the exact same image (sime image number), but not cropped. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:01, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

• File:RFA Stromness DN-SC-87-05079.jpeg: I don't see this ship mentioned in the section, either.

  ten paragraphs up. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:43, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

  MOS:IMAGES: "An image should generally be placed in the most relevant article section." MOS:LAYOUT: "Sections start at the second level (==Heading 2==), with subsections at the third level (===Heading 3===)" So the section is "Shipping" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:01, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

• File:Soldiers Load a Rapier Missile System During London Olympics Security Exercise.jpg: I wonder if there is a source link.

  There is one. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:43, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

This is actually the wrong version of Rapier. Is there none from the correct period? WCM_email 00:16, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

File:BAC Rapier fielded.png is the correct period version, shame its black and white. I had a go at the simulator of one of these, its not the easiest piece of kit to use and took a lot of skill. WCM_email 01:08, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

• File:HMS Bristol storing at Ascension Island 1982.JPG, File:Argentine prisoners of war - Port Stanley.JPG, File:Discarded weapons, Stanley 1982.JPG and File:Vulcan bomber 18 May 1982.JPG: What is "IAW Wikipedia rules"?

  Good question. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:43, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

• File:Land.ops.2.en.svg: Aside from the vague filename, I wonder where the information on troop movements comes from.

No ALT text anywhere. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:19, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

ALT text is not required for FAC. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:43, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Closing comment: I'm fairly sure that Fifelfoo's review covered sourcing, but I had a quick look myself at the formatting side of things and found no problems. Sarastro (talk) 23:09, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

• 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. Sarastro (talk) 23:10, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 22:56, 17 August 2018 [8].

---

Philip I Philadelphus

Nominator(s): Attar-Aram syria (talk) 17:49, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

This article is about a little known king reigning Syria at the end of the once great Seleucid empire. He was one among four contenders for the throne, all of them managed to rule some parts of the country! Yet, despite his humble role in history, Rome found it fit to maintain his image on the coins of its Syrian province for fifty years: so he must have left an impression in the region. The article went through copy editing by the guild and is the result of extensive research in which I made sure to represent all scholarly views.Attar-Aram syria (talk) 17:49, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Source review

A couple of what I think are typos in the refs but didn't like to change:

• "Chronotope in Liberature" – Literature?
• "Mmonetary" – Monetary?

That apart, all the sources appear reputable and in line with WP:RS, and are consistently cited. Tim riley talk 18:23, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Fixed monetary. Liberature is correct though.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 18:33, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Support – A good read, well and widely cited, and, as far as a layman can see, comprehensive. Tim riley talk 20:16, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Dank

• "Tigranes II of Armenia conquered Syria that year at the request of the Antiochian population, who refused to accept Philip's minor son as his successor. This is debatable, however, since the conquest might have occurred in 74 BC.": This is confusing. Give it another shot.
  • Hello. I realize that it is not easy to follow and this stems from the natur of our information about him. We simply dont know when he died and historians are dating his death to the campaign of Tigranes, but this campaign itself is debated..... I tried my best to keep it simple.
    • Does anyone else find the wording here confusing? - Dank (push to talk)
      • Rewrote the paragraph. What do you think now
• "In the face of their uncle": I don't know what that means.
  • It is explained in the background section that Demetrius III and Seleucus VI are sons of Antiochus VIII, and that Antiochus IX was the brother and rival of Antiochus VIII, hence, the uncle of Seleucus and Demetrius. Uncle is used to avoid writing Antiochus IX three times in one line
    • I don't know what "In the face of " means. - Dank (push to talk)
      • Oh that part you didnt know. I changed the wording
        • I don't know what "In confrontation of their uncle" means. Did they confront him? - Dank (push to talk)
          • Their father died, and their uncle and enemy took the capital. They did not want to submit to him. What do you suggest should be written to make this clear?
            • What you just said is clear to me. - Dank (push to talk) 12:34, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
              • Fine
• "Those factors, combined with the low estimates of annual coin dies used by Philip's immediate predecessors in Antioch—Antiochus X (his second reign) and Demetrius III, disproportionate compared with the general die estimates of late Seleucid kings—led numismatist Oliver D. Hoover to propose that Philip recoined his predecessors' coins and skewed their dies[38] to produce currency bearing his image, reduced in weight from the standard 1,600 g (56 oz) to 1,565 g (55.2 oz).": That's quite a mouthful for one sentence.
  • Sentence split
• "111–110 BC", "85–84 BC": The trouble is that everyone thinks they know what the dash means, but when you ask them, different people say it means different things. If "or" was meant here, say "or".
  • originaly it read 85/84 which is the academic usage. this changed apparently with the copy edit. I re wrote them with a / . By 111/110 for example, I mean a Seleucid year which began in November 111 and ended in September 110
    • Without reading the footnotes, how will the reader know that this is what is meant? Most of the time, readers don't rely on links for comprehension. "or" would work, and wouldn't require a lot of scholarly explanation. - Dank (push to talk)
      • footnote removed. Information moved to the end of the lede. This way the readers will understand what its meant by year/year and expand their knowledge so they will also understand what it means if they read a scholarly article in some academic journal
        • Other reviewers may want to weigh in on this one. - Dank (push to talk) 12:26, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
          • The solution now adopted is unorthodox, but, I think, sensible. I'm happy to support it. Tim riley talk 18:14, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
• "which could not have been produced in if his reign": ?
  • fixed
• Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 20:20, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Note: Hey Dank and Tim riley, I was searching for a more elegant solution and came across this: Wikipedia:Hatnote#Legitimate information about the topic. The guidlines page dont like the hatnote for such a reason, but if I actually make it, then it will look like this at the very top of the article:

Some dates in the article are given according to the Seleucid era numbering, which is indicated when two years have a slash separating them.

Do you think this is suitable?

I just now saw this comment; I didn't get pinged by it because you didn't sign. I wouldn't go with a hatnote. - Dank (push to talk) 21:24, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest scaling up the map
  • Done
• File:Philippus_Philadelphus_infobox.jpg should include an explicit copyright tag for the original work. Same with File:Philippos_Philadelphos_-_AR_tetradrachm.jpg
  • fixed
• File:Aulus_Gabinius.jpg: source site appears to claim copyright on this photo. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:12, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Photo replaced

From FunkMonk

• I'll review this soon. FunkMonk (talk) 08:15, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks for taking the time
• I think the infobox image could need a caption.
• "according to Eusebius Philip was also there" Comma between the names?
• "thought it was Beroea." Since this links to modern day Aleppo, I wonder whether that should be stated in parenthesis?
• "to prepare for a challenge for the throne" To prepare against might sound better, so you prevent two "for" in a row.
• "Alfred Raymond Bellinger" Present him and others mentioned.
  • Fixed
• Might be interesting to see if we can find some variations of the coins, like those showing beards, and with his twin. The ones currently used are very similar to each other.
  • I couldnt find a photo of a coin showing him bearded. The coins with his twin are rare and I found one on two sites, but the copyrights are a problem as usual here and here
    • FunkMonk, I was reading on the website that have an image of the coin. one section is named License for Limited Uses. Do you think we can use the image?

Seems very strict, sadly: "You may not republish, commercially distribute, duplicate, or exploit any aspect of the Website, either code or content. Other than the Fair Usage specified in the License for Limited Uses, You may not download, reproduce, modify, distribute, transfer, sell, or create derivative works of any code, contents, data, whether specifically copyrighted or not. Any unauthorized usage of the Website may subject You to civil or criminal prosecution." FunkMonk (talk) 01:41, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Hey FunkMonk, I think I have one now. It is not from the website of CNG but from a published volume by CNG available for free download on their website. So, I believe the CNG lisence apply to it. Look here

Cool, now I just think it needs a direct link to where the image can be found in the source field. FunkMonk (talk) 01:03, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

What do you mean? the image is from a printed book that was available for download. The image itself is not on the website. This link take you to the book's entry on the website and this is the downlad link. So which link do are you refering to?

I mean for where the book can be downloaded, could be linked in the source field. FunkMonk (talk) 01:19, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

I put the link in commons and placed the photo in the wiki article.

Looks good to me, I assume the licence covers their journal too. FunkMonk (talk) 01:42, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

• "accept Philip's minor son" WP:Easter egg links are discouraged, spell out the name.
  • Fixed

FunkMonk, did you have anything to add? (Not admonishing you to declare a position, just making sure you're all done.) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:19, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support - strange, I thought I had already supported, but here it is! FunkMonk (talk) 10:22, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Support Fifelfoo

Bibliographic and Citation style; HQRS & coverage; plagiarism spot check (3); plagiarism style check; Style; Do sources support claims? (FUTON, 3-5ish from memory?) Fifelfoo (talk) 14:15, 6 July 2018 (UTC) Fifelfoo (talk) 16:07, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Bibliographic and Citation Style

• The external link should be brought into style
  • Can you provide me with an example of external links style? Im not really an expert in this
    • Fixed for you Fifelfoo (talk) 16:07, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
• Fixed for you Hoover (2008), |series= parameter is expected to take a descriptive type title, "Joes Series on Ancient Drinks," using it for a journal series run would require a similar descriptive function. "Second series"
  • Thanks
• Checked the back linking from citations to bibliography

HQRS & coverage

• Three plagiarism spot checks by sources
• Style reading check for plagiarism: consistent style throughout
• Gilles (1820) used appropriately
• Primaries: Josephus and Eusebius used appropriately
• Question for reassurance: Why the reliance on Bellinger (1949)? Seminal work? Still highly respected? Unique coverage?
  • It is all of the aforementioned reasons actually. The late Seleucid period is one that is avoided by many scholars because of how vague it is. Hoover (whose work on a revised chronology is becoming an academic consensus) listed those problems in page 280. So Bellinger was one of few who ventured into the topic. Practically, in any work that talks about the late Seleucids, you will find Bellinger cited. Kay Ehling, a German professor, wrote about the late Seleucids in 2008, and on google books you see this introduction: "this volume is the first book since A R Bellinger's The End of the Seleucids from 1949 to comprehensively deal with the history of the late Seleucid dynasty, from the death of Antiochos IV to the establishment of the Roman province Syria by Pompey".
    • Good work! Fifelfoo (talk) 16:08, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Style

• Bad topic sentence, "The name Philip (Greek Phílippos) means "lover of horses"." Move to be after the sentence with his birth? The new first sentence would make sense then.
• "His position was insecure." Philip? Topic sentence starting with a pronoun isn't the best for clarity
• "Philip's attempt weakens" attempt to what?
• "The king was succeeded" who? Philip?
  • Fixed

Do the sources support the claims?

• While doing the above I must have checked 3-5ish FUTONs and they did. Fifelfoo (talk) 14:59, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

comments from WereSpielChequers

Support. I have made a couple of tweaks, hope you like them, if not its a wiki

• "Cleopatra Thea of Egypt became the consort of three successive Syrian kings in 150 BC" three marriages in one year is quite some going perhaps "Cleopatra Thea of Egypt became the consort of three successive Syrian kings in 150, 145 and 137 BC". might be clearer. ϢereSpielChequers 04:41, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Fixed

It reads well, not a subject that I have expertise in, but happy to support the aspects that I've checked. ϢereSpielChequers 07:09, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Constantine

I made various copyedits as I went through, but generally this reads well, as usual. I trust that Attar-Aram syria has researched the subject exhaustively, as usual, and the article definitely looks like it.

• I have changed "Egyptian" to "Ptolemaic", for accuracy and clarity; the Ptolemies were rulers of Egypt mainly, but not only, and this is an era of dynastic politics, rather than "national" ones.
• "the Seleucids (who were descended from the Antigonids)" I cannot remember whether this is true; where did that descent come from? In any case, the statement is potentially confusing, because it can be understood that the Seleucids are an offshoot of the Antigonids, whereas they were contemporaries and antagonists. If the descent is partial (due to marriage etc) then please indicate it explicitly. E.g. "the Seleucids (who were [[Name of marriage link|partly descended]] from the Antigonids)".
• Atkinson 2016 does not appear to be used in the article. If so, please remove it from the "Sources" section.

Otherwise, I cannot see any readily apparent omissions or errors. Supporting, and awaiting the resolution of the two minor issues mentioned above. Constantine ✍ 08:44, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Hey Constantine, sorry for the late response. Im on a vacation and dont have any PC, only my phone and any editor knows what a pain it is to edit through a smart phone. I will work on your review as soon as Im home.

I have made the changes before this get archived. Cheers and thanks

Closing comments: As Constantine has supported, I don't think we need to wait for the resolution of these final issues. They can be addressed on the talk page when Attar-Aram syria returns. Sarastro (talk) 22:55, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

• 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. Sarastro (talk) 22:56, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

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) 21:08, 14 August 2018 [9].

---

Mount Mazama

Nominator(s): ceranthor 18:29, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

This article is about the volcano responsible for a cataclysmic eruption, the largest in the Cascade Range in the last million years. Easily the longest article I've written, I think it is ready to become an FA. I think it is an engaging article about one of the most important volcanoes in the world. ceranthor 18:29, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Support from Freikorp

Following up my comments at the peer review, I think this is article meets the FAC criteria. Just had another read through and I'm happy to support now but consider the following:

• "and making it Oregon's highest peak" - should this be past tense? I'm guessing it isn't still the highest peak.
• It would be nice to get some more information on the potential use of geothermal energy, how that would work etc. I note the source is from 1996; has anyone commented on this since then? Freikorp (talk) 02:35, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I will look into the geothermal energy content and get back to you. ceranthor 00:34, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

@Freikorp: I can't find anything more recent than that. I would be happy to add more content, though, if someone else identifies potential sources I missed. ceranthor 23:12, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

No worries. If you can't find anything more recent I'm happy with that as it is. :) Freikorp (talk) 00:59, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Comment from Tim riley

After initial read-through for spelling etc only one query: "Scott Dreek" looks odd, and I wonder if it is a typo for Scott Creek? A swift googling suggests so. Tim riley talk 08:02, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

@Tim riley: Should be fixed. ceranthor 00:29, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Image review

Commenting solely on files which need comments:

• File:William Gladstone Steel (old).jpg: Source link is broken.

There is apparently no ALT text anywhere. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:34, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

I think the Gladstone picture is still there; the NPS site has had a lot of bugs in the past year or so since a certain US President took over... As for the alt text... oops, good catch. Will fix this ASAP (likely tomorrow). ceranthor 00:30, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Added alt text. Let me know if anything needs to be changed or if I missed any images. ceranthor 22:49, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: A TinEye search revealed that the image as it appears is no longer available on any NPS site, just a crop. What do you suggest, removing the image or leaving it as is? ceranthor 19:29, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Here?. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:33, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

You are wonderful! Thanks for the find. I'll replace the source information. ceranthor 20:18, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Also, from my perspective the article is complete enough and covers all the bases. No opinion on sources and accuracy. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:33, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Support from Pseud14

• Happy to support an interesting article per my comments at the peer review. Pseud 14 (talk) 23:20, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments and for your support, Pseud 14. ceranthor 02:09, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Source review

All sources cited appear appropriate and reliable. A few quibbles about their presentation:

• I can't work out the reasons for having some sources detailed in the Notes rather than linked to bibliographical details in the References section, as others are. See for instance (among others) S. R. Mark at notes 4 a–j. I'm probably missing something obvious, but I just mention it.
  • I only put journals/publications in the references section, as well as books. ceranthor 12:55, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
• I wasn't sure why S. L. Harris is listed above A. G. Harris.
  • Fixed. ceranthor 12:55, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
• You ought, I think, to be consistent about adding, or not adding, publishers' locations for printed books.
  • Fixed. ceranthor 12:55, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
• I also think you should whenever possible follow the original capitalisation of titles of the works cited, e.g. Bacon, C. R.; Nathenson, M. (1996)
  • Should all be fixed. ceranthor 12:55, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
• I was surprised at the absence of an OCLC number for Keroher, G. C. (1966).
  • Added. Nice catch. ceranthor 12:55, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Nothing to frighten the horses there, but worth checking I think. – Tim riley talk 17:30, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

I will get to these tomorrow. ceranthor 02:09, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

@Tim riley: I think I've fixed all of these. Please let me know if I missed anything. ceranthor 12:55, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Now looks fine to me. Happy to sign off the source review. Shall now read the article again to see if I can support its promotion. More shortly. Tim riley talk 18:48, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Support. Very readable and evidently comprehensive article, with a wide range of references. Clearly meets the FA criteria in my view. Tim riley talk 07:53, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the support, Tim. I appreciate your thorough feedback. ceranthor 12:59, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Support by Ceoil

Support this very nicely written article on prose. Ceoil (talk) 22:26, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Ceoil, for the support. ceranthor 02:09, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

@Ian Rose: @Laser brain: @Sarastro1: Is this nomination missing any elements needed for a review? I think it's had a thorough source review and image review, though I suppose one can never have enough prose checks. ceranthor 15:06, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Given the nom has only been open a couple of weeks I wouldn't mind giving it a bit longer to see if any more comments are forthcoming. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:12, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I think this is about good to go now. One thing though, I'd have expected the last sentence in in the first para of Physical geography to be cited. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:35, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

@Ian Rose: Good catch - fixed that. Thanks, ceranthor 18:46, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

@Ian Rose: Any update on this? ceranthor 15:33, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Time flies. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:07, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

• 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. Ian Rose (talk) 21:08, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 13:17, 14 August 2018 [10].

---

Army of Sambre and Meuse

Nominator(s): auntieruth (talk) 16:12, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

This article is about the French army engaged in the Campaigns of 1795-96. It was part of a major campaign in 1796 which resulted, initially, in French incursians well into the Holy Roman Empire. With supply lines stretched, and infighting among generals, this army and the Army of the Rhine and Moselle were forced back to France. As usual, I have used a citation system common among US academics, and generally used in dissertations. It's what I know. This article has undergone extensive editing and perusal at the MilHist A-class review (and earlier). I look forward to your comments and suggestions. auntieruth (talk) 16:12, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest scaling up File:Armée_de_Sambre-et-Meuse.png, File:Map_of_the_Holy_Roman_Empire,_1789_en.png Y added larger px

• Generally scaling should instead be done using |upright=, unless there's a reason not to. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:57, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

• okay used |upright= to scale the images, but the diagram becomes really small! auntieruth (talk) 19:12, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

• File:Rhein-Karte.png: what do the different colours represent? Y

• File:Map_of_the_Holy_Roman_Empire,_1789_en.png: not clear to me from looking at this which colour would be considered "light cream" Y

• Suggest rephrasing caption of the location map to make clear that the "triangle" refers to the position of the three cities, rather than an actual visible triangle Y

• File:Fusilier_Révolution_française.jpg: on what source is this image based? Y I've confirmed how these soldiers would hve been dressed, based on other sources

• File:Armée_de_Sambre-et-Meuse.png: what is the source for this graph? Y

• File:Rhein-Karte.png: what is the source of the data for this map? Y

• File:L'armée_de_Sambre-et-Meuse,_1795.jpg needs a US PD tag. Same with File:Jean-Victor_Moreau.jpg, File:Marechal_François-Joseph_Lefebvre.jpg Y

• File:Général_Jean_Étienne_Vachier_detto_Championnet_(3).jpg needs a US PD tag and a better source. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:57, 23 June 2018 (UTC) Y

Nikkimaria I think I did it right....Not sure on the upscaling....auntieruth (talk) 16:40, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Support from PM

• I reviewed this in detail at GAN and Milhist ACR, and I consider it meets the FA criteria. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:47, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments Cautious support from Cas Liber

Taking a look now....

• The lead should have some mention of how many people the army had, and where they were mostly from (conscripts etc.). This can be tacked onto the (rather small) first para.

• He and his fellow monarchs threatened ambiguous but serious consequences if anything should happen to the royal family. - why "ambiguous" - normally when someone says, "serious consequences" it can be undefined anyway.

• The number of troops involved is ambiguous - does this mean merely "unclear" or were there two possibilities..?

• Casliber I think I've found the areas you are concerned about....although I couldn't find the above specific reference. auntieruth (talk) 15:22, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

• Cntrl-F is your friend here, to find them. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:00, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you! All is fixed re ambiguous. auntieruth (talk) 19:05, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Overall, the article reads okay - no other obvious prose issues. Topic is dry for me but I figured a non-military person's view was prudent. It has a lot of context but that seems on the whole sensible. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:58, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Casliber, definitely it helps to have a non mil hist person's view! auntieruth (talk) 15:22, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

• @Casliber:, is this to your satisfaction now? auntieruth (talk) 19:06, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes - it looks ok now. I can't see any obvious prose issues, and it strikes me as having no obvious gaps, hence I am tentatively supporting, but am not an expert Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:36, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Support Comments/suggestions: G'day, Ruth, I saw this at ACR earlier in the year and think it is pretty good, although I caveat that it is not a topic area I know anything about. I made a few minor copy edits tonight and have a few minor suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 11:10, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

• in the Background section, suggest linking "1789 revolution" to French Revolution rather than just "1789"
• I suggest maybe trying to split the paragraph in the Politics subsection as it seems quite long
• the specific date of "29 September" does not seem to be mentioned in the body of the article. I would suggest adding it to the last sentence of the "Reformation" sectionn
• would it be possible to have "File:Armée de Sambre-et-Meuse.png" translated so that we use the English language version? Also, I think it needs a caption

• I'd be happy to do it, but I don't know how....auntieruth (talk) 14:38, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

• G'day, Ruth, you might be able to make a request at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Illustration workshop. If you can supply the translation, there is probably someone there with the skills to create the image. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:37, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

• I've tweaked and fiddled and managed to translate it myself. Might not be as good an image....? auntieruth (talk) 19:01, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

• the location of "File:Armée de Sambre-et-Meuse.png" is probably not ideal as it doesn't directly relate to the text which it appears near. I'd suggest maybe moving it to the Original formation section. Of course, that creates a dilemma with the images you have in that section, though. It might be possible to move the painting down, though, potentially to the 1795 campaign section.

• i've rearranged some of the mages. makes the politics paragraph look shorter too.

Rupert,t he fact that it's outside your area makes you one of the best readers, because Im sure I assume a background where none exists. experts might not note it! auntieruth (talk) 14:38, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

@AustralianRupert: how does this look now.  :)

Looks good, Ruth, thanks. I think there is a minor issue with "File:French Armies.jpg", though. When I load the image, there is a red typo underscore underneath the word "Sambre". Otherwise, it looks pretty good to me. Thanks for your efforts. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:52, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

• got it, thanks!  :) auntieruth (talk) 14:27, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Coord note -- I think we still need a source review for reliability and formatting. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:10, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

• The sources look reliable and the formatting is consistent. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:40, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
• Earwigs copyvio is clear. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:42, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
• Trying to see the original sources for these is tricky. I can't do it from where I am right now and will have another go later. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:32, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

• FN 35 supports the sentence it ends.
• FN 13 (used twice) supports the 2 sentences it ends.

Finding what is online is proving tricky, but these do seem in order. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:00, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

• i tried to link directly to the source page but couldn't always do it. auntieruth (talk) 16:50, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

• 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. --Laser brain (talk) 13:17, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 12:13, 14 August 2018 [11].

---

Binary search algorithm

Nominator(s): Esquivalience (talk) 20:53, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

This article is about one of the most ubiquitous algorithms in computing. Binary search is usually one of the first algorithms taught to computer science students. The premise is quite simple: given a sorted list of numbers, binary search eliminates halves of the list in which the number you are looking for cannot lie until it finds the number. However, binary search has lots of subtleties. Surprisingly, when a famous programmer asked his students to implement binary search, 90 percent could not provide a correct solution. I have wrote this article to not only cover those subtleties, but also compare binary search to other search algorithms, placing the algorithm in context. I believe that this article is FA quality as I have strived to place every relevant detail that I could find on binary search, which is surprisingly a lot of details and subtleties that the average textbook chapter on search algorithms neglects to cover. Esquivalience (talk) 20:53, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

• Comment. Nice work! Interesting article, I especially like the diagrams & the comparison with non-sorted array datastructures. My own preference would be to use very tiny sample Python programs rather than the mathier description of what the program does, but I respect that if it was done that way, there might be a problem with random students replacing it with their own code.

There may be copyright issues if code is copied verbatim from a book (mostly for the CS students needing to plagiarize binary search code), and if I write binary search code based on the information in the article in Python for example, there may be verifiability concerns. In addition, the mathematical description is more abstract and eliminates language-specific implementation details. However, I will consider adding a pseudocode version like in Euclidean algorithm#Implementations Esquivalience (talk) 21:51, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

as binary search trees can effectively be structured in filesystems.

I think "efficiently" might be more clear here?

Good suggestion; replaced. Esquivalience (talk) 21:51, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

If the array must first be sorted, that cost must be amortized over any searches.

Kinda sorta? Phrasing is a little weird too, with "must" sounding like accountants are being ordered around. If we're talking about a hypothetical system, The opening sentence of the section already notes that constantly sorting the array is kinda inefficient; future binary searches presumably would still have to sort the array, because they aren't sure if a previous check happened and already sorted it, so it's not like the cost gets to be amortized through these. Could have an "isDirty" type function that would remember if the array has been modified since it was last sorted of course, but that's getting too much into the weeds I think.

I agree that it's kind of obvious that the cost of sorting needs to be considered, and given that the target audience really is new computer science students, communicating such an important aspect with concepts like amortized analysis is confusing, so I decided to only mention that the array needs to be sorted and leave it at that. Esquivalience (talk) 21:51, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Exponential search

Can the diagram (File:Exponential search.svg) be modified to clearly be unbounded? Seems misleading at a glance... if nothing else, have the right edge with a "...".

I still have the TeX file, so I'll add the ..., however it can also be applied to bounded arrays. Esquivalience (talk) 21:51, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Fibonacci search

This section is not real clear at the moment. There's something to be said for not taking too much space, and letting people who are curious about more click over to the article, but maybe give it a once-over if there's a way to still be precise but also accessible? It's great there's a diagram, but maybe call out the green highlighted section a little more in File:Fibonacci_search.png to show that section "won". If nothing else, I would recommend highlighting in the first or second sentence that rather than a specific answer (like in binary search), Fibonacci merely returns a range where the answer might be.

I think it's better to remove it, because it is only vaguely similar to binary search. It's more of an optimization algorithm rather than a "search" algorithm, and an obscure one at that. Esquivalience (talk) 21:51, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

The noisy binary search problem can be considered as a case of the Rényi-Ulam game,[49] which Alfréd Rényi introduced in 1961.[50]

Why is the date it was created relevant? I'd say a description would be more helpful. "a case of the Rényi-Ulam game, a variant of twenty questions where the answers can be wrong," say.

I think it is better to put it in a footnote, as it does not add much to the main description, and I have adopted your proposed wording. Esquivalience (talk) 21:51, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

In 1946, John Mauchly made the first mention of binary search as part of the Moore School Lectures, the first ever set of lectures regarding any computer-related topic.

There is no way this is possibly true as phrased - there are tons of computer-related topics, like math, that people have been giving lectures on since the ancient Babylonians. Not sure what TAOCP was saying here, but judging by the Wikipedia article, maybe something like "the first and foundational college course in computers?"

Reworded it a bit, but I decided to use "seminal" instead of "first" as there is no way of knowing whether it is the first course on computing (some can say that the study of logic and abstract machines counts as a computing course, and those fields were studied decades before). Esquivalience (talk) 22:19, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

ninety percent failed to provide a correct solution after several hours of working on it,[57] and another study published in 1988 shows that accurate code for it is only found in five out of twenty textbooks

I think the article is taking Bloch & Bentley at their word a bit in a way that will confuse casual readers. Binary search, while not quite fizz buzz, is a sample easy problem generally that takes 5 minutes to solve, and surely Bentley's complaints were on hyper-specific issues. I would add in "rare edge case" or the like in discussing the overflow error in Programming Pearls and Java; it's arguably not even really an "interesting" flaw, because arrays are already size-capped in most languages to the size of the index (unsigned int, say), so this error was merely not taking advantage of the maximum amount of space available. (And heck, even with BigInteger array indices, declaring too large an array will already cause an out of memory exception unless you are on a Turing Machine with an actually-infinite tape.) SnowFire (talk) 20:07, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I added the wording about many of the errors being rare edge cases for Bentley's assignment, but textbooks should be expected to provide correct code that works on edge cases, so I left the textbook sentence as is. Esquivalience (talk) 21:51, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

@SnowFire: Thanks for the suggestions, and I hope my changes have addressed your concerns. Esquivalience (talk) 21:51, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:24, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Support Good to see a CompSci article at FAC. Some interesting tidbits in the article. Some comments:

• Alexandrescu (2010) and Leiss (2007) are not referenced in the article. Suggest removing them.

• Suggest removing the wiki-links to Childs, Landahl & Parrilo 2007 and Høyer, Neerbek & Shi 2002 (which just points to the reference) as we already have footnotes.
• No reference on the second last paragraph of "Implementation issues"

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:51, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Added the ref and removed the redundant citations, thanks for the suggestions. Esquivalience (talk) 20:14, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments Edwininlondon

Great to finally see a computer science article here. Some comments on the lead to start with:

• "and the search continues on the remaining half until the target value is found" --> I think the first paragraph of the lead should explain the next step better. This is too vague. Perhaps something along the lines of "and the search continues on the remaining half, again taking the middle element for comparison, repeating this until the target value is found"

• Done Esquivalience (talk) 19:34, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

• the O is Big O notation, and log is the logarithm --> An example here would be good. "For an array of 100 elements it takes at most .."

• I don't think it would be accurate to say that for some number of elements, it takes some amount of time, because Big O notation is related to how fast the time complexity grows. For example, a O(log n) algorithm can take an eternity if, say, the algorithm must do a lot of computation before processing the data. The log n really states that the time complexity grows quite slowly. Esquivalience (talk) 19:34, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I think that's exactly the kind of info the lay person needs. So if you feel an example is not appropriate, then mention this. Edwininlondon (talk) 08:01, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

• this paragraph about complexity would also be the best place to contrast the algorithm against the simplest alternative, serial search, which I think is needed for the lay-person.

• Done Esquivalience (talk) 19:34, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

• Although the idea is simple --> Bit of a random mini-paragraph. Conceptually this sentence fits better at the end of the first paragraph

• Done.

• The lead says nothing about unsorted arrays. I think it should. Briefly.

• Mentioning unsorted arrays would be relevant only to the comparison with linear search, so I mentioned that the array must be sorted first for binary search. Esquivalience (talk) 19:34, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

More later. Edwininlondon (talk) 09:31, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

@Edwininlondon: Thanks for the feedback. Esquivalience (talk) 19:34, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

• Procedure for finding the rightmost element --> I feel this section is a bit overkill. It makes it look like a textbook. I'm not sure such drive for completion is necessary in an encyclopedia. I'd leave it out.

• It is necessary for the successor searching, that is, finding the smallest element that is larger than the target value. Esquivalience (talk) 02:19, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

• This problem is solved by binary search --> What exactly is "This problem" referring to? Maybe a little rewrite could help me?

• The problem is already explained in the paragraph, so I just said that "By dividing the array in half, binary search ensures that the size of both subarrays are as similar as possible." Esquivalience (talk) 02:19, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

• Fractional cascading can be used to --> perhaps add a short explanation of fractional cascading. Oh I now see that comes later. That's a bit unfortunate. Do we need it even here? Is it not sufficient to have it only under the Variations section?

• Removed from performance section as it repeats the information from the section. Esquivalience (talk) 02:19, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

• There seems to be a weird character between ref 17 and 18

• Removed, not sure how it got there. Esquivalience (talk) 02:19, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

• Enormous n --> would be nice to give some indication of size ... billions?

• It depends on the time it takes to do arithmetic operations on the computer, which varies from system to system, so it is not really possible to give an exact or even approximate amount. A more detailed analysis is given in footnote (c), but it is still very specific and is only used to illustrate why it is that way. Esquivalience (talk) 02:19, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

• In addition, all operations possible on a sorted array can be performed—such as finding the smallest and largest key --> I think this is describing binary search, but then the word "key" threw me off and now I'm not sure

• key refers to an element, but I replaced "key" with element and clarified it a little.

• This applies even to balanced binary search trees, binary search trees that balance their own nodes—as they rarely produce optimally-balanced trees—but to a lesser extent --> not so easy to read. Maybe see if a rewrite could help

• Done Esquivalience (talk) 02:19, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

• although the array needs to be sorted beforehand --> I think it is necessary for this article to describe the cost of sorting. The reader will wonder what typically happens in cases where the array is unsorted.

• Different sorting algorithms as well as different computers take different amounts of time to sort an array, so it is not possible to say that sorting has the same cost as n binary searches, but what can be given is that it takes a multiple of n log n comparisons, so I added that.

• Binary search also enables efficient approximate matches and other operations --> we already knew this from earlier section, but what is missing here is something about linear search with respect to these matches and operations

• Clarified that point. Esquivalience (talk) 02:19, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

• Set membership --> it's a bit out of place. Maybe introduce this kind of problem earlier so that this problem can be discussed within the hashing, trees and linear search sections as well

• I introduced set membership in the first paragraph of the section to put it in context.

• A bit array is the simplest --> perhaps a short description of what this is would be useful

• Done Esquivalience (talk) 02:19, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

• which may improve the algorithm's performance on some systems. --> why?

• Added an explanation. Esquivalience (talk) 02:19, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

• (L + R) / 2 --> this one and a few others probably need a math template to prevent wrapping

• Done

• any reason why multiplicative binary search is only mentioned in the See also section?

• Multiplicative binary search seems to be quite niche and I don't think it's used often compared to the other variations. The Art of Computer Programming does not cover it even though it is generally considered to be a "comprehensive" resource. Looking at the article, it's basically a special method of storing a binary search tree, so if it belongs it belongs in that article instead. Esquivalience (talk) 02:19, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Edwininlondon (talk) 18:22, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

The references need a bit of cleaning up as there are some inconsistencies:

• ISBN numbers are sometimes ISBN 10 and sometimes 13. Also need hyphens. I'll do this once I have time.

• Done

• Some Articles Are in Camel Case, but some others are not

• Converted all titles to sentence case @Edwininlondon:

• Quite a few have no page number. Knuth especially

• For the Knuth sources, I only have the eBook version which doesn't contain page numbers for some reason. But that reason is probably because Knuth's The Art of Computer Programming has a famed error bounty program. If a reader finds an error in one of his books, including TAOCP, then Knuth sends a check to the reader who made an error, and which is usually framed as memorabilia for obvious reasons. Even though Volume 3 was published 20 years ago, there have already been at least 26 republished versions with error corrections, which messes up the page numbering. For the Sedgewick and Wayne versions, the authors have provided a condensed, summarized version of the book for free online, so chapter and section numbers are better for guiding readers to the right page. I'll try to add page numbers for the other sources shortly.Done. Ref 52 has no page number given by the publisher however.

• the link to PDF for 55 seems wrong

• Don't know how it got there, but I removed the link. It's an old article, but not in the public domain, so there is no preprint or copyright-free version.

Edwininlondon (talk) 21:08, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Coord note

@Edwininlondon and SnowFire: have you had a chance to review responses to your comments? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:29, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

• Sorry, missed this. Having reviewed the responses just now, I am happy to support this. Edwininlondon (talk) 12:06, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
• Sure, support. I had honestly forgotten all about this. My slant would still be slightly different on a few of the topics, but that's just personal preference; I think that the most important thing, being a comprehensive and accurate overview of the topic, is met and met strongly. SnowFire (talk) 04:03, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

• 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. --Laser brain (talk) 12:13, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 12:13, 14 August 2018 [12].

---

Russian occupations of Beirut

Nominator(s): Fitzcarmalan (talk) 09:05, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

This article covers an unusual series of events in the history of Beirut. In both 1772 and late 1773-early 1774, the city came under brief Russian occupation as part of a wider Russo-Turkish war. It marks the first occupation of its kind for an Arab city and the first time Beirut falls to a European power since the Ottoman conquest of the region in 1516. With the exception of a German-annotated map in the lead (which I hope is not a serious issue), I believe it meets all the FA criteria. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 09:05, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Now there's an English version of the map. Credit goes to Don-kun. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 17:35, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments from AustralianRupert

Support Comments: G'day, interesting topic and nicely done. Makes me realised there is so much I don't know about history! Fascinating. I have a few suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 06:32, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

• there are no dab links, and the ext links all seem to work (no action required)
• suggest adding alt text to the map

Done. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 17:53, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

• in the lead, suggest adding the years that the occupations occurred to the first sentence

Done. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 17:53, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

• "small Russian squadron": suggest wikilinking to Squadron (naval) here and on first mention in the body

Done. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 17:53, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

• "Instead of providing soldiers to the Porte...": as a lay reader, I wasn't sure what "Porte" meant here. Could this be linked, or explained? (Potentially in a note?)

Done. I linked to Sublime Porte instead. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 17:53, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

• I wonder if File:Ivan Constantinovich Aivazovsky - Battle of Çesme at Night.JPG might be appropriate for the Background section? Given that there are no other images in the article, it would be good to try to break up the text a little

Done (plus alt text). But it reads as "Battle of Çesme" in the caption instead of "Battle of Chesma", as it appears to be an officially given name to the painting. Hope it's okay. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 17:53, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that's fine with me, although potentially a note might be added explaining the difference in spelling. Not a warstoper for me, though. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:21, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Done. I added a separate note group within the caption. Tell me what you think. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 13:00, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

• "Galley" is overlinked per WP:DUPLINK

Done. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 17:53, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

• "It was transporting an infantry division...": suggest linking to Division (military) here

Done. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 17:53, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

• "550,000 qirsh worth of loot": per MOS:NUMNOTES it is best to avoid starting a sentence with a figure. Suggest maybe changing it to "A total of 550,000 qirsh..." or something similar

Done. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 17:53, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

• in the Sources, suggest adding a translation for the title of the Marti work. The cite book template supports "|trans-title=" as a field, which could be used to format the translation

Not done. I don't feel comfortable adding my own translation or that of Google Translate, as I'm not an Italian speaker. Do you have someone in mind who could help with that? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 17:53, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps mariomassone can verify a translation from Italian? FunkMonk (talk) 00:33, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Bear with me, it's 18th century italian; "History of the war in Syria in the year 1771: From the arms of Aly-Bey of Egypt and the further successes of the aforementioned Aly-Bey to the present year of 1772" Mariomassone (talk) 09:15, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Added. Thank you. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 13:00, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

• suggest maybe reducing the width of the table in the Second occupation section. It might look a bit less stretched if it was at 60 per cent, or thereabouts. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:21, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Done. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 13:00, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

From FunkMonk

• Nice to see this here, your first FAC? Will review as I read along. Too bad Al Ameer son isn't around anymore, I think he would have been interested in this. FunkMonk (talk) 00:33, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

My first one, yes. I was actually talking to Ameer a couple of years ago about Ali Bey, asking whether he had relevant sources that could be used to expand articles in this topic area. Too bad indeed. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 05:13, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

• "In response to Russian violation of the Ottoman border while suppressing a Polish uprising, among other factors" Kind of long and confusing sentence. Who was suppressing the Polish uprising? I of course assume the Russians, but the wording here could go both ways.

Done. But in doing so, I had to expand a little, which some might consider a bit off-topic. Sources treating the occupations wouldn't mention the casus belli of the war. In fact, Persen intentionally omits it: "For reasons which are outside the limits of this paper, the Sultan declared war on Russia in 1768." Fitzcarmalan (talk) 05:13, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

I think it's good with this extra context. This is not a research paper after all, but should be able to stand alone. FunkMonk (talk) 16:34, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

• Ali Bey and other things only linked in the intro (like Druze and Beirut) should also be linked at first mention in the article body.

Done. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 05:13, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

• "at the Battle of Chesma" This is spelled "Chesma" in the linked article, and "Çesme in the adjacent image caption. Perhaps there could be consistency, what is the most common spelling?

The battle article calls it "Chesma", but the town's name on Wikipedia is Çeşme, which also appears in the name that was officially given to the painting, either by Aivazovsky himself or by the Feodosia gallery hosting it. A bit like Gdańsk/Danzig. No idea what should be done about this though. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 05:13, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Hope this solves the issue. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 13:00, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

• Could maybe be good for orientation to show an image of how Beirut looked at the time, if such are available. Perhaps under "aftermath".

There are none on this project that I'm aware of. But it would be great if someone uploaded the maps analysed and recreated in this initiative. One of them can be found here (second map in the bottom second row of the gallery); it's from the Atlas of the Archipelago. Another one, which is the main subject of this study, is the von Palen map that is currently in the Russian State Navy Archive. Thing is, the image policy and I don't seem to get along that well. So there isn't much I can do about this. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 18:19, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm, maps that old would definitely be in the public domain by now, see the PD Russia template:[13] I think one of them could be a great addition to the article, they don't have to be recreated. FunkMonk (talk) 18:28, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

I can upload the one from Atlas of the Archipelago. I prefer the von Palen map though. But I couldn't find it on Google Images (the one in the PDF I linked contains a blue frame and removing it may disrupt the map's quality). Fitzcarmalan (talk) 18:46, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Tell me what you think: File:Beirut in the Atlas of the Archipelago.png. I hate the quality though. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 19:17, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Better than nothing, I'll see if I can extract it in better quality, otherwise someone will probably do it down the line if they see it in the article. There is a way to download full res images from those weird tiled flash things, but I never got the hang of it. FunkMonk (talk) 21:59, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

• "Maghrebis" links to Maghrebi Arabic, which I'm not sure is appropriate (we're talking about people, not a language). Maybe a link to Maghreb would be better.

Done. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 18:19, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

• "Persen played down", "Perminov" Why not give full names to all historians?

Persen's first name is already mentioned in the 'First occupation' section. That said, done. As for Perminov, I honestly don't know his full name and Catlemur (see the GA review) couldn't explicitly figure it out either, apparently. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 18:19, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

• "described it as an early manifestation of modern Soviet assistance" This could need a date for context. Also, how exactly does he phrase it? Seems a bit strange to give the Soviets credit for something that happened long before they existed...

Regarding date for context, I mentioned the Cold War, per the source. I felt like the article needed a Russian/Soviet perspective, and this is probably the only prominent one I could find throughout my research on the subject. Since the scholar's full name is already an issue, do you think the sentence should be removed altogether? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 18:19, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

I think it's fine to keep it for perspective in any case. FunkMonk (talk) 18:28, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support - not much to nitpick to begin with, looks good. FunkMonk (talk) 16:14, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Image review

• Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods

Done. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 20:56, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

• Suggest scaling up both maps

Done. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 20:56, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

• File:Ivan_Constantinovich_Aivazovsky_-_Battle_of_Çesme_at_Night.JPG needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:33, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Which particular template do you have in mind? This one? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 20:56, 16 June 2018 (UTC) Fitzcarmalan (talk) 20:59, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

I think an additional tag like the one here[14] is what could be added. FunkMonk (talk) 21:55, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Done. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 22:06, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Here. Didn't notice "additional" in your comment. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 22:09, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Support Comments from Jim

An interesting read, some comments. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:32, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

• You should link (at least) Ottoman Empire, Acre, Sidon, Black Sea at the first occurrence Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:32, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

• Done. I assume you were referring mostly to the lead, since the Levantine cities you mentioned were already linked to in the body, along with Ottoman Egypt and Ottoman Syria (so linking to Ottoman Empire in the body would be too much IMO). Also linked to Aegean Sea, Damascus, Cairo and Beqaa Valley. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 17:36, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

• imprisoned and died a few days later— how? No indication whether he was executed, already injured, ill or whatever

• Hard to confirm. He was most likely poisoned on the orders of Abu al-Dhahab (du Quenoy, p. 135). Wouldn't it be a bit off-topic to delve into such controversies in this article? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 17:36, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

• Not really, if you did know it would just be a matter of a couple of words to clarify whether he was killed or not Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:26, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

• Done. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 20:38, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

• Abu al-Dhahab to turn against Ali Bey and that he would be made ruler of Egypt in his stead.—I'd try to avoid he... his when they are different people

• Reworded. Let me know what you think. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 17:36, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

• Perhaps mention that the Druze are not Muslim in any standard sense?

• Done. But I have to admit that I'm not entirely fond of that, largely due to the fact that it's not mentioned by the sources used in this article (and for a good reason). Fitzcarmalan (talk) 17:36, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Butting in here, I was almost about to ask why you even had to mention their sect, as this is not mentioned for any of the other actors, but I guess in this sense it is more like a "tribal" designation than of strictly religious significance. But as such, I don't think it has much relevance whether they are considered Muslim or not. FunkMonk (talk) 17:41, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

OK, not a big deal either way Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:26, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

I hope you can forgive me for this. Druze is already linked twice in the article. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 20:38, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

• Why have you linked to Google Books in your refs? Unless free full text is available, it's annoying for readers and reviewers to click through and find nothing worthwhile, and you are just linking to a sales site that's giving nothing back in return. Even if there is some preview text (not the case for me in the UK for those I checked) accessibility varies from country to country and isn't permanent, so personally I don't even previews in my own FAs

• I tend to avoid WP:LINKVIOs as much as I can when it comes to books. Which kind of link do you have in mind? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 17:36, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
• Added better links for Anderson and Mariti for now. Will you check the link to the former and tell me if it's okay? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 18:10, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

• Anderson is fine, thanks. I'm thinking of links like eg Khalaf and Solov'ev which link to pages that have no actual text, just links to sales sites, in one case complete with a price. At best a waste of time following the link, at worse links to sales sites. I'm not going to oppose on this point, the fact that you do it and I don't doesn't mean I'm right, but I'd be interested to know your reasoning Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:26, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

• Added links with search results. I used the Solov'ev and Mariti books only because they contained the full names of the admirals (Kozhukhov's and Alexiano's respectively). I couldn't find a Solov'ev version that has a good preview besides this, which I added. The Khalaf e-book I found doesn't have page numbers, so I replaced the link in the article with this. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 20:38, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

• I guess the point I'm getting that is that hard sources like books and journals don't have to have a link because they can in principle be verified elsewhere. My just-promoted Ham Wall had only three of seven books courtesy-linked since the others didn't have full free text, similarly some of the journals were unlinked, eg refs 4 and 26-28. Anyway, I said I wouldn't oppose on this issue, so changed to support above, cheers Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:28, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

• Actually, I like the idea of having no links at all. Most of them are useless previews anyway (even the Anderson book I feel uncomfortable with), and there is of course the possibility that you'll encounter some copies with different/invalid/lack of page numbers. Okay if I removed the whole lot of them? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 17:22, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

• As I've said, I'd only keep any link if it gives permanent free access, which mostly applies to out-of-copyright material and some reports not controlled by the academic publishing companies. But your call Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:41, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

• I've decided to delink them all except for Mariti's book, because it has two volumes that can be easily mixed up by readers (happened to me during this review). I don't trust e-books to remain freely accessible forever. And, like you said, the validity of such sources can be easily verified elsewhere. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 08:24, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Sources review

I've no access to these sources. From my perspective they look reasonably comprehensive, many of them recent studies, and thus appear to be of the appropriate standard of quality and reliability.

One tiny presentational point: the page range in ref 2 should have a ndash not a hyphen. Brianboulton (talk) 18:41, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Done. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 21:15, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Support from Fifelfoo

Read for: 1b weighting, 1c (completeness, sourcing, HQRS, historiography, PRIMARY/TERTIARY use, "white myths," gender, plagiarism style check), 1d neutral, 2b weight & structure, 2c citation check, 3 (quotes, tables, illustrative narrative digressions) Fifelfoo (talk) 12:20, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

• 1b: Comprehensiveness reflects the source basis.
• 1c: I'm happy with the research completeness, it looks like English language exhaustion, and given the Russian historiography noted I'm not sure other languages will prove fruitful given they've been addressed in historiographically commenting recent articles.
• 1c: HQRS basis looks good. Khalaf's publisher seems to be letting him down in terms of printing quality, in contrast with his previous outlets for Expert works on Lebanon in Colombia UP for example.
• 1c: Similarly the use of a variety of HQRS with a recent paper central. Given the size of the literature I think this counts as reflecting the scholarly consensus.
• 1c: Historiography good weight, oh Russian historians I understand the limits you have worked under, but. Well done.
• 1c: Checked for appropriate use of PRIMARY: appropriate. No Tertiary sources.
• 1c: I don't see a "white myths" or "Myth of the Clean Wehrmacht" risk, due to the detached nature in time and place of scholarly myths, and the up front nature about pillage and hostages in the narrative.
• 1c: Query: As far as the social history trio go, I think gender may be the concern. Based on your reading of the HQRS consensuses do you feel the article appropriately covers gendered in terms of weight in the HQRS source basis?
  • Could you elaborate? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 11:25, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
    • Any WEIGHT around women civvies. Any WEIGHTy mention of masculinity / competing masculine conceptions in your HQRS? Fifelfoo (talk) 08:17, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
      • None as far as the sources are concerned. The only female person mentioned throughout the sources is the Tsarina. I also recall one of them (not sure which) trivially mentioning Princess Tarakanova who was involved in Orlov's Livorno affair, but that is off-topic IMO. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 13:48, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
• 1c: Plagiarism style check. Checks out. Consistent voice and style throughout.
• 1d: Neutral tone follows scholarly basis.
• 2b: Structure and basis seems to follow literature mapped onto MILMOS conventional article styles.
• 2c: Fixits: citation check
  • fixed dashes / en spacing for you in two footnotes
  • I don't know what you mean to fix it for you: "{{Harvnb|Solov'ev|1991|p=102}}{{rp|endnote, p. 287}}", do you mean {{Harvnb|Solov'ev|1991|p=102, endnote at p. 287}}?
    • This is what I meant, yes. I wanted to include Kozhukhov's full name in the article (other sources only mention him by his last name or by "M. G. Kozhukhov"). I found his last name on p. 102 of the Solov'ev book while p. 287 has his full name, both of which confirm his involvement in Beirut. And I didn't feel comfortable citing the endnote alone. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 11:25, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
      • CheersFifelfoo (talk) 08:17, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Arguably a pretty printing issue?: There's a mix of references to the template for your short-footnotes of sfn and harvnb. They're ALMOST but not quite the same style, "Template {{harvnb}} inside a <ref> span can be used to create a Shortened footnotes that is linked to the full citation at the bottom of the article. Template {{sfn}} (without the use of <ref>) has the same effect and it also combines identical footnotes automatically." sfn count: 41; harvnb: 23.
    • It's just a visual preference of mine. I don't like seeing more than one reference at the end of a sentence, especially when it follows a comma. I adds too much space between the punctuation and the new sentence, which I find very unpleasant to look at. So I chose to merge them into combo refs, and I very rarely add more than two. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 11:25, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Not a pretty printing issue: Trailing full-stops, (chuck 'em at the end of <ref>{{harvnb}}; {{harvnb}}'''.'''</ref> if you go with harvnb?)
    • Anderson 1952, p. 278. versus,
    • Anderson 1952, p. 282; Gallant 2015, pp. 18–19
      • Done. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 11:25, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
      • CheersFifelfoo (talk) 08:17, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Wouldn't Khalif deserve a page number?
    • The e-book I referred to doesn't have any page numbers, and I couldn't find one that does. Dealing with this may necessitate a visit to a local library/bookstore hosting this book, and I'm too busy to be doing much about it these days. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 11:25, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
      • This is a cite what you use do issue. Use the |at= parameter in cs1 or by hand "found at paragraph starting "Foo bar baz bok…" Thi she will allow your eager reader to follow you. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:17, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
        • lmftfy. Harvnb uses |loc=. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:25, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
• 3: The quotes, tables and digressive narratives in notes are appropriate, don't dominate, and illustrate the article. Didn't check any images.
  • Fifelfoo, are you happy with responses above? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:12, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
    • Very happy thanks Ian Rose. Remaining comments easily resolved or questions for the chief editor to consider. Support based on the above areas. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:17, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
      • Sorry Fifelfoo, another question: did you undertake, or would you feel like undertaking, a spotcheck of a few citations for accurate usage and avoidance of plagiarism or close paraphrasing? This is apparently the nominator's first FAC, and the spotcheck is a hoop we like newbies to jump through. Pls don't feel obligated though, I can request the check at the top of WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:48, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
        • @Diannaa: If you're not too busy, could you take a look at this? Is full access to the sources required from the software(s) you're using? Seems to be the case when it comes to Earwig. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 13:48, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
          • The only source I am able to access is Gallant; no violations found there. (Automated tools are not helpful when the sources are books.) — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:20, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
            • Ian Rose I will give this a double bang plagiarism spot, sources demonstrate claims spot tonight (+3-6 hours from now) Fifelfoo (talk) 09:37, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Sources Review ongoing Fifelfoo

• Support claims by sources/claims: (HQRS 1/20)
  • Not found in source:
    • "Later he struck an alliance with Zahir al-Umar, a wealthy Arab ruler in northern Palestine."
      • Zahir's wealth is described in the second paragraph of p. 277, while the alliance is in the first paragraph of p. 278. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 16:19, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
    • fn26b how many piastre in a purse? Because Masson states "100 purses were never paid" as if the 100 is a sum smaller than the 300000 qirsh?
      • I just checked the original source (p. 291), but it is exactly what Persen says: "100 bourses". So I replaced the note's wording with just that. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 16:19, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
      • I made another modification. I hope the fact that it's piped won't be an issue. I could simply use the French word bourse, but it's not what Persen used. Let me know what you think. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 17:04, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
  • fn15 You mean 280–281
    • Fixed. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 16:19, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
  • fn24 You mean 282-283
    • Fixed. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 16:19, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
• Spot plagiarism by sources/claims: (HQRS 1/20)

That's one source, still going. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:41, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Catlemur

Apparently I have a book on the Archipelago Expedition in my library which I had totally forgot about. It contains information that is currently missing from the article. For example there was an attempt on the Russian side to create an alliance with the Barbary pirates even before the successful collaboration with Zahir and Shihab.--Catlemur (talk) 16:22, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the addition. Though I'm glad there's finally a Russian language source in the article, I have some concerns about this paragraph: 1) I don't think the first part about "Hagarians" is relevant in this article about this particular occupation. And it would help to know what the actual text says because it's not even religiously or historically accurate, since Sarah and Hagar are two different Biblical characters. 2) Which particular Ali Pasha are we talking about here? Is he that guy? 3) While English is not my native language either, I can confidently say that "autonomisation" is not an English word. Did you mean "tendency towards autonomy"? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 12:38, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Feel free to remove or modify any of my additions. 1) That is my mistake I meant Hagar and not Sarah. 2) Ali Pasha the ruler of Tripolitania. 3) it is according to Wiktionary, the z is turned to s since we use British Engvar.--Catlemur (talk) 16:08, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Which particular Ali Pasha, though? Can the subject be wikilinked? As far as my knowledge of Barbary rulers goes, it could be either Trabluslu Ali Pasha or "Ali I Pasha" (third guy on that list). It's most likely the latter, but it should still be specified in the article based on what the source says. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 16:31, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

The Karamanli guy.--Catlemur (talk) 18:12, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

The book contains a detailed account of how Ali Bey established contact with the Russians, including his letter to Venice and Feodor Orlov's mission. I do not know whether it should all be included in the article though. I also expanded the background section in regard's to Ali Bey's earlier collaboration with the Sultan and the reasons behind his alliance with Zahir.--Catlemur (talk) 12:09, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Comments Support from White Shadows

• It is—

  (a) well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard;

Perhaps the red link to "Mediterranean Fleet" should appear first in the lead of the article?

Done. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 12:35, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

• (b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;

"with the first one taking place in June 1772 and the second one from October 1773 to early 1774." Do we know when in 1774?

Unclear. Per du Quenoy (p. 137), which is the more updated source, it's either late January or early February. So I didn't think such detail was worth mentioning in the lead. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 12:35, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Do we know what the tonnage of the ships listed under "Order of battle" was?

I consider myself lucky to have found Anderson's book, which mentions most of the ships involved in the campaign (I plan to use it for Mediterranean Fleet (Russian Empire) later on) but not the tonnage. So no, I doubt there are any non-Russian language sources containing this particular detail. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 12:35, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

• (c) well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature on the topic. Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate;

  (d) neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias; and

This checks out!

• (e) stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process.

This checks out!

• It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of—

  (a) a lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections;

  (b) appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents; and

  (c) consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes (<ref>Smith 2007, p. 1.</ref>) or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1)—see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references; for articles with footnotes, the meta:cite format is recommended. The use of citation templates is not required.

I've never see citations that include more than one source in them. Is that consistent with WP:MOS?

As mentioned earlier, it's simply a matter of visual preference, which I hope is not an issue. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 12:35, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

• Images. It has images that follow the image use policy and other media where appropriate, with succinct captions, brief and useful alt text when feasible, and acceptable copyright status. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly.
• Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

This checks out!

I'll be sure to add any info or issues I run across soon. Added this template right now so I can conduct my review. At first glance, seems to be a really interesting article!--White Shadows ^{Let’s Talk} 03:32, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

White Shadows, did you want anything further? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:05, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

That’s me done. Great job Ian! Happy to support!—White Shadows ^{Let’s Talk} 05:36, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Support Comments by Gog the Mild

I copy edited this for GOCE and so it has been suggested that I contribute to this review. I thought at the time that it was a fine article and am not surprised that it is on the brink of FA status. Some fiddley thoughts:

• In the Çeşme image I would put the note on alternate spellings with the rest of the notes. It looks odd under the image.
  • Done. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 12:35, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
• "Since the 15th century Russian chronicles began describing Muslims as Hagarians. A pejorative term alleging that they were the descendants of biblical Hagar who was exiled into the deserts of Sinai" This is not grammatical. Suggest 'Russian chronicles have described Muslims as Hagarians since the 15th century. This is a pejorative term suggesting that they were the descendants of biblical Hagar who was exiled into the deserts of Sinai.'
  • Done. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 12:35, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
• Suggest linking "autonomization" to Autonomous administrative division.
  • Done. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 12:35, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
• "and prompted him to turn the Barbary states against their Ottoman overlord." Suggest 'and prompted him to attempt to turn the Barbary states against their Ottoman overlord.'
  • Done. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 12:35, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
• "became embroiled in a power struggle against his former master over control of Egypt." Suggest 'became embroiled in a power struggle against his former master over the control of Egypt.'
  • Done. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 12:35, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
• " Rizo's ships bombarded the city and the attackers withdrew shortly afterwards." Is "the city" Tyre? If so could it be specified. If not, could it be specified?
  • Specified. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 12:35, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
• "About 550,000 qirsh worth of loot" It would be nice to have some idea in the text of what this represented. The price of a beer? Or a king's ransom?
  • I don't know what the sum represented back then, as it isn't mentioned in the sources I used. Determining this would mostly likely require sources that are unrelated to the subject, which amounts to original research. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 12:35, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

OK.

• "Orlov responded telling Ali that he was bounded by the truce with the Porte." Suggest 'Orlov responded by telling Ali that he was bounded by the truce with the Porte.
  • Done. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 12:35, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
• "The noise was so loud it could be heard in Sidon" Suggest adding 'which was xx miles away'.
  • As in the distance between modern day coordinates? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 12:35, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes please.

Which tool would you consider reliable for such a task? While I understand where you're coming from and how useful this might be for our readers, I have to also admit that I don't feel comfortable using modern estimates, given how those cities evolved considerably over the past two and a half centuries. Not saying I won't do it. But someone should to point me to the right tool. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 11:31, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I was thinking of something along the lines of "The noise was so loud it could be heard in Sidon, over 25 miles (40 km) away."

I think that your average reader will have little if any idea of where Sidon is, and without an indication of this the sentence fails to communicate anything. This indication does not need to be at all precise. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:30, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Done, but with "about" instead of "over", since the flying distance is what counts here. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 18:33, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. You have a fine article here. I probably said that when I copy edited it. Happy to support it for FA. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:28, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

• "Kozhukhov threatened to kill the Druze hostage" What Druze hostage?
  • Specified. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 12:35, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
• "which Kozhukhov accepted, pending repayment of the balance". 'which Kozhukhov accepted, pending repayment of the balance'
  • Done. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 12:35, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 13:12, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

• 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. --Laser brain (talk) 12:13, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

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) 10:14, 12 August 2018 [15].

---

Tree swallow

Nominator(s): RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 20:08, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

This article is about an American swallow in the genus Tachycineta. There has been a lot of research done on it (at least compared to most of the other birds I have worked on), with some even considering it a model organism. It's as comprehensive as I can get it, so I believe it is ready to be a featured article. Thanks! RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 20:08, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Tree_Swallow-rangemap.gif: what is the source of the data presented in this map? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:42, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

It looks to be from the HBW range map. RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 01:52, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: Any further comments? RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 15:25, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Just that the source link for the image is dead, so a good data source should be added. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:12, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: Ok, I changed the source to HBW. Thanks! RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 17:30, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

From FunkMonk

• I'll review soon. As usual, I have some media suggestions first. FunkMonk (talk) 21:47, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
• That picture of a box nest isn't very interesting. How about one of these[16][17], of natural nests in trees, or this one[18] of a chick being fed in a box nest?

Nice! I replaced the picture of the nest box with the first photo, and added the last one to the feeding section. RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 23:41, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

This image of a bird feeding three chicks might be even better than the one I linked earlier:[19] FunkMonk (talk) 01:52, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

• We have some audio files, if one of them is good, might be useful:[20]

I added one of the files. RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 23:41, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

• This photo shows the egg well, could be cropped and used:[21]

Added. RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 23:41, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

• This image show fighting, might be interesting:[22]

Added! RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 23:41, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

• Perhaps this image shows a mating pair better than the one used:[23]

I think that the one currently in the article is better, just in terms of image quality. RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 23:41, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

• The intro seems a bit oog comparedf to the length of the article.

I tried to trim it down a bit; I'm going to keep the section on breeding and stuff the same because of the fact that the stuff about that is a major area of research about this bird.

• "This swallow is sometimes placed in the genus Iridoprocne" Accoridng to who and why?

Found out why. RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 21:58, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

• "of its short coalescence time" Which is what?

I added an explanation, but its pretty long; what are your thoughts on it. RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 21:58, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

• "is only inherited from one source" Too vague, you could specify it is from the maternal line.

Specified.

• "A study based on such nuclear DNA" Again also vague, explain why this is better?

I already explained it in the previous sentence. RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 21:58, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

• It seems odd that you jump from naming to systematics, and then back to the meaning of the names you mentioned first. This could be organised better if you group the related info.

Fixed. RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 22:20, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

• Give authorities to the synonyms in the taxobox.

Added. RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 22:20, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

• "This swallow" It seems odd that you only link the term down in description, instead of the former section. Also, it is best to refer to the subject wit its full name at the start of a section.

Corrected. RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 22:20, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

• "and the tarsi are pale brown" So what colour are the rest of the legs? Or does this perhaps apply to the whole limb? If so, could be specified.

Changed to "legs and feet". RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 22:20, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

• You say the wings are blackish, but it seems the wing coverts are also blue?

I'm assuming that means the primaries and such are blackish, but the sources that I have don't say this. RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 20:46, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

• "aspects of this organism's biology" Seems very unspecific and detached, why not just use its name or say "bird's"? Also, what is a model organism?

Changed to "bird's". I don't really think that I'll explain what a model organism is; I feel like most people know what it is, and I linked it anyways. RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 05:31, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

• "Although it is aggressive during the breeding season, the tree swallow is sociable outside of the breeding season" Unnecessary repetition.

Fixed. RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 05:31, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

• "about 28% of breeders disperse after" If this is only a percentage of a percentage, you shoudl say something like "of those breeders that disperse, 28% do so because they fail to etc."

Changed. RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 05:31, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

• Why is this in British English, if it primarily lived in the US? I see grey and metres. Or is it supposed to be Canadian English?

This is really just how I write... except for "metre". Anyways, I suppose you could interpret it as Canadian English. RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 05:31, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

• "and wing length of the female." Sounds odd, what's the correlation?

It allows it to forage more efficiently; added. RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 05:31, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

• "increased heterozygosity" Explain.

I feel like this is sort of explained by the next phrase, and I feel like this is common enough in genetics that it doesn't require an explanation; heck, I learned it in middle school. Also, explaining it with something like "(more different alleles)" would clash with the the next phrase. Furthermore, I linked it. RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 05:31, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

• "The sex ratio of the hatchlings is male biased in females of better condition" This is a bit confusing, you could make it clearer that the females mentioned here are their mothers.

Changed to "Nests produced by females of better condition often have sex ratios skewed towards high quality males." RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 22:07, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

• "in females of better condition, and these males produced by the females in better condition are themselves in better condition." You say "better condition" three times in a sentence, I think it could be simplified.

Removed repetition. RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 22:07, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

• "The growth of nestling tree swallows is influenced their environment." Missing "by".

Fixed. RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 22:07, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

• Predators other than snakes that eat chicks?

I looked for this, but I couldn't find much. RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 22:07, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

I actually just happened on a paper that also said raccoons prey on chicks. RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 20:46, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

• "but the authors of the study that found the correlations find this unlikely" Seems redundant.

I reworded the final part to "believed this", but they both have to be in there, because I haven't introduced the study itself yet. RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 20:46, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

• "Instead, they advocated that it indicated that" Also seems unnecessarily long.

Changed to "they thought it showed that". RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 20:46, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

• "quality female is able to lay earlier due to that quality." Also doesn't sound very look so good. A lot of repetition in that entire paragraph of immunology.

I feel like this can't really be removed, because otherwise it wouldn't really by clear what "that" is. RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 20:46, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

• "the reintroduction of beavers" How is this correlated?

I couldn't find the correlation. RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 20:46, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

• "taken in the all four of the Northern Hemisphere" Unnecessary.

Fixed. RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 20:46, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

• "In nests near lakes acidified by humans, calcium supplements... are more important in the diet of nestlings." What is the correlation?

Reworded, which actually happened to correct a tiny error in my understanding of the paper. In essence, calcium supplements are harder to find, forcing tree swallows to go further to go them, potentially exposing the nest to predators and such. RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 20:46, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

• "according to nuclear DNA studies... according to mitochondrial DNA studies" I don't think this level of detail is needed in the intro. You could just say "depending on the method" or something.

Changed to "depending on the method". RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 20:46, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

• " is a migratory bird" Is this really needed in the first sentence of the intro, when you explain it migrates in more detail furhter dow the paragrapgh?

I'd say so, because it is a basic fact about the bird; I also say its found in North America, but I describe its distribution there in further detail later on in the lead. RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 20:46, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

• "extra-pair paternity puzzling." Seems too informal.

I'd disagree about it's informality, and it sounds better than the alternative, "confusing", at least to my mind. You can change it if you'd like though. RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 20:46, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

• "hese do no significantly affect breeding" Not?

Fixed RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 20:46, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

• "but, on nestlings, these do no significantly affect breeding" This seems oddly worded, as if it is the nestlings that are breeding.

Changed to "these do little damage". RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 20:46, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

• "This swallow is vulnerable" Again, seems odd that swallow would be linked all the way down in the third paragraph of the intro.

It's actually the first occurrence of it in the lead. RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 20:46, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support - this looks to be in good shape to me now. FunkMonk (talk) 01:45, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments Support by Cas Liber

Taking a look now...

...is a migratory bird found in North America in the family Hirundinidae. - the construction sounds odd to me, but I concede that it is ambiguous if the family comes before "North America" (so not a deal-breaker). In any case, I would make it of the family... rather than "in"...

Changed. RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 02:00, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

the eyes are a dark brown - any reason why "a" is here?

Nope; removed. RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 02:00, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

why are first year females and not first year males mentioned in lead?

Because only first year females can be distinguished on the basis of plumage. RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 02:00, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

ok fair enough Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:19, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

The tree swallow is found in North America, where it breeds in the US and Canada. - you've already mentioned it is found in North America in the first sentence - I'd remove that and give more exactness to the range.

I removed the second mention, and I changed the first sentence to say "Americas", since it can be found to winter in South America.

The tree swallow nests either by itself - err, not in pairs?

Changed. RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 02:00, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

can we link "acidified lakes" to somewhere?

Yeah; linked. RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 02:00, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

I think as Polygynous means "mating with more than one female", I think using plain words is better than a jargony one. But agree that shoehorning in the meaning could make the sentence repetitive...

I personally think that most people know what polygyny is, so I won't do this. I will put it in parentheses if you insist, but I think that it is obvious from context; I already say how breeding males are polygynous, so I don't think there is much room for confusion. RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 02:00, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

ok point taken/I'll pay that. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:19, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

The fact that it is able to habitate open areas - "habitate"?? surely there is a plainer word...

Changed to "live in" (it's going to be mainstream soon, just you watch!). RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 02:00, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

The tree swallow usually renests in the same area to breed again - "nests" is fine, "renests" unnecessary

Changed. RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 02:00, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

link territory, tree limit, antigen and hypothermia

Done. RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 02:00, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Nests produced by females of better condition often have sex ratios skewed towards high quality males. - errr, what's a high quality male?

I'll change it to "males of good condition"; it had originally been "males of better condition", but I think that what I have now changed it to is a good replacement (at least for the purposes of the article). RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 02:00, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

more later - need to sleep now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:19, 19 July 2018 (UTC) provisionally looks ok otherwise. Will look more later. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:12, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Ok all looks pretty good on prose and comphrehensiveness-wise Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:19, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Support Comments from Jim

No major issues, but some nitpicks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:17, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

• Tachycineta, where it is depending on the method, either basal to the whole genus, or basal just to a clade consisting of the violet-green, golden, and Bahama swallow. —is this necessary in the lead? It's technical stuff that's off-putting to the casual reader.

I changed it to "where its phylogenetic placement is in debate." RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 15:22, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

• grey-brown washed breast—grey-brown-washed breast.

Changed. RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 15:22, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

• The tree swallow nests either in pairs or loose groups—It always nests in pairs, better "isolated pairs" or something similar.

Changed to "isolated pairs". RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 15:22, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

• Monogamous; Long Island, New York; exoskeleton—link at first occurence.

Done; but I linked "socially monogamous" instead of "monogamous". RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 15:22, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

• tree swallow forages both by itself…—forages alone…

Done. RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 15:22, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

• Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918. —(in lead as well). This is very parochial. The US legislation is an implementation of the Migratory Bird Treaty between the US and Canada, but the Canadian implementation, the Migratory Birds Convention Act, isn't even mentioned.

Nice catch. Added to both lead and status section. RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 15:22, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

• The tree swallow forages 0 to 50 metres (160 ft) above the ground —forages up to 50 metres(160 ft) above the ground seems more natural

Done. RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 15:22, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

• In the tree swallow, some components of the immune system deteriorate with age. —Is this typical of all swallows? All birds? All vertebrates?

Well, I think that some components of the immune system deteriorating instead of others is relatively common throughout the animals, but it seems that other passerines recently studied displayed deterioration of acquired humoral immunity, contrasting with tree swallows. I put the sentence "The lack of deterioration in the former contrasts with some other studies of passerines" into the article. RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 15:22, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

No other queries, changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:08, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Coord note

Source review, anyone? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:08, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Ok will take a look at sourcing/formatting Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:48, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 10:57, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• Should update iucn redlist reference

Done. RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 10:57, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• refs all formatted consistently
• Earwigs is clear
• In FN 1, I dunno where the range of 834000 km2 is.

It's under "Geographic Range". RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 10:57, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Gosh, how'd I miss that?? ok cool....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:52, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• FN 6, used once, material in source
• FN 17, used once, material in source
• FN 43, used twice, material in source

Ok - spot check ok. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:52, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Tks Cas -- are you happy to sign off on the quality/reliability of the sources used? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:14, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes. sources are reliable Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:15, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

• 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. Ian Rose (talk) 10:14, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 14:12, 2 August 2018 [24].

---

Billy Martin

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 20:19, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

This article is about... a larger than life figure, even almost 30 years after his death. Growing up in the New York area in the late 70s, Billy Martin was on the front pages, or the back pages of the tabloids, very often. I was at the Old-Timers' Day in 1978, and I well remember the crowd cheering for 15 minutes ...Wehwalt (talk) 20:19, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

• Info: He played baseball. Johnbod (talk) 03:45, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes well I figured it went without saying ... it does say Major League Baseball in the lede sentence...--Wehwalt (talk) 09:46, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

• Comment – I'm going to do a sweep for any writing issues as time permits and expect to find myself supporting afterward. One thing I notice immediately is that ref 138 is a bare link. That needs some further formatting. Otherwise, I look forward to sinking my teeth into this article and will report any further issues I find. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:13, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for that. I've fixed that now.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:20, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

• Okay, I've cleaned up a few things in the article and just have the following source-related comments to offer:

• Note c could use a cite, as it doesn't have one at the moment.

• Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:55, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

• Haven't checked the relevant pages, but it looks like refs 1 and 168 could be duplicates that can be combined.

• Done.

• Ref 145 (the Neyer book) needs a page number.
• Since ref 194 is to a website, that one needs an access date.

• Did this one myself to move things along. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:33, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

• Publisher of ref 192 should be italicized, because that's to a newspaper article.
• Some of the date formatting is inconsistent in a few places, and should be made internally consistent.(UTC)Giants2008 (Talk) 01:36, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I think I've got everything. Thank you for the edits and the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:35, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Support – An enjoyable read which appears to meet FA standards to my eyes. Hopefully we'll get some more reviewer activity here soon, because the article deserves it. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:33, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for leading the way. Thank you for the kind words. Hopefully we will see more action.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:01, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

• Image/Source review: All the images have the appropriate info and check out copyright-wise. Was surprised but impressed that the one video was in the public domain, was not expecting that. For sources everything checks out except for a couple admittedly nitpicky things. There's a few web links that don't have accessdates (the ones that have physical page numbers i wouldn't want them, but the once that dont id like to see accessdates added), and for the Sports Illustrated reference I would like to see an archive link added. I only ask that as SI is notorious for rehauling their site with some frequency, completely breaking their links in the process. I'll try to make a prose review in the future but I'm on here so sparingly anymore it's unlikely. Wizardman 16:28, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the review. I've done what you asked.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:07, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Support from Fifelfoo

yes, even on biography Fifelfoo (talk) 12:33, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

• Not resolveable: oh gods the sports category boxes, my eyes. Damn them.
• Impressed with selection in bibliography for bio[graphy]-diversity
• Reference diversity good
• Excellent media "BILLY, JAX CLASH IN DUGOUT" I do not normally review media. But this is excellent.
• I think it is an appropriate length given the sources

Thank you for the review and support. I'm glad you approve of the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:33, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments Support from Cas Liber

Taking a look now...

...and manager who, as well as leading other teams, was five times the manager of the New York Yankees. - I can understand the crescendo of this sentence. But it is a bit odd that his main claim to fame is later rather than earlier in the sentence...

It would be hard to make it too much earlier, I don't think you could put it before the basic description, so might as well leave it as is.

Yeah I'll pay that. Looking at it, any other wy of rejigging it makes it sound funny so nevermind...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:17, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

His skill as a baseball player gave him a route out of Berkeley. "Berkeley" repeated - this maybe could be worded better. I get what you mean.

Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:01, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

.. but was inhibited by the fact that the second baseman ... - not fond of "inhibited"...maybe "hindered", "stymied" or something more Anglo-Saxon?

Deterred seems good? Although it seems a bit French.

..his skills as a player never fully returned after leaving the army. - unless he had amnesia I think we are talking about prowess. i.e. he has skills but his ability declined...

I've changed it but I'm not sure there's much difference. The idea is that he probably could not have made the catch against Robinson in 1955.

Martin had good reason to believe his days with the team were numbered - unless the source strongly suggested this might be better to just say, "Martin suspected/concluded/surmised his days with the team were numbered"

I put worried.

After a poor April, Martin's players turned it around, winning seven in a row to surge to within 41⁄2 games of the first place Red Sox near the start of June. - you could eliminate the "turned it around" (it is a bit fluffy anyway) and let the facts speak for themselves.

I see it's already gone.

With Detroit winning, those hostile to Martin among the players subsided. - umm, sounds odd. Needs rephrasing.

Done.

The Tigers lost Game One in extra innings. - err, should there be an indefinite or definite article before "innings"?

No. Standard terminology.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:41, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

With Martin at the helm, the Yankees went 30–26 in their final 56 games of the 1975 season; they ended the season in third place, where they had been when Martin took over - there's two "Martin"s in the sentence.

Fixed.

Martin worked with Paul during the offseason [to make trades] to dispose of players - could argue bracketed bit is redundant

That's deleted.

Overall a fascinating article. Striking the right balance between mimimalist, succinct prose and a more flowery engaging one can be tricky in these articles. I think it is (on the whole) okay here, though others might think it needs a bit of tightening...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:07, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for that. Although there are phrases here and there that could be cut, and I've been doing so, the major reason for the length is that there are nearly a dozen narrative arcs as Martin is hired, does amazing things on the field and less happy things off it, and is fired. All that requires words. Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:16, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree, which is why I support Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:40, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:25, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Support Comments by Ian

I started working my way through the article and copyediting soon after it was nominated but have been waylaid at several points -- I'll certainly try and resume soon. The main thing that has come out of it so far is that I found a fair bit of minor detail to trim but I've noticed that Wehwalt has been cutting some non-essential stuff as well, which I expect will make the remainder of my ce a bit quicker and simpler. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:41, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm trying to cut some, but see no point in cutting two or three words that won't add up to much over the course of the article. Thank you for your comments to date.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:16, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, although I've always been interested in baseball, I don't know Martin's story so I'm not really in a position to judge whether entire statements are vital or not, thus I'm mainly trimming what I see as excess wording, not removing content per se. There's clearly a lot to this guy's story, most of it very interesting to read. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:38, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Okay, apologies this took so long -- as I suggested above, highly detailed but not boringly so. Outstanding points, not affecting support:

• "The Tigers won the first two, though they lost the meaningless third game, making them the AL East champs by a half game." -- I realise we mean the third game didn't affect the outcome, just trying to think of a better word than "meaningless"...
• "making John Hiller a successful closer" -- might want to link closer
• "Martin had pledged to bat Jackson cleanup" -- might want to link cleanup

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:29, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the thorough review, and for the support. It is always good to get the thoughts of someone who is not particularly into the subject matter. Excepting the meaningless, I've done those things. Meaningless is used by the source, and it had no effect on the standings, and I can't come up with a better word.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:23, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

No prob -- the expression I'm used to is dead rubber, but you decide if you want to try and work it in. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:42, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid that it is not current in American speech, alas.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:52, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

• 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. --Laser brain (talk) 14:12, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 14:12, 2 August 2018 [25].

---

Lawrence Weathers

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:16, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Lawrence Weathers was an Australian soldier who was awarded the Victoria Cross during World War I, although he was killed near the end of the war and before learning he was to receive it. When he returned to his mates after the actions that earned him the VC, his uniform was covered in mud, he had blood running down his face, and had five days' stubble on his chin. He was also festooned "like a Christmas tree" with souvenired German binoculars and pistols. He, assisted by a few others had captured 180 Germans and three machine guns. It is a fairly brief article, but his life was short, and I believe I've captured everything about him available from reliable sources. This is the latest from a long-term project I'm working on to get all South Australian VC recipients to FA. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:16, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Image is appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:28, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Nikkimaria!

• Support on prose. Seems small but perfectly formed to me; nice article. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:45, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks for taking a look! Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:06, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Support from JennyOz

Hi Peacemaker67, I'm happy to support but adding a few unimportant minor suggestions.

• wlink HMAT Afric this SS Afric (per this and this)?
• his battalion saw during the war, the Battle of Messines,[5] during which the 43rd Battalion incurred 122 casualties during a night-time operation - 3 x 'during's, swap one for 'at' or 'in'?
• between the Ancre and the Somme west of - add 'rivers' after Somme?
• battalion was responsible for clearing the village itself - wlink village to Le Hamel?
• there is a bit on Trove about him having 4 brothers and 3 sisters, and a 2yr overseas trip prior to signing up. This one mentions Annie was known as Tess and was from Unley and their 2 children were aged 5 and 3 when he died.

Thanks for telling his story. JennyOz (talk) 07:24, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Jenny! Very naughty of me to not check Trove before nominating... Added both sources and expanded the Early life section with that content. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:04, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for those additions PM. Yatala needs further dab'ing maybe the Rosewater one? Best wishes, JennyOz (talk) 10:03, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:39, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Support: Nice work, PM, as always. I reviewed this at A-class review and see that it has been further improved since then. I have a few observations/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 23:47, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

• ext links all work and there are no dab links;
• there are no duplicate links;
• the citations appear correctly formatted to me, using a consistent style;
• I suggest adding alt text to the image;
• training in the UK would most likely have been on Salisbury Plain, do any of your references cover this?
• "night-time operation": do we know what the objective was?
• do we know what Weathers' unit did between December 1917 and March 1918? Probably wintered in Belgium, rotating between the front and rear areas. I suggest possibly adding a sentence about this to the second paragraph of the World War I section, if you have a reference for this.

• Thanks for the review, Rupert. All addressed I think. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:39, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

• Looks good, nicely done. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:45, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Sources review

Trivial points only:

• "Australian War Memorial" and "National Archives of Australia" are not print sources and so should not be italicised

• weird that the cite web template italicises them automatically.

• Its because you were using "website=" rather than "publisher=". The website is the thing that's published, not the publisher. Brianboulton (talk) 08:55, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

• Ah, thanks. The foibles of template syntax. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:01, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

• ISBNs should preferably be in standardised 13-digit format per Wigmore and Harding
• On a very minor presentational point: I don't think 27 footnotes warrants four columns

In general the sources are well presented and are of the appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 16:57, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the source review, Brianboulton! All done, although I have kept the columns to reduce whitespace. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:08, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

@WP:FAC coordinators: , this looks good to go. Can I have dispensation for a fresh one please? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:09, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: Feel free! --Laser brain (talk) 02:58, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Support from Ian -- like Rupert, I reviewed at ACR and, although the article is among the briefest bios I've read at FAC, I don't see major holes in its summary of what was after all a pretty brief life and career; having checked changes since ACR, I found a few places to tweak prose but overall it reads well and I'll take as read Nikki's and Brian's image and source reviews. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:25, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Ian. Brevity is a reality for many of the VC recipients, but as long as we reflect everything available in reliable sources, I don't see why they cannot get to FA. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:39, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

@WP:FAC coordinators: this one looks done and dusted. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:03, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

• 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. --Laser brain (talk) 14:12, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 14:11, 2 August 2018 [26].

---

Eastern Area Command (RAAF)

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk) 09:27, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Okay it's not the most exciting air force subject I've brought to FAC, but it is an important part of RAAF history, particularly as the ancestor of the service's only extant command-level formation, Air Command. Established as one of the RAAF's area commands during World War II, Eastern Area became a key formation following the end of hostilities, when it gained control of most of the service's operational units. It was therefore well-placed to evolve into Home Command (later Operational Command and now Air Command) when the Air Force switched from a geographically based organisation to one based on function. Thanks in advance for your comments. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:27, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. Not much to do, and it was easy to follow. - Dank (push to talk) 21:10, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Tks Dan, I just want to check the details re. your last edit -- I suspect the source was slightly ambiguous so my wording was too, but will try and refine. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:48, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Support It all looks good. Just a couple of comments.

• When was the Territory of New Guinea added to one of the areas? Given the Japanese threat, quite early?

• Pretty much. The sources clearly mention the Territory of Papua as coming under Northern Area Command when it was raised in May 1941 but I don't think the Territory of New Guinea came under an area until the eastern part of Northern Area was split into North-Eastern Area Command (NEA) in January 1942. The area commands controlled RAAF bases within their boundaries, so if there was no base in a state or territory when the area command was raised then the state or territory wasn't mentioned, even though it might be part of the operational zone covered by aircraft from the area. When Northern Area was raised, I believe the only RAAF base in New Guinea was at Port Moresby, thus Papua was clearly covered. By the time NEA was raised, the RAAF had aircraft at Rabaul, and those were directed by NEA Headquarters. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:22, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

• "The Federal government retired Air Marshal Jones in 1952 " That's an odd way of stating it. Was it a political decision?

• The top RAAF appointments didn't have fixed terms in those days as they do now, so you could say that every Chief's tenure was at the whim of the Federal Government. In this case Jones had been in the role a decade and the PM and Air Minister made a conscious decision to remove him. In other words he didn't fall, he was pushed. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:22, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

--Wehwalt (talk) 14:55, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Tks for taking a look, Wehwalt. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:22, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Support from Nick-D

Great work as usual Ian. I have the following comments:

• The lead seems a bit short for the length of the article: I'd suggest adding a second para
  • Tks Nick, I do usually include a longer lead in articles at this level but felt this one hit the key notes (even added a little more detail just before the nom) -- did you have some specific points in mind?
    • I'd suggest starting with a para on its wartime duties (expanding on the convoy escort role perhaps) and a second para with a bit more information on its post-war role. Nick-D (talk) 08:03, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
      • Had a go. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:21, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
• Bit of a long shot, but do we know where Eastern Command's HQ in Edgecliff was located? (a lot of these higher level HQs were in notable buildings of various types which the military took over for the duration)
  • The exact address per the Ops Record Book is 6 Wentworth St, but I haven't seen it ascribed any special significance.
    • Fair enough. Google Maps shows that it's a vast mansion in Point Piper: nice work by whoever persuaded the owner to let the RAAF use it! Nick-D (talk) 08:02, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
• I'd suggest updating the urls for Gillison and Odgers to the current urls at the AWM's website - when I contacted the AWM to complain about them breaking all the links to the official histories, the person who responded said that the new URLs are intended to be permanent, so the archive links shouldn't be necessary
  • Ah-ha, the reason I'd left them as archive links was that when the AWM revamped the website entirely, they made it so you could only view the PDFs by downloading them to your device. I felt this was unfriendly for the average user and told them so, recommending they go back to making them open as a new tab in your browser (which could still be downloaded if desired). I see now they've finally acted on that suggestion so yes, I'll be happy to change the links when I get the chance.
    • Done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:13, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
• I know it's one of my obsessions, but I think that the article under-states the extent and importance of Eastern Area Command's anti-submarine patrols. It would have been responsible for covering the main convoy routes between Melbourne and Brisbane, which involved a huge number of patrols between mid 1942 and 1944, which were effectively front-line duties. The crisis of mid-1943 (when three extra ASW squadrons were hurriedly raised from training units) is covered in the official histories. This thesis is also useful.
  • Heh, we've all got our obsessions or we wouldn't be here...! Reviewing Odgers and Wilson, there might be a few more details I could add to the article but I didn't get the impression from them that mid-1943 was a "crisis", although I may have missed something. If there's anything in particular you want to point me to, I'm happy to look at working it in.
    • Chapter 9 of Odgers and chapter 8 of Stevens note that the ASW forces were under considerable pressure throughout early 1943 (Stevens refers to this period as "The ASW Crisis"). See in particular page 140 of Odgers were he notes that three reserve squadrons had to be activated: these included No. 66 and No. 71 Squadron in Eastern Area's zone. Both authors also describe other measures put in place over the year to try to improve the situation (for instance, routing as many training and transit flights over the sea as possible) and the mixed results of the expanded ASW efforts. The current material in the article doesn't really capture this. Nick-D (talk) 08:02, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
      • See what you think now, Nick -- I may rejig the paragraphs slightly once we're done to even them up, this is just to get the info in for now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:07, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
        • I've taken the liberty of adding more. Despite some very useful technically-focused works and the official history, there isn't a truly satisfactory account of the ASW campaign in Australian waters, which constrains the ability to cover Eastern Area's operational role. Nick-D (talk) 11:28, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
          • I think your additions have further improved the article, tks Nick. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:52, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
• On that topic, an order of battle from 1942 or 1943 would be useful, as I presume that this is when the command reached its peak strength. It might not be possible to source though.
  • I could add an OOB from April 1943 but it'd be exactly the same list (and source) of units I give in para four of the WWII section. Do you think we should repeat it?
    • I'd suggest either doing that, or merging the 1944 OOB into the text like the 1943 one is. Nick-D (talk) 08:02, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
      • Done the former -- probably useful to be able to compare the two snapshots like that. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:39, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
• Could more also be added on the command's air defence role? I think this involved stationing squadrons at Sydney and Brisbane for much of 1942.
  • Well the 1943 and '44 OOBs mention squadrons in Bankstown and Lowood, but not in an air defence role. Are you aware of any others that came under Eastern Area?
    • There was an American squadron operating out of Bankstown in the air defence role at the time of the attack on Sydney. I suspect it wasn't formally part of Eastern Area. There might not actually be much more to say: this topic is somewhat under-covered in the sources. Nick-D (talk) 08:02, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
• Do any sources discuss the impact of the arrival of the British Pacific Fleet on this command? It took over a few RAAF bases in the area.
  • Hadn't noticed it but can take another look.
    • I think that Eastern Area had to move out of the airfields around Nowra and possibly Brisbane. Probably not a major impact by this time. Nick-D (talk) 08:02, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
      • I searched for references to the BPF in Odgers, Wilson and Stevens but couldn't spot anything clearly stating RAAF bases were taken over. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:33, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
        • Fair enough. I once read a scathing account of the huge scale of the BPF's imposts on Australia, but can't remember what it was. The economic volumes of the official history grumble about it. But out of scope here! Nick-D (talk) 11:28, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Nick-D (talk) 06:57, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks as always for your comments, Nick. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:01, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Nick, I think I've addressed everything now -- let me know your thoughts. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:13, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Support My comments are now addressed. It's good to see articles on these kinds of topics in such excellent shape. Nick-D (talk) 11:28, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Tks for all your help Nick. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:52, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Source review

Trying to do my bit for source reviewing, as we are all exhorted to do, I have cunningly chosen this pleasingly concise article, and having read, most carefully, the excellent new guidelines, and followed them to the best of my ability I can find nothing at all to quibble at in the sourcing or citation here. All sources appear reliable, and all are consistently and comprehensibly cited. – Tim riley talk 15:06, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

And, while I'm here, support

for a clear, authoritative, evidently comprehensive, and wholly readable article. – Tim riley talk 15:06, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks Tim. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:03, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:48, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Much appreciated Nikki. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:03, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

• 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. --Laser brain (talk) 14:11, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.