Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/August 2021

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 31 August 2021 [1].

This Side of the Moon edit

Nominator(s): Aoba47 (talk) 04:10, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Elizabeth Cook's third album, This Side of the Moon. The songs were inspired by her experience with the Warner Bros. record label, which released her second album Hey Y'all. Although Hey Y'all was critically acclaimed, it was commercially unsuccessful following record label issues and a lack of airplay on country radio. After voluntarily leaving Warner Bros., Cook recorded the songs which eventually formed This Side of the Moon independently as separate "song experiments". She worked with five producers in eight Tennessee recording studios. The album received positive reviews, but like Hey Y'all, it performed poorly. As a result, it is a rather obscure album. I would honestly be surprised if anyone had heard of it prior to this FAC.

I worked on this article in 2020 following my work on the Hey Y'all article. I felt inspired to at least try a FAC for this article. I am looking forward to hearing everyone's feedback. I will do my best to further improve the article and address any suggestions. Thank you in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 04:10, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

  • File:Thissideofthemoon.jpg needs a stronger FUR
  • Thank you for pointing this out. I have updated this, and I will be more than happy to revise it further if necessary. Aoba47 (talk) 19:43, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for pointing this out. I was uncertain about the watermark and I have very little expertise or knowledge about Wikipedia's image policy. I greatly appreciate the link as that helps a lot. I have decided to just remove the image as it is not entirely necessary. Aoba47 (talk) 19:43, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Lee Vilenski edit

I'll begin a review of this article very soon! My reviews tend to focus on prose and MOS issues, especially on the lede, but I will also comment on anything that could be improved. I'll post up some comments below over the next couple days, which you should either respond to, or ask me questions on issues you are unsure of. I'll be claiming points towards the wikicup once this review is over.

Lede
  • a soft release in August 2004 before Hog Country - is a soft release a lede thing? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:02, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is a fair point. I put this in the lead since the August 2004 release date is in the infobox so I did not want cause any unnecessary confusion by including only the wider May 27, 2005 release. But I am open to any suggestions regarding this. Aoba47 (talk) 21:42, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The following source (here) only mentions a national release, and since the album was released by a relatively small label, I would believe that the physical CD was only released in the US before it later became available for streaming. Aoba47 (talk) 21:42, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the very least, you can totally buy it in this country now... But if we don't have detailed info, I'm sure it can be omitted. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:25, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is a good point. I was likely just over-thinking it. The album is now even more readily available through streaming and online markets. I was more so worried about somehow misleading the reader, but I do not think this would be the case. I have removed that part from the article. Aoba47 (talk) 20:57, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • departure from Warner Bros. - this could be expanded a tad in the lede Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:02, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good point. I am not particularly good at writing the lede. I have expanded it and rewrote certain parts to ideally be a better introduction and overview of the album (and article), but please let me know if further revision is necessary. Aoba47 (talk) 22:19, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately, I could not find any sales information about this album. Aoba47 (talk) 21:53, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Prose
  • "Stupid Things" had "little label support", and - who are saying these quotes? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:08, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good point. It is always best to attribute quotes like that. I have added this into the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 21:53, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gordon told Cook that she used songwriting to heal, and she joked it was because she "can't afford therapy beyond a lavender-scented candle" - not sure what we gain out of this sentence Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:08, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed. I agree that it is very trivial. I had debated about removing it in the past. Aoba47 (talk) 21:53, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • specifically on "Funny Side of Love", "Here's to You", and "Hard-Hearted".[22 - the next two paras state these names, so no need here Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:08, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comments

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:56, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for the review so far. I will be more than happy to help out. Aoba47 (talk) 22:20, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by ChrisTheDude edit

  • "inspiration for her her follow-up album" - there is is a duplicated word in there :-)
  • Apparently, I really wanted everyone to know it was her album lol. I have removed it. Aoba47 (talk) 20:59, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Hey Y'all was commercially unsuccessful, was not played on country radio...." - an entire album wouldn't get played on the radio anyway, so maybe this needs to be something like "its songs were not played on country radio". This applies in a couple of places in the body too.
  • That is a very good point. I have revised it with your songs suggestions. Aoba47 (talk) 20:59, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In a 2005 Country Standard Time article, Rick Bell attribute this to" => attributed
  • Revised. Apologies for this very silly mistake. Aoba47 (talk) 20:59, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Jeff Gordon is the executive producer" => was
  • "with whom she worked with because they were signed...." - stray word in there
  • I must admit that this took me a few reads to actually catch. That really shows the benefit of these reviews as I kept reading over this error. Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 20:59, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fats Kaplin has an article so can be wikilinked, as does Tammy Rogers
  • Thank you for pointing it out. I have added the links. Aoba47 (talk) 20:59, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ChrisTheDude: Thank you for your review and your kind words. I believe that I have addressed all the above points, but let me know if anything else needs further revision. Have a great rest of your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 21:00, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Damian Vo edit

  • Support It's well written and extensively researched. Damian Vo (talk) 11:14, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the support! Aoba47 (talk) 16:26, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by Z1720 edit

Non-expert prose review.

  • "This Side of the Moon had a soft release" I think soft release is music jargon. Can this be expanded upon a little bit more in the lede? Perhaps describe it as a limited release, and describe in a sentence how/where the release was limited.
  • I have changed both instances of "soft release" to "limited release". I do not think "soft release" is specifically music jargon, as I have not seen this wording used by other music critics, but I think "limited release" is more direct. I could not find any further information on why this song had a limited release or more regarding that. The only thing I can find is that it happened and that's about it. Aoba47 (talk) 03:07, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "While reflecting on her career in 2017, Cook said that her first three albums were "tethered to Music Row", and she recalled being "very conflicted with the responsibility of having mainstream radio hits"." This sentence is a little confusing for me, because the previous information in the paragraph says during the album's recording sessions she was becoming an independent artist. I think there needs to be more explanation about how she considered herself an independent artist, but was still connected to Music Row in Nashville during this album's release.
  • She was an independent artist at the time of this album's recording (and still is one to the best of my knowledge). She is talking about how her first three albums are very much about her time in Nashville and she moved on from this subject matter in future releases. Based on the below comment, I decided to remove this part completely as it is more about her music career as a whole and not necessarily about this album in particular. Aoba47 (talk) 03:07, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She said this changed with the 2007 release of her fourth studio album Balls, which she said allowed her to feel "very liberated as a songwriter"." I don't know if this should be in a different section or deleted, as this comes after this album's release. Perhaps this can be placed in the "Legacy" section to talk about the influence of this album on Cook's evolution as an artist.
  • I have decided to remove for the reason I stated above. The article does not have a "Legacy" section to put it in anyway. Aoba47 (talk) 03:07, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the Lyrics section, I think paragraph 1 and 3 can be merged together, as they are talking about similar themes. I also think that, since the article focused on Cook's experience with Warner Bros., this influence on the lyrics should be placed early in this section.
  • "This Side of the Moon had a "soft release" in August 2004." Soft release is in quotation marks, but it doesn't really explain what that means. This should be more explicit.
  • Changed to limited release without the quotations. Aoba47 (talk) 03:07, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "According to a 2005 press release, Cook planned to embark on a summer tour and perform at the Grand Ole Opry to support the album. Prior to the release, she had performed its music as part of her live shows." The second sentence should go before the first, or perhaps as the first sentence of the first paragraph, to keep everything chronological.
  • "Cook was a part of Thirty Tigers when the company changed its name from Emergent Music Marketing in 2006." I'm not sure if this is relevant to this article, and perhaps can be deleted.
  • I included this part because of the sentence immediately before this one, which mentions how Thirty Tigers uploaded the "Before I Go That Far" music video to its YouTube channel so I thought an explanation on the connection between Cook and Thirty Tigers would be beneficial for readers. Aoba47 (talk) 03:12, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still don't think this sentence is necessary because Emergent Music Marketing is not mentioned again in the article. Also, the quoted sentence doesn't explain Cook's relationship with Thirty Tigers; if that's the purpose of the sentence, it is not successful. Z1720 (talk) 00:54, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the response. I have removed the sentence. Aoba47 (talk) 01:03, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Critics highlighted specific songs in their reviews." I don't know if this sentence is necessary. I think it's included to be an introductory sentence, but the subsequent sentences introduce the songs that the reviewer is talking about, so this might be redundant.
  • The Critical reception falls a little into the "X said Y" pattern. Is there a way to merge some of these reviews so it is describing what critics wrote, instead of what an individual reviewer wrote?
  • I do see your point, but I'm just not sure how to properly do this. I looked through the first paragraph in particular with this mind, but I think each of the critics individually make separate points about the album so I am struggling to find a way to combine certain elements. Any suggestions for this would be greatly appreciated. It's probably because I'm so used to the current version, and I am responding to these points at midnight. Aoba47 (talk) 03:28, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have combine two critics's opinions in the first paragraph as they deal with similar issues (i.e. Cook continuing a music career despite the poor sales of her first album). I hope that is helpful. Apologies for the delay on this. Aoba47 (talk) 22:11, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't worry about delays. I have taken far longer to respond to FACs for articles that I nominated. The critical reception section looks better, but it could be improved. I suggest reading the reviews in each paragraph and noting similar comments. If multiple reviewers say the same thing, that should be given priority over a single reviewer's opinion. Also, avoiding quotes helps with avoiding the "X said Y" formatting. Z1720 (talk) 00:54, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the response. I will revise this section further tomorrow if that is okay with you (as I will likely experiment with different ideas in a sandbox). I will ping you when I have rewritten this section and have looked it over a few times to catch any errors. Aoba47 (talk) 01:03, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Take as much time as you need: I'm not in a rush and Wikipedia is a volunteer service. Z1720 (talk) 01:05, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is very true and I would rather have it done to the best of my ability than rush anything. Aoba47 (talk) 01:35, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Z1720: Just wanted to let you know that I have revised the first paragraph to point out some trends in the reviews and to cut down on the individual reviews. I have also made some minor adjustments to the second paragraph (i.e. putting reviews about the same song together) and the third paragraph (i.e. a sentence combination). Apologies for the ping. I just wanted to update you on the progress so far. Aoba47 (talk) 00:18, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is it ready for me to reassess? If not, just ping me when it's ready. Z1720 (talk) 00:35, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Z1720: I believe that it is ready for reassessment. Aoba47 (talk) 01:15, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Those are my thoughts. Please ping when everything above has been responded to. Z1720 (talk) 18:55, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Z1720: Thank you for the review. I believe that I have addressed all your comments and I will be more than happy to revise the article further. I hope you are having a great end to your week! Aoba47 (talk) 03:24, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two comments above regarding Thirty Tigers and the Reception section. Z1720 (talk) 00:54, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the comments! I greatly appreciate the help. Aoba47 (talk) 01:03, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Additional thoughts on the "Critical reception" section

  • "Some critics referenced Cook's departure from Warner Bros. while discussing the album." I don't think this is necessary, as it doesn't really describe the critical reception, but rather describes that reviewers talked about the article's history. The subsequent two sentences can be understood without this sentence, I think.
  • "and in his review for her fifth studio album Welder (2010), he said it was his favorite song." -> "and later said it was his favourite song." or "and said it was his favourite song six years after the album's release."? I don't think we need the information that he described it as his favourite song while reviewing another one of her albums.

This section looks a lot better, and the above are minor quibbles. Z1720 (talk) 21:33, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Z1720: Thank you for your additional comments. I have addressed both of them, and I will be more than happy to revise the article further if necessary. I hope you are doing well and staying safe. Aoba47 (talk) 03:57, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • My concerns have been addressed. I can support. Z1720 (talk) 15:30, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review–pass edit

  • Checked refs 1, 6, 7, 15, 21, 23, 25, 27, 30, 31, 34, 36, 37, and all checked out
  • Checked some publications' URLs I didn't know on Google Books and all that I checked were cited in university press-published books, except The Music Room. What makes it a high-quality source?
  • Thank you for checking! I actually ended up removing The Music Room source completely per comments from the above reviewer. I thought it would be considered appropriate for a featured article since it was an interview with Cook. I am not sure if that would be a good argument or not, but it is no longer part of the article anyway. Aoba47 (talk) 03:33, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Brodginski & Nelson 2005 should be formatted as cite press release
  • Revised. Thank you for pointing this out as I always forget about the separate press release citation format. Please let me know if further revisions to this are necessary as I am not used to this one. Aoba47 (talk) 03:44, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure YouTube should be given as the publisher of ref 30, as it hosts the video (via=), it didn't create it (publisher=Thirty Tigers)?
  • fn 23 seems to be page 58 not page 52 according to the google books link
  • ref 37 url is dead

Heartfox (talk) 23:55, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Heartfox: Thank you for the source review. I believe that I have address all of your comments, but please let me know if I missed anything or if anything else requires further improvement. Have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 03:47, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Heartfox, thanks for your spotcheck and formatting check, can I confirm that you're satisfied with the reliability of the sources employed? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:09, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Heartfox (talk) 20:48, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Ippantekina edit

As I have never heard of the album nor the singer, I hope my comments are objective and as comprehensive as possible.

  • "Cook based the album on her time with the Warner Bros. record label" this is unclear; do you mean that she based the album on her personal experiences with the label? "time" doesn't ring true to me
  • Reading the following sentences makes it clearer, but "based the album on her time with..." is pretty awkward to me
  • "who shared a music publisher" do we have a specific name of the publisher?
  • I have added the name of the music publisher. Cook said in an interview that she meet Hardie McGehee during her first publishing deal in Nasvhille so I was able to find the publisher name from there. Aoba47 (talk) 17:32, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Cook clarified that while "Here's to You" and "Hard-Hearted" sound like break-up songs, the lyrics are about her career." I think "clarified" is used when there is an initial misunderstanding, which I don't see here; "said" would probably be a better fit

The rest of the article is very well-written. This is my personal opinion, but I find it kind of weird that some singers instantly click, while some with actual talent sink so badly. Either way, I am happy to support once my minor comments are addressed. Brilliant work with the article. Ippantekina (talk) 03:52, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Ippantekina: Thank you for the review. I believe that I have addressed everything, but please let me know if anything needs further revision. I agree with your opinion. It is interesting to see which singers are successful and which ones fade away. I believe Cook's chances for success were greatly reduced by the lack of label and radio support, but that is speculation on my part. Thank you for the kind words, and I hope you are having a great weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 17:32, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for addressing everything. I support this FAC for promotion. Great work with the article. On another note, I would very much appreciate if you could comment on my latest FAC for I Knew You Were Trouble. Take care! Ippantekina (talk) 02:44, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the support. I am currently reviewing another FAC at the moment, but I will post a review when I am completed with that one (and I do not imagine it will take long). I have a lot of fond memories of that song so I am looking forward to reading the article and learning more about it. Aoba47 (talk) 03:00, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from TheSandDoctor edit

The article is well written to the FA standard in my view. I am very happy to support this nomination. --TheSandDoctor Talk 03:16, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Viridian Bovary edit

I have the following three very minor comments:

  • I don't think "producers" and "arrangements" should be linked to their respective articles as these are common terms.
  • "The album also focuses on on love and heartbreak." Seems like a duplicate occurrence of "on".
  • "Prior to the album's release, she had performed its music as part of her live shows." The second paragraph of "Release and promotion" starts with this sentence, and it's not immediately clear who the "she" is given there is no mention of her in the first paragraph. I think it would be better to use "Cook" here.

I think this is a very well-written article, and is ready to be a FA. Great job! --Viridian Bovary (talk) 13:03, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Viridian Bovary: Thank you for the review. I believe I have addressed everything, but let me know if any further revisions are necessary. I hope you are having a great day so far! Aoba47 (talk) 14:54, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Status update edit

  • @FAC coordinators: Apologies for the ping. Just wanted to check on the status of the nomination as it has already received a source review, an image review, and quite a bit of commentary/reviews and support. Thank you for your time, and have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 16:35, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi Aoba, will be checking over this w/e at the latest I expect... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:53, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you for the response, and apologies for my impatience. I hope you are doing well and have a great rest of your week. Aoba47 (talk) 03:04, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 31 August 2021 [2].

Snooker edit

Nominator(s): User:Rodney Baggins, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:54, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the sport of snooker. After a series of other FAs on snooker tournaments, myself and Rodney have tackled the main game. The article goes into depths about the history, how it has become a worldwide game, the rules, tournaments and the stature of the sport. I hope you enjoy reading, and let me know any issues you might find. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:54, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

File:Joe Davis.jpg and File:Neville Francis Fitzgerald Chamberlain.png lack information on the original publication date and/or author. Neither of them is old enough to just assume they are in the public domain. There is also image sandwiching in Important players section. (t · c) buidhe 19:38, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rodney has fixed the SANDWICH problem, and I am working on replacing the specific images. There is one from the national gallery that I think is ok. For now, I've commented them out of the article. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:00, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
None of the early players (Joe Davis, Fred Davis, John Pulman, John Spencer, Ray Reardon) have fair-use images on Commons which is a real shame. The images used in their individual wiki articles have only been authorised for use in that one location. Same applies to Neville Chamberlain (although I'm not convinced that his image is legitimately used in his article...) – Is there any way we could approach any of the image originators to request permission to put one of these in the main Snooker article (obo Wiki organisation)? In the meantime, I've added a picture of Steve Davis into Important players section, as it looked a bit odd showing JUST Ronnie O'Sullivan. I'm also not keen on seeing History section as just a sea of text with not a single image. Rodney Baggins (talk) 11:40, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I'm not sure how much a photograph of a famous player adds to the article. Snooker isn't one of those sports (unlike say marathon running) players' physique or appearance is closely related to their performance. I think it might be better to look for free images of people playing the sport in the past. You could try looking in old snooker publications published before 1926 to find public domain images. (t · c) buidhe 13:10, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose Bill Werbeniuk would be a good example of why the antithesis of that is true, although generally you do need to be pretty fit to play snooker. We do have some poor quality images, such as one for Joe Davis, as Australian copyright is a bit different, and I'm not sure if something like [3] hits the public domain barrier or not. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:50, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's an image of Chamberlain in the Illustrated London News for 4 May 1901 available via the British Newspaper Archive. Would a clipping of that be acceptable? BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 18:01, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It would still have to be licensed for use via Commons. Rodney Baggins (talk) 16:44, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from BennyOnTheLoose edit

History

  • "several variations of the game were devised during this time" - is snooker really a variation of billiards, as stated by Boru, or of the other games mentioned?
    • I don't think we've commented on snooker at this time, just that there was lots of billiard games that were popular. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:09, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • The text is "In the 1870s, billiards was popular among British Army officers stationed in Jubbulpore, India, and several variations of the game were devised during this time. One version, which originated at the Officers' Mess of the 11th Devonshire Regiment in 1875, combined the rules of two pool games: pyramid pool, played with fifteen red-coloured balls positioned in a triangle; and black pool, which involved the potting of designated balls" - with the "One version", doesn't this suggest that it's a variation of billiards? Boru says this, so it's acceptable, but others (e.g. Everton's History, Ch.5) make the link between the pool games and snooker. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:51, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure if it's worth including, but pyramid pool and black pool could have multiple players.
    • Feels like a tangent to me. Just need to clarify what bits they take from those games. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:09, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Probably is tangential for this article, but the more players, the higher the stakes and Everton notes the early version of snooker as a game with "variety (and a variety of monetary forefits)" BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:51, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "1882 when its first set of rules was finalised by British Army officer Sir Neville Chamberlain" - isn't there a bit of doubt about this? I'd suggest slightly weakening the statement. (Shamos refers to snooker's origin in India as a "popular legend".)
    • My copy of Shamos' book just says that he thinks it's a myth that he came up with the game, not that he published the first set of rules. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:09, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Might be worth mentioning somewhere in the article that there were originally four pool balls, and other rules changed over time.
    • My biggest issue with this, is Shamos' book just says that they used four and then six pool balls, but not whether that was six balls, and also the six colours and white, or if it was just those balls. I'm not sure how you could play the game with four balls, and the item doesn't go into depths on this, but something like The Art Of Practical Billiards: For Amateurs (1889) might do - but I don't have a copy. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:54, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • So, I found an online copy: [4]. The article mentions 15 red balls, and then six pool balls (not four, like the reference used in Shamos' book). The only difference is that the blue and pink were swapped. For 1889, this is incredibly similar to the rules we currently use. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:00, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Nice find. Interesting that the possibility of a 147 break is mentioned. Everton's History says "it was Chamberlain's inspiration gradually to add other coloured balls so that snooker came to be played with 15 reds, yellow green, pink and black. Blue and brown were added some years later." (p.48) We don't want too much of a diversion into the changes of rules here but I still think it's probably worth noting that the rules developed over time. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 19:49, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The first official snooker tournament was the 1908 American Tournament, held between 1907 and 1908 in London and won by Charles Dawson when the sport was used as an extra feature to billiard matches." - "first", "official"? - what's the basis for this from the source? "won by Charles Dawson" - not verified by source.
    • I've gone ahead and removed this. Many sources talk about the first English Amatuer competition being the first official tournament, but this one predates it. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:02, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's a shame to see it go, but a source is needed. I even checked the 1907/08 copies of The World of Billiards but didn't find any reference to it being the first. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:06, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Billiards Association and the Billiards Control Board merged" - not verified by source.
  • Billiards Control Board - wasn’t it the Billiards Control Club?
  • Consider adding the years the two organisations that amalgamated to form the were founded.
  • organised by Joe Davis" - worth expanding slightly, I think
    • With what? Remember, we are covering an overview of the subject - not every detail will be suitable for the main article. I think the fact he ran the event covers it Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:02, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I had a look at the sources cited and neither mentions Davis (or any other entity) organising it. I believe it was the BA&CC rather than Davis that organised it, but let's see what sources say. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 17:52, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "moved the game from a recreational pastime to a professional sporting activity" . Not sure about this phrasing. It remained a recreational pastime too. How did he "move the game"?
  • What makes Cues n Views a reliable source?
  • "Snooker then went into a period of decline through the 1950s and 1960s, with little public interest in the game beyond those who played it" - not verified by Sydney Morning Herald source.
  • "this failed to attract attention and was very short-lived" - not verified by sources.
    • I have removed both of the above and replaced by a source specifically mentioning that Davis though the sport was in decline. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:18, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Snooker quickly became regarded as a mainstream game in the United Kingdom" - I'm not sure this is really verified by the source. What part(s) of the source are you relying on for this?
    • Added an additional source stating that it became a mainstream game. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:18, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "ranking tournaments" - might be worth explaining what these are, or just omitting "ranking"
  • "conclusion" seems like an overlink.
  • "Snooker tournaments have been adapted to make them more suitable for television audiences" - not verified by source.
  • "the top players earning several million pounds over the course of their careers" - is there a source that is a bit more specific?
    • How much more specific would you like? I think that source covers that there is lots of money in the tour. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:18, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's no mention of anything outside the men's professional game after 1926. Consider adding something that will at least acknowledge the amateur game here. (It does get coverage later in the article). You could also consider mentioning the Women's Professional Snooker Championship.

Gameplay

  • The references for the para starting "The cloth on a snooker table.." are both commercial sites, and don't verify all the info there.
  • "Some table men" ?
  • Most of the para beginning "Snooker accessories include chalk for the tip of the cue..." is not supported by the source stated.
  • "using the ends of their cue sticks" - yes, but consider omitting.
  • "The objective of the game is to score more points than one's opponent by potting object balls in the correct order" - Is it? I'm not sure that the rules say this.
  • The rules don't explicitly state this, no, but it could be argued that no source is necessary, per WP:OBVIOUS. I guess it's more of an interpretation of the rules in general, and based on our own knowledge of the game, so could equally be construed as WP:OR. Would you prefer that we just cut this sentence out altogether? Then the section would begin "At the start of a frame, the object balls are positioned on the table as shown in the illustration opposite." Rodney Baggins (talk) 16:57, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about, instead, using the rules (3 f,g and h) to explain here who wins a frame/game/match? I do feel feel that "The objective is .." is WP:OR given that the only source cited for this paragraph is the rules. We won't be able to have 100% precision without restating every rule, but I think it is important to have a source if we talk about the objective of the game. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 17:45, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Governance and tournaments

  • "founded in 1968 as the Professional Billiard Players' Association" - there's a lot of sources with wrong info about this, and I'm aware we're interested in verifiability not "truth" but the PBSA was founded in 1946, not 1968.
  • "annually since 1927 (except during World War II and between 1958 and 1963)." - not in 1967 either. Twice in 1970, and not in 1971. Maybe slightly tweak the wording rather than list exceptions. I won't suggest that you go into detail about World Professional Match-play Championship v World Championship.
  • "as of 2019 no such tour has been organised" - source is from late 2018, not 2019.
  • "Players Tour Championship in 2010 and returned as the Challenge Tour in 2018" – source is from 2004….
  • "the wholly owned commercial subsidiary of WPBSA" – contradicted by source used.

Important Players

  • "In the professional era of snooker, which began with Joe Davis in the 1930s and continues until the present day, a relatively small number of players have succeeded at the top level." - not verified by sources
  • "retiring unbeaten" – he retired from the championship, not from all tournaments.
  • "Undefeated in World Championship play, he was only beaten four times in his life, all of these defeats coming after his retirement and inflicted by his own brother Fred Davis. He did lose matches in handicapped tournaments, but on level terms these four defeats were the only losses of his entire career" – can probably be simplified. The "Undefeated in World Championship play" point has been made in the previous sentence.
  • "the next dominant force was his younger brother Fred Davis" - not supported by source used.
  • "By 1947, Fred Davis was deemed ready by his brother to take over the mantle, but lost the world final to the Scotsman Walter Donaldson" – not supported by source. Is “Scotsman” required?
  • Could mention that Pulman won in 1957.
  • "John Pulman was the most successful player of the 1960s, winning seven consecutive world titles between April 1964 and March 1968 when the World Championship was contested on a challenge basis" – not supported by source used.
    • Changed soruce 13:26, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
  • "Unlike previous decades, the 21st century has produced many players of a similar standard, rather than a single player raising the bar. Ronnie O'Sullivan has come the closest to dominance since 2000" – source is basically a list of winners. IMO it does not support this content.
    • Added a ref Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:26, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Journal of Complex Networks source is very interesting. The cition needs some tidying. I haven't digested it yet, so have a couple of questions. It says that "John Higgins is the highest performing Snooker player of all time", and, looking at table three in the article, wouldn't it be fairer to say in the following sentence in Wikipedia's article that Higgins (2nd 2000–2009; 5th 2010–2019) has been more dominant that O'Sullivan (1st 2000–2009; but 8th 2010–2019)?
        • I'm not sure we can make that argument. I've simply changed that he's won the world crown the most times. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:31, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also, what part of the Journal of Complex Networks source are you relying on to support "Unlike previous decades, the 21st century has produced many players of a similar standard, rather than a single player raising the bar."?
  • "After Joe Davis created the World Snooker Championship" - not verified by source cited.
  • "but lost the world final to Walter Donaldson." - not verified by source cited.

Notes

External links

  • Consider removing the EBSA link, or adding other continental associations.

Infobox

  • Equipment - billiard table, not snooker table.
  • Lee's changed this back to snooker table, so I guess you need to discuss which one is correct!? Rodney Baggins (talk) 17:00, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the Shamos reference is to his entry on snooker, it says "played with 22 balls on an English billiards table." I wouldn't mind "snooker table" if there's a decent source for it. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 17:45, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd argue this is a WP:BLUE thing. Of course snooker is played on a snooker table. People have played snooker on pool tables, on the grass (see Lawn Billiards, and on circular tables. We go into detail as to what the tables look like, and they aren't the same as English Billiards tables. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:47, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikilink or gloss equipment terms.
  • Consider adding scoreboard to equipment list.
  • Venue - needs citing, or perhaps better to omit. (There was of course the outdoor Snooker at the 1960 Summer Paralympics.)
done Rodney Baggins (talk) 11:19, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

General

  • There are a few duplicate links.
      • I've fixed these ones, Rodney. Only thing I'm struggling for is book ref pages. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:22, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Book refs 117, 118, 120 are missing page numbers.
  • Newspaper refs 16, 119 are missing page numbers.

Pending and new points

  • In the lead, "founded in 1968" no longer appears in the article body.
    • Yeah, the lede reads just fine without saying when it was founded. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:37, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is snooker really a variation of billiards, as stated by Boru, or of the other games mentioned? - I'm not 100% convinced by the suggestion above, but this isn't a blocker.
    • I've reworded slightly. All we know is that sources say that it combines rules of pyramid and black pool, but also I want to define that Billiards was played a lot at the time. Hopefully the new wording gets that across. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:37, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was organised by Joe Davis."- not verified by cited sources.
  • "IBSF World Snooker Championship designed for top amateur players was founded in 1963" - suggest something like "A World Championship for top amateur players...", as the IBSF didn't exist in 1963.
  • "the second-most popular show on BBC2 behind Morecambe and Wise." - I don't think that Morecambe and Wise was on BBC2. The source doesn't say that it was, IMO.
    • I think someone else commented that they'd like to know who was the first, but I don't have access to the source, I was reading that from an extract, but it's possible the main article doesn't say that. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:37, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Morecambe and Wise began on BBC2 in 1968 before moving to BBC1 in 1971.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:06, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks, Pawnkingthree. Lee Vilenski, the source talks about Pot Black being on BBC2 and goes on a bit later to say "The programme ignited the snooker revolution by delivering viewing figures that stunned television executives. Pot Black rapidly rose to second in the ratings behind Morecambe and Wise." It doesn't doesn't specify BBC2 in that para; however now I know that the comedians were on BBC2, the current wording seems a fair interpretation. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:39, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like there's no longer a source that says "played on a billiard table" being used to support the term "snooker table", so no longer an issue there. (I discovered an entry in Shamos (2002) that says something along the lines that a snooker table is a billiard table, but with the spots required for snooker added.)
    • Pretty much. Happy to add supporting info, but it's the same table, as you say. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:37, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para beginning "The cloth on a snooker table .." is not all supported by the cited source.
  • Is ref 49 authored by Jimmy White, and is that the right title?
    • Whoops. Fixed, although I don't have a page number, just the google books preview. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:37, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Early versions of the event were played over a much longer duration" – suggest amending to something like "Some finals of the event…" (some of the early finals were over a shorter duration than 35 frames).
  • Ref 64 (Hayton and Dee pp166-167) is a list of results, does not verify the info IMO.
  • "A similar secondary UK Tour was first played from the 1997–98 season, which was renamed the Challenge Tour in 2000, Players Tour Championship in 2010 and returned as the Challenge Tour in 2018" – not verified by sources cited.
  • "World Snooker limited responsible for the professional tour which is owned by both the WPBSA and Matchroom Sport." – capitalise "Ltd"; missing "is". Are you saying that the WPBSA and Matchroom Sport own World Snooker, or that they own the professional tour?
    • I thought it was both? WPBSA and Matchrom are the parents of WS limited, who run the tour. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:51, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "has since been sponsored by various betting companies after the introduction of an EU-wide ban on advertising tobacco products" – sources used are from 2005 and 2006, I think this needs a newer source.
  • "he played only one tournament in 2013, the World Championship, which he won" – source is from 2012
  • "(no relation to Joe or Fred)" – not verified by sources cited.
    • Sure, I do think this is a WP:BLUE thing, more that we specifically aren't saying "he's another Davis lad". Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:51, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The popularity of snooker has led to the creation of many variant versions, using different rules or equipment but based on the standard game of snooker, or similar in origin Some have only minor rule changes and others are more distinct games. Some versions of the game, such as six-red or ten-red snooker, are played with almost identical rules but with fewer object balls, reducing the time taken to play each frame" – not verified by source cited.
    • I've removed some of the fluff, and cut to the chase and begun with explaining the different versions off the bat. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:51, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Popular in the women's game" – not verified by sources cited.
  • "now largely in decline" – source is from 1925
    • That's a bit editorialised, so I've removed. Likely true, from what I've seen. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:51, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Removed that bit. There's not much out there about this version. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:51, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • snookergames.co.uk is cited, even though an earlier comment says it was removed.

Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:36, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • That should be all above covered BennyOnTheLoose, I'm going to spend a little time adding some book references to the inline citations, let me know if there's anything further that is preventing a support. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:51, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Kumar (1999) ref needs to be replaced and the book removed from the Bibliography as it's a copyvio of Everton's books.
      • Ref 47 has dodgy Facebook archive link.
      • "..towards the opposite end of the table.[58][59][5] " refs aren't in numerical order.
      • What makes offthetelly.co.uk a reliable source?
      • What makes Pundit Arena, a "sports media publication that provide aspiring journalists and articulate fans with a platform to showcase their work", a reliable source?
      • Nothing major left to do from my perspective. The article seems like a suitable overview with major aspects covered based on what I've seen in sources. I'll have a final read through in the next day or so for anything that I think needs tweaking. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:38, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have done all of these now, BennyOnTheLoose. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:55, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Lee Vilenski. I'm now happy to support. I wasn't originally intending for this to be a source review. However, I'm happy with the breadth and range of sources, and my concerns about particular sources, and instances where the sources hadn't supported the text, have all been resolved. So, subject to a co-ordinator being satified that this can be a source review, I'd be happy to support on sources as well as in general. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:18, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ealdgyth, Gog the Mild, and Ian Rose: - now this one is together, and Benny is happy with the sourcing, is there anything further that I need to do? Can I start up another one whilst waiting for this one to close/more comments? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:24, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Lee Vilenski, sorry but no. It needs review of the source formatting. I have listed it for this at rquests. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:27, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @BennyOnTheLoose: your comments above being considered a full source review is fine by me, but could you confirm that you are also happy with the source formatting? I ask because a brief glance picked up several (minor) errors. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:17, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lee Vilenski I added in a couple of details where I had them for references. Is there a location for the Barzun Press reprint of the Peall book? Gog the Mild, can you see any other issues pending on ref formats? If so, probably better to let another reviewer take a look before this passes. Thanks. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:18, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I must say I've been unable to find either on the book itself nor online a print location. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:34, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from TRM edit

Lead/infobox

  • Why only one element of the infobox cited? Looks odd, can that not be cited in the main body?
  • I'm not overly struck by the infobox photo, but it's not a dealbreaker, wouldn't it be better to have an image of a competitive match?
    • I don't disagree exactly, but I do think it is a decent image to show how the game is played. There aren't many CC-BY-SA images that are clear and show the game. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:33, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "cloth (or "baize")" why not "cloth called "baize""?
  • "players[a] take turns" that footnote would be better placed in the main body too, you could say "individual players or sides" or similar in the lead if you felt it was important to keep that information in there.
  • "An individual frame of ... end of the frame" repetitive.
  • "snooker match ends ... winning the match" similar.
  • "a professional sport" link?
  • "snooker is now governed" the amateur game doesn't appear to be governed by WPBSA per infobox?
  • "has taken place since 1927. " annually.
    • Ah, but it's not been annually - see comments by Benny above - per the Challenge events, time out for the wars, and the 1970 event. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:33, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the women's competitions should be mentioned before non-prof/disabled tournaments.

History

  • "in Jubbulpore, India" this was "Jabalpur" in the lead, be consistent with these names.
  • "pyramid pool, played ... black pool" why in italics? They weren't formatted that way in the lead.
  • "billiards table" it may not be clear that a billiards table is synonymous with snooker table here, although of course some billiards tables had no pockets, so not always the case.
  • "championship until 1946, when he retired from taking part in the championships" repetitive.
  • "new colour service" you've already mentioned colour television so the link should go there.
  • "second-most popular show" do we have any data on that, viewership etc? And behind what show?
  • You noted that the WC was discontinued in 1957 but didn't pick up on when it re-started (or why).
  • "to just fifteen" remove "just".
  • "dedicated 400 hours to snooker coverage, compared to just 14 minutes 40 years" is this per annum?
    • The source isn't specific about it, that's why I wasn't so specific. I'd assume this is just for the main event, but could potentially be per annum. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:27, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "interest in World Snooker Ltd. and " this the first mention of this, it needs introduction (and no full stop after Ltd).
    • I've removed the mention of this, I feel it's a bit too in depth for an article on the sport. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:23, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "over a shortened length" reads odd, do you mean shortened duration?
    • I do, although strictly speaking, playing less frames doesn't neccesarily mean less time. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:23, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "sport continues to grow" how is that substantiated? Do you have figures for increase in participation over the years?
  • "The winner of the 2021 World Snooker..." You could name him.

Gameplay

  • ’ of the cushions is " you should explain what cushions are when you describe the difference in the size of the table and the size of the playing area.
  • "smaller tables using fewer red balls" at this point we don’t even know what a "red ball" is and why fewer of them is even an option.
    • Good catch, I've removed the balls piece, as from experience smaller tables simply have smaller balls. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:30, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The nap affects the speed and trajectory of the cue ball," won’t it affect all balls?
    • Changed to "balls", although there's an argument that it effects the cue ball to a higher degree. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:30, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which is shared between the players" seems odd to say that, all the balls are strictly shared between the players. If you mean "which the players take turns to use" or something that would make more sense to me.
  • "include chalk for the tip of the cue" explain why.
  • "playing shots that are difficult to play by hand" you name examples, e.g. swan, spider etc.
  • "potting object balls in the" you should introduce this term earlier.
    • I'm not sure it's suitable. Until the "Objective" section, we aren't talking about playing, just what the various things are. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:30, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "table as shown in the illustration opposite." Not opposite in my screen, half a screen’s scrolling down…
  • "unless it has entered a pocket"… in which case?
  • "The process of potting reds and colours alternately continues" or until all reds have been potted…
  • "the objective is to first pot a red ball; this is always the case" unless the player nominates a colour as a red following a foul…?
  • "only the six colour balls are left on the table" and the cue ball strictly.
  • "hoping to force their opponent into playing foul shots" how?
  • "decides who goes first" -> "who takes the first strike"?
  • "play again from where the balls have come to rest" or restoring the table to its previous setup and replaying the shot again?
  • "such as the World Championship uses" I definitely think this is an apt time to talk about the earlier WC’s where MASSIVE scorelines were commonplace, best-of-35-frame matches are relatively modern…
  • Isn’t there a link for "session"?

The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 14:13, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Governance and tournaments

  • Link "ranking".
  • "World Snooker limited responsible for" again, odd use of italics and this sentence isn’t grammatically correct.
  • Colour ball points table needs a caption as it sits (on my screen) next to the "World ranking" section so to non-experts it may need explanation.
  • Is there a link for "seeding"?
  • "The current world rankings are" ranking is used three times in this one sentence…
  • "sponsored by Embassy from" tobacco company.
  • " is a difficult challenge that " get rid of that.
  • Triple Crown fact is "as of 2019".
  • "the Champion of Champions was established.[95] The Champion of Champions" repetitive.
  • "the majority of tournaments on the professional circuit require players to wear waistcoats and bow ties" out of interest to me, which ones don’t?
    • The Snooker Shoot Out doesn't, and things like the World Cup have flirted with it. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:07, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the World Professional Billiards and Snooker Association submitted" the WPBSA submitted…
  • "the World Snooker Federation, founded" what do this lot do that isn’t done by WPBSA? Are they in competition with one another?
    • WSF look after the amateur game under the umbrella of the WPBSA, it's quite confusing actually. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:07, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "this is the oldest snooker competition still being played." In England or the world?
    • In the world. There are texts saying it was the first tournament ever played, but that has been disproven Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:07, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but as of 2018 no such tour has been organised" well that’s true as of 2021, right?
  • "The All-Party Parliamentary Group said" this links to a generic article, which APPG are you talking about here?

Important players

  • "Davis was … Joe was…" be consistent (I know you’re trying to avoid the Steve/Fred/Joe clash).
    • Indeed, (and I suppose Mark Davis, while we are at it.) I've changed to full names for all in this section, as the MOS has always been a bit confusing to me. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:52, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "take over the mantle" a little whimsical.
  • "1952 event boycotted by British professionals" why? This should be in the history section…
  • "1957 event.[123] John Pulman won the 1957 event and" link the 1957 event first time.
  • "winning streak" link.
  • You could link each of those world championships (e.g. in the "(2001, 2004, 2008, 2012, 2013, and 2020)" phrases.
  • "career centuries, and " centuries probably ought to be introduced in the Scoring section as it’s considered notable and people have lists of them etc. Along with 50s…


Variants

  • "The popularity of snooker has led to the creation of many variant versions, using different rules or equipment. Variants of snooker are cue games that are based on the standard game of snooker, or similar in origin." Merge, so something like "The popularity of snooker has led to the creation of many variant versions, using different rules or equipment but based on the standard game of snooker, or similar in origin."
  • "Created by Joe Davis, and introduced at…." This was mildly covered in the history section, probably need to be careful not to be too repetitive.

Just references to review on this first pass. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 14:34, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  • Our own article has BBC Sport not italicised.
  • What’s the strategy on linking publishers/websites etc in the refs? It’s not clear.
  • Ref 4 vs Ref 8, both WPBSA refs both formatted differently.
  • Ref 15 is entitled Encyclopaedia Britannica but what’s actually being used??
  • Ref 17: pp. 228-229. Should be en-dash.
  • Ref 21 appears to have WWS and Women’s Snooker in the title, not necessary.
  • Ref 24, TIME -> Time
  • Ref 25, what makes FCSnooker.co.uk a high-quality RS?
  • Ref 27, avoid CAPITALISATION.
  • Ref 28: The Guardian, not the Guardian.
  • Why does ref 29 have a silver icon and not ref 28, both The Guardian?
  • Ref 38: I need a paid subscription to access that.
  • Ref 42: get rid of website from ref title.
  • Ref 46: Another different WPBSA format.
  • Ref 47: 227-228 needs en-dash.
  • Ref 48: What makes ActiveSG a high quality RS?
  • Ref 49: where is the author name mentioned in the source?
  • General: what makes these various seemingly minor equipment manufacturers’ self-published websites RS?
    • I'm working my way through removing them. Feel free to let me know of any I missed. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:46, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 72: last time you used wst.tv you added WPBSA as a published. Check the others, e.g. ref 89, for consistency.
  • Ref 75: isn’t that just Coral the bookmakers rather than something called "Coral News"?
  • Ref 82: what makes The UK Sponsorship Database a high-quality RS?
  • Ref 99: our article on Reuters does not italicise it.
  • Ref 106, 107: These are BNA but not linked and noted as subscription only while ref 16 has an online link and denotes subs only.
  • Refs 114, 115: BBC News is not italicised per our article.
    • Will await your info. Do you just wany these made into publishers? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:57, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 117: is that really the History Channel?
  • Refs 119, 120, 122: page numbers/ranges.
  • Refs 123 and 124 look the same to me.
  • Refs 138 to 140, abuse of "first/last" by the looks of it and a spaced hyphen in the title, should be en-dash.
  • Ref 144: Eurosport is not italicised.
  • Ref 147: what makes snookergames.co.uk a high quality reliable source?
  • Ref 150 has the website in the title, not needed.
  • Ref 151: what makes euronet.nl a high quality reliable source? And if it stays, fix the spaced hyphen.

The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 14:56, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • I think I've covered all of the referencing issues, aside from the italics info mentioned. Happy to fix up with your suggestions. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:57, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok, I've changed the refences to be publishers not work. Just the book page numbers are required, which I'm working on. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:04, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, but if I see an open review with no comments after a week or so I give a nudge, just in case it has slipped either the nominator's or reviewer's mind. In your own time. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:36, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm content that my issues have been resolved, and I might be a bit sketchy online over the next couple of weeks so I'm happy to support at this time. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:22, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from Aza24 edit

In general, I'm leaning towards support, mainly per my read through and comments at PR. However, I'm a bit concerned that some of the (seemingly high-quality) book sources are under used (this is a point I brought up at PR as well). This of course brings up the issue of having a thorough survey or relevant literature for the sake of doing so, vs sourcing what information is needed from where its available. Some specific comments:

  • Neither of the Everton books appear to be cited in the article
  • (Minor point) Refs 62 and 123 and should presumably be sfn like the others
  • Hayes is not used anywhere either

I do wonder if sources like Maume, Clare and Nunns are really preferable over some of these, especially when the Evertons are completely unused. Interested to hear what the nominators think of these comments and sorry if I'm being a nuisance... Aza24 (talk) 20:28, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I don't mind taking a look at these. I tend to think that we cite the information in the article, and that additional references, ones that are great quality are used as an overall to cover the article, and then we cite specifically to the books in question for specific parts inline. Happy to go through the article and inline cite using these items, but as I don't have copies; I'd have to rent some out just to add the inline to the article, where there are already RS covering that information. The second point is absolutely right, and I'll fix that. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:45, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think that questioning sources is valid for an FAC. I was a little disappointed to find, having bought the Hayes book, that it seems to contain plagiarism from Morrison's The Hamlyn Encyclopedia of Snooker - some of the entries barely have the text changed over several paragraphs. I'd regard that one as dispensible. As I mentioned in the PR, I'd expect Black Farce and Cue Ball Wizards to be a key source, as it's relatively recent. (A lot of the good books like Everton's History are much older). Some of Everton's older books do have more of an international perspective (e.g. Snooker: The Records (1985)) and he covers the amateur game in detail in most of his works - I think it's possible the article is still too focused on professional play, but there's also an argument that it's the professional game that gets most attention in reliable sources. I also really like Masters of the Baize but as that focuses on individuals, it might not be all that useful here. Shamos's Encyclopedia is an excellent source IMO, and I'm glad to see it employed. I'm not sure that the CueSport book has been well used, as most of the references seem to point to pages of results rather than the narrative history. I haven't identified any glaring omissions from the article, so citing what's there properly to an RS, not necessarily to the best RS, works for me. I'm also interested to see other reviewers' views on this. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:34, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, absolutely - I'm not saying it's not a valid criticism, just that whilst book sources are fantastic, everything in the article is already cited to RS. We could absolutely go through the article and inline cite to Cue Ball Wizards, and the Shamos Encyclopedia, but it may be a little redundant for an FAC. I'd be interested if there was items in these books that are completely omited in the article we have, as that may help on the article. I think because I have a lack of these book sources, I've used a lot more of those fully available; or ones I can get my hands on. However, there is a version of Black Farce on google books, so I've added a couple sfns to that, and I'll add some more. Would that, perhaps give you both less worries? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:22, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Aza24, if I were to add some more inline book citations, would you be happy to support the nomination? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:38, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping, I rather awkwardly missed some of these messages earlier. I think in general it would, and I see you've already added some Everton citations. The redundancy is what I was alluring to earlier ("for the sake off..."), but if said books are in the bibliography I would expect inline for them, otherwise they would fit better in a further reading section. Aza24 (talk) 04:10, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Aza24 Indeed, I've added some additional. The only non-inline cited text I have on order (will arrive on Wednesday, apparently), so I'll thoroughly cite pieces from the text when I get hold of it (I can remove or leave it there until then). Let me know if there is anything additional actionable :). Everything else you have brought up has been addressed now. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:10, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Aza24, I have now got the Everton book, so this is now cited. I will add a couple more pieces with some below, but is there anything outstanding for this nom that you'd like me to address? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:30, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping. The referencing has certainly improved! A couple more things:
  • The Everton refs aren't connecting to the bibliography (1985 vs 1986)
I'll take a look now. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:14, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some ideas on images:
  • Is there any historical image that could be included in the History section? Maybe an image from the first championship or of Sir Neville Chamberlain? (Or both?)
We had such a thing, but it was removed over licencing issues. I'm still trying to find a free image of Chamberlain. I think it's unlikely we'd find an image from the 1927 event, and it's likely if it did exist, it'd probably be unlikely we could trace the copyright owner (and then they would have had to have died in the 20 years following the event for it to be free. We do have images of Joe Davis, but that is further down in the notable players list, which is I think where he belongs. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:14, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good to hear you've been working on this, it feels lacking without an image, but I can certainly understand the difficulty
  • On my 13inch screen, the images in the gameplay don't really line up to where they're talked about in the text. Might I suggest something (which you can feel free to reject)? Perhaps the first three/four pictures could be converted into a mini gallery right below the Equipment section (and before the rules section)—like this? Or maybe the images before the text or in the middle? It might be nice to consolidate them better than have a long column. BTW later images line up perfectly if something like this is done
I can have a look into this, although in my opinion, images are to be used to accent the prose, which is why I don't really like galleries. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:14, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Usually I would concur completely, but at the moment, the "A shot using a rest..." image shows up next to the second paragraph of the objective section, which doesn't really make sense. There are certainly other options available, but I thought I'd make you aware of this
  • Though I understand the sport is first and foremost in the UK, I wonder if a bit more could be said about modern play in China and India (I'm looking at here)—perhaps in the Governance and tournaments section?
    • We do say However, the popularity of the game in Asia, with emerging talents such as Liang Wenbo and more established players such as Ding Junhui and Marco Fu, boosted the sport in the Far East - I suppose I could also mention this slightly more, but it is at the very least mentioned in the prose. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:20, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That seems to be it, looking on track for sure. Aza24 (talk) 17:36, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going to support as I'm confident in the article, though I would still recommend taking a second look at the image layout. Aza24 (talk) 03:29, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note edit

This is clearly an important topic, so I want to give it every chance, but the nomination has now been open a month, and while it has attracted a fair bit of attention it has no supports. Unless there are signs of a consensus to promote forming over the next two or three days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:17, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support and minor comments from Chidgk1 edit

"gained its identity" sounds a bit odd but not sure what to put instead - maybe "was invented" or "took shape"

Suggest you install https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Trappist_the_monk/HarvErrors as it shows a couple which need fixing

  • (Additional comment)

Additionally, if you liked this comment, or are looking for an article to review I have one at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates#Greenhouse_gas_emissions_by_Turkey Chidgk1 (talk) 16:46, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, I'd never seen that script, so I've done a little work with it to make sure things are up to date. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:22, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Cas Liber edit

Taking a look now...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:52, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do baize and cue ball need to be in quotation marks?
  • ...and that players risk "burnout". - why quotation marks here?
  • He was only beaten on level terms by Fred Davis - I'd add that it was his brother here
  • Has there been any detail published about how the rules developed in the early days? Any variants that were discarded before settling on current rules?
    • It's all abit wishy washy. There is a source that describes the scoring, where the blue and pink are reversed. Things like the "foul and a miss" rule is more modern as well. Everything else, from early 20th century sources seem to suggest the rules are very similar. I'd really like a source to make this connection, rather than me doing it on my own. It's possible History of Snooker and Billiards has some mention of this, which I'll recieve my copy on wednesday, otherwise I'd suggest we are WP:ORing a bit to make the connection. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:28, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
intriguing. will wait till wednesday with baited breath.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:24, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good news Casliber, it has arrived. It is much as I though, it does (albeit not in-depth) cover some changes in rules. They have been mostly the same since 1919, with some regional differences prior, that I've covered. The only rules that I can find that are different now, is the touching ball (1927), the minimum four point foul (no date, 1920s somewhen), and the foul and a miss rule, which isn't covered in this book, as I think it's a post 1986 thing (I think 1995, but sourcing is poor). I've added some of this to the article, hopefully this covers some of your worries. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:30, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The tidbits added are exactly what I mean. Nice work! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:03, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise looking on track for FA-hood WRT comprehensiveness and prose. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:03, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source formatting review by Amakuru - Passed edit

  • Refs 1-2: Not sure snooker needs to be italicised?
  • Ref 5: A publisher of "E. A. Clare & Son Limited" or similar would be good here.
  • Ref 6, and lots of others. World Snooker is italicised, it probably shouldn't be (and also, there are some cases where it isn't)
  • Ref 7: Since the publisher is given as "World Professional Billiards and Snooker Association", it doesn't seem necessary to also include "wpbsa.com" in the ref as that's their website anyway.
  • Ditto other refs that are the same.
  • Ref 8: "Oxford Dictionary of National Biography" - is stated twice
  • Ref 27 & 74 (plus others): One gives the web address, the other doesn't. I'd suggest it's not needed, but at least make it consistent.
  • Ref 59: Are there no specific page numbers? Not sure why this is cited to a whole chapter, when others from the same book had pages.
    • So, I got the eBook version of this. As grand as it is, it doesn't give strict page numbers. The early pages are clear where they are, but this chapter is about halfway through the book. I'd love to give specific pages, but I feel like I would be speculating. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:12, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 61: Maybe list David Puddy as the author. I'm slightly dubious of this one as a source, but he is a ref himself I guess.
  • Ref 65 has an italicised BBC Sport, while all others are non-italics
  • Ref 70: As a magazine, I'd think Snooker Scene should be italicised
    • But, it's not the magazine I am citing, it's their online presence. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:12, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 77: The formatting looks strange here. Lots of different refs in one footnote, and with * symbols. Were these meant to be separate refs?
    • These were bundled citations, would you not do it this way. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:14, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      @Lee Vilenski: it's kind of unreadable at present. I'd suggest either splitting them out, or at least formatting them so they appear in list format.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:06, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, I hadn't realised it had become broken like that - not sure when that happened. Fixed. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:11, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        aha, that explains it. Happy to sign off then. Congrats on the pass! 😎  — Amakuru (talk) 20:16, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 113: Akita Prefecture is the publisher here.
  • Ref 114: Italics for website
  • Ref 116: Don't need website and publisher name for the same thing

That's probably about it. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 15:08, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Amakuru - thanks for stepping in on this one. The article means a lot to me, so I'm super glad to have got it there. Apologies for the issues with that cite, I was doing most of the fixes on mobile, which doesn't always show the punctuation right anyway. Thanks again, Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:19, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 17:"p." → 'pp.'.
  • Bibliography should be in alphabetical order.
    • According to the MOS, it should be chronological, which I've added.
That is when a bibliography is used in the sense of an article's subject's works. (MOS:WORKS.) For lists of sources expanding on short references - as in this case - they should be in alphabetical order. (In passing MOS:NOTES discourages but does not forbid titling sections on lists of citations to sources "Bibliography" - "Bibliography may be confused with the complete list of printed works by the subject of a biography".)
Ok, that's pretty confusing. Why we have two different MOS requirements for a list of books is a bit silly, but I've put them in alphabetical order. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:14, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Publisher locations or not - be consistent.
    • I've added all the ones I can find. I don't really get what we gain from removing them.
Me neither. Personally I think including them is best practice.
  • Collender: add the OCLC.
    • I'm not familiar with what this is.
See OCLC#Identifiers and linked data and WorldCat.
Added Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:14, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 15:16, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:00, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gog the Mild: this is obviously going to pass very soon, but I'm not sure why you've closed when my review above is still outstanding.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:08, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    PS - all good now. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 20:16, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 31 August 2021 [5].

1995–96 Gillingham F.C. season edit

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:27, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Currently I have an FAC running (but near to completion, by the look of things) about a season which started with Gillingham F.C. in financial difficulties and ended with them coming within 10 minutes of getting promoted to a higher division. Now I present for you a season which started with Gillingham F.C. in financial difficulties and ended with them actually getting promoted to a higher division. If you wanted to see lots of goals being scored, this was definitely not the season to be a Gillingham fan, but hey - promotion is promotion :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:27, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Lee Vilenski edit

I'll begin a review of this article very soon! My reviews tend to focus on prose and MOS issues, especially on the lede, but I will also comment on anything that could be improved. I'll post up some comments below over the next couple days, which you should either respond to, or ask me questions on issues you are unsure of. I'll be claiming points towards the wikicup once this review is over.

Lede
Prose
  • Pulis significantly rebuilt the team, signing eight new players ahead of the new season. Three new signings were announced at the same time as Scally's takeover was completed - the timing is off here. Scally brough in Pulis, who brought in these players... But the players were announced as signings the same time Scally was appointed? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:58, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The finalisation of the takeover, the appointment of Pulis, and the first three signings were genuinely all announced at the same press conference - it's on the season review DVD which I have, and if you search "1995-96 Gillingham season preview" on YouTube you should be able to watch it (don't want to link to an obvious copyvio here). I can only presume that Scally was already in talks with Pulis, and had him looking at players, before the takeover was 100% nailed down..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:29, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it really "non-League"? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:58, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes it is. Because it was originally "football that isn't part of the Football League" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:29, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • and returned for a second spell; - superfluous Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:11, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • provided a funding boost for a club still on shaky financial ground - seems a bit editorialised to me. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:11, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Caption:suffered a serious injury in November - should really comment what this is. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:11, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • with maximum points - seems implied from four wins. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:11, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • team held another promotion-chasing team - this is the first time we've mentioned that they were challenging for promotion,I thought they were just trying to stay afloat. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:11, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well the fact that they were in second place put them in the promotion chase by definition, I would say. Any suggestions for a re-word? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:29, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • so far is present tense. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:11, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a couple jargon terms that need a link on first use, such as "sent off" Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:21, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Linked sent off. What else do I need to pick up? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:29, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • both clubs were later disciplined by the football authorities for failing to control their players - how? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:21, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • fellow Third Division championship challengers Chester City - we've already established Chester at this point. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:21, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The season was notable for the team's strong defence but also low goalscoring - grammar feels a little off here. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:21, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cardiff drew with Hereford and then beat Gillingham 3–2 - feels weird to me that we are talking about from Cardiff POV and not Gillingham. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:21, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • both records for a 46-match League season - once again, for whom? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:21, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comments

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:51, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Lee Vilenski: - many thanks for your review - responses above -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:29, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Lee Vilenski: - just checking if you had any further comments? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:36, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by WA8MTWAYC edit

  • "Gillingham F.C. competed in the Football League Third Division" ==> maybe indicate that the Third Div was actually the fourth tier back then.
  • "It was the 64th season in which the club competed in the Football League, and the 46th since the club was voted back into the league in 1950." ==> the club ... the club is repetitive
  • "three positions in the Football League Third Division" ==> I don't think "Football League" is needed here
  • "Having signed ... league system." ==> this is quite long and should probably be split.
  • "drawing 20" and "only managed two draws and" ==> link draw
  • "being absent for only of the team's 54 matches" ==> "one" is missing between only and of.
  • "He appointed former Gillingham player Tony Pulis as the club's new manager" ==> who did Pulis succeed at Gillingham?
    • Technically nobody. The club hadn't had a permanent manager since February; Neil Smillie had been caretaker manager while the club was in administration, but he was let go as soon as the preceding season ended, so nobody at all was in post prior to the takeover. I changed it to say that Scally appointed Pulis to the vacant post of manager. Do you think any more than that needs to be said? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:33, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and shortly before the first match of the season Mark Harris and Dominic Naylor arrived from Swansea City and Plymouth Argyle respectively" ==> maybe put a comma between season and Mark and Argyle and respectively.
  • "league table; It was" ==> it was
  • The table under FL Cup shows Gillingham were eliminated in the first round, but the infobox states it was in the second.
  • In the table under FL Trophy, "Hereford United (A)" ==> Hereford United (H)
  • According to Alan Nicholls's wiki page, he died on 25 Nov instead of the 23rd.
  • That's what I have. The article looks great. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 16:35, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Aoba47 edit

  • For the caption for this image (File:Leo Fortune-West 3.png), I would include the year that the photo was taken as you have done with the other images in the article.
  • For this part, Gillingham also reached the third round of the FA Cup, I do not believe "also" is necessary here as it seems more like a filler word. The other two instances of "also" in the article seem appropriate to me.

These are the only things that I have noticed, which makes sense as this FAC has already received two reviews. Once my two very nitpick-y comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this for promotion. I am not familiar with association football, or sports in general, but I understood everything in the article. Aoba47 (talk) 02:56, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: -- done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:50, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for addressing everything. I support the article for promotion. If possible, I would appreciate any feedback on my current FAC, but I completely understand if you do not have the time or interest. Have a great rest of your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 03:01, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

  • FN5 is missing author
  • Don't mix {{citation}} with {{cite}}-family templates
  • What makes Soccerdata a high-quality reliable source? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:35, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Nikkimaria: they are the UK's leading publisher of football reference books with a catalogue of hundreds of publications. They have published volumes in the "Definitive" series for something like 30 different clubs. The Gillingham volume has been used as a main source in three recently-promoted FAs..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:49, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Do you have a reference re: "leading publisher"? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:41, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Nikkimaria: Not specifically, but they have been publishing specialist football reference books for over 25 years and you will find their publications in all major bookstores. They have published books by authors including Jack Rollin, who edited the Rothman's Football Yearbook for about 30 years, and the author of the Gillingham volume, Tony Brown, is or was a member of the Association of Football Statisticians, a data partner of the Football Association, the governing body of the sport in England. Does that help? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:25, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi @Nikkimaria:, just wondering if you still needed anything from me on this source review? All the best, ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:58, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Cas Liber edit

Image review edit

Don't see any issues with licensing (t · c) buidhe 17:22, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 31 August 2021 [6].

B. Max Mehl edit

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 12:53, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... one of the most prominent coin dealers in history, who built himself up from nothing in a dusty part of Texas, far from the coin collecting centers, and whose ads were familiar to many in magazines having nothing to do with numismatics. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 12:53, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie edit

I think this is the first time I've seen an article I started nominated at FAC by someone else; good to see it here! Not much resemblance to the tiny stub I created. I'm copyediting as I go; please revert anything you disagree with.

  • I understand why you use "vended" in the lead, but it sounds unnatural. Could we reconstruct that sentence to describe those collectors as "among his customers" or something like that, and avoid having to use a verb of selling?
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I may be wrong here, but I seem to recall that Russia in the late 19th century wasn't on the Gregorian calendar. Is Mehl's birthdate in western or Russian dating?
    This is true, but none of the sources differentiates or gives an alternative birth date in Julian. All we have is the date.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:47, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough, but since the reader might assume one or other dating system, how about a footnote saying that the sources don't specify? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:53, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see you're using a referencing system that links "Weiner" in the footnotes to the right line of the source, but since there are two sources by Weiner I'd suggest adding the date to the shortened name in the footnotes -- I typically scroll to the sources rather than click and it was a second before I realized I had the option.
Weiner's work in the Encyclopedia of Texas is not dated. I'm open to suggestions.
  • Perhaps add "adding" before '... "the fires"'?
I guess.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On August 18, 1907, Mehl and Ethel Rosen married. She was the niece of Northside Fort Worth developer Sam Rosen, in whose parlor the wedding occurred." Suggest "On August 18, 1907, Mehl and Ethel Rosen married, in the parlor of Ethel's uncle, Northside Fort Worth developer Sam Rosen."
  • "an increase from 10 in 1912" interrupts the sentence it's in now. Since the end of the previous sentence talks about 1912 as well, could this factoid be moved up there? If the sources don't connect it directly to the timing of his return, perhaps "by the end of 1912" would work.
I've put it in parentheses. I'm really just trying to show that his business prospered after his return, and putting the two figures together does that better.
  • I think "1916—1920" should be an en dash but that looks like an em dash. Conversely the subsequent "1916– and 1917-dated" should both be hyphens; the first one looks longer than a hyphen on my screen.
I think I've fixed that.
  • Heath's description of The Star Coin Book is a lot more charitable than Breen's, in the quote box, which calls it "worthless". If Breen is worth quoting on the topic, shouldn't his opinion also be reflected in the body of the article? And I'm not clear why he thinks it's worthless.
I've just looked at my copy of Breen and according to the subject index, it is the only time he refers to it. Leaving aside his personal failings, Breen had colorful opinions that are often worth quoting, but he was not always coherent in explaining his views. I felt it was worth including to show that not everyone was a big Mehl fan, but I feel that putting a condensed version in the main text would be a bit repetitive.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:32, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The paragraph beginning "According to Tom LaMarre" is about Mehl's image; I think it could do with a topic sentence to start it. Perhaps pull the P.T. Barnum comment up to this para to illustrate an initial topic sentence? Then I think a bit of connective tissue, for flow, is needed between a couple of the other sentences -- e.g. perhaps follow Horning's comment about self-promotion with Guren's comment, connecting them with "... and Guren agreed, saying..." Without something like this it's a bit "A said B".
That's done, more or less.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:32, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's all for a first pass; this is in excellent shape. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:34, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Up to date, I think.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:32, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Everything above is either fixed or can be left as is, given your comments. Looks good. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:20, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:50, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild edit

  • Link numismatist.
  • It would be helpful if numismatic could be defined in the lead.
Both done.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:45, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The applications were subject to no objection being lodged against the prospective member". "member" → 'members'.
Done a bit differently.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:45, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In October 1903, that journal reported a change of address to Box 24, Alvord, Texas." How is this relevant to the article? (Unless you are talking about Mehl, in which case could you say so?)
Clarified.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:45, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "who sent many rare pieces to Mehl on consignment". What does "on consignment" mean?
Linked.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:45, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the more thorough The Star Rare Coin Encyclopedia, which by 1924 had an annual circulation of 70,000 copies". "The Star Rare Coin Encyclopedia" sounds like a book, but it having a circulation makes it sound like a periodical. Which was it?
Good question. Avoided by changing "circulation" to "sale".
  • "in whose parlor the wedding occurred". Perhaps "occurred" → 'took place'?
Made moot, I think, by my edit in response to Mike's comments above.
  • "and personal matters had obliged him to remain." "had" → 'then'.
Fair enough.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:45, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "of which $200 had been spent on a single insertion of an advertisement in The American Boy." I am not sure that this adds much/anything to the article.
It's an indication of Mehl's willingness to spend increasingly large sums on ads in non-numismatic publications and bridges from the $12.50 spent in Collier's to the large sums detailed later.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:45, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
$200 out of $5,000 does not seem an "increasingly large sum". How is a reader supposed to know that The American Boy is a non-numismatic publication. The explanation you just gave seems to convey what you wish better. Maybe 'including $200 on a single advertisement in a non-numismatic magazine, demonstrating his willingness to spend increasingly large sums outside the usual trade publications' or something similar?
Rewritten.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:49, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The United States Post Office Department found this to be deceptive". And so ...?
It doesn't say. It's cited to Bowers' personal recollections of conversations with Mehl in the 1950s.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:59, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is the direct link to " and Mehl switched campaigns" which I feel needs explaining. Why did the US PO finding the ad deceptive cause Mehl to switch campaigns? If this is not known, or is unclear, the two facts would be better given in separate sentences.
I don't think it's terribly unclear. The post office would not allow deceptive advertisements to pass through the mails. But the source doesn't fully set that out. So I've split the sentences.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:49, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "$500,000 in resources". In this context, what are "resources"? (Stock?)
It's not clear. I find an ad from Mehl in The Numismatist, June 1938, p. 536, which is footed, "B. MAX MEHL Mehl Building, Fort Worth, Texas Capital, $250,000. 00. Resources, $500, 000. 00. Largest Numismatic Establishment in the U. S.
Why is an advertisement[!] in which a businessman trumpets their own financial standing a high quality and/or reliable source?
I'm not saying that it is, merely using it to confirm what a reliable source (Bowers) says.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:49, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So are you saying that you are unclear as to what "resources" means in this context?
It appears to be what the business can draw upon if necessary, but that's more or less just going by the dictionary.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:14, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Bleh. That's kinda what I assumed, but I struggled to find it in any dictionary. I had hoped it was an Americanism and that you could explain it to me. Hey ho, you have ascribed it directly to Mehl, so I suppose that it is harmless.
  • "even as stocks sank". Link stocks.
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:59, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to get the Bureau of the Mint to agree to strike low-mintage varieties". What is "low-mintage"?
Clarified I hope.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:59, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Conducting them by mail bid, Mehl had 116 auction sales between 1903 to 1955". Suggest reversing the order of these clauses.
Done, more or less.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:14, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Rotary Club, Exchange Club, Chamber of Commerce, Country Club, Temple Beth-El. The last possibly as a red link.
The last is a disambiguation page. I'd rather not do a constructed red link such as Temple Beth-El (Fort Worth, Texas)
  • "His last auction took place on October 25, 1955, one of only three to follow the Kern collection in 1950". To my eye this would read better in chronological order.
OK.
  • Is his cause of death known?
The heart condition is mentioned. I looked into whether Tarrant County death certificates were readily available but it's an offline process.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:06, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 18: "p." → 'pp.'.
This may have gotten fixed somewhere along the line.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:06, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An impressive piece of work. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:59, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Up to date I hope.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:14, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looking good. Just three points I have come back on above. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:22, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:39, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Moise edit

This looks really interesting. I'm looking forward to reviewing it, will start my review very soon. Moisejp (talk) 01:10, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose and comprehensiveness. I've read through and made a handful of mini-mini-edits, but besides that I saw nothing I felt needed changing. I enjoyed this article very much, great work on it. Moisejp (talk) 14:56, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:56, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review – pass edit

All images are well captioned and are on Wikicommons in public domain or otherwise. My only small concern is the source of the Collier's image links to a Google Books page where I at least was not able to see the image. Possibly what displays or is accessible is regional or there could be other factors. If you can think of a better way to describe or link this source, great, or if you're convinced the current way is the best way, I'm happy to defer to your judgement. Thanks, Moisejp (talk) 15:46, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. I am not sure how to improve the Google books link, I clicked it and was very close to the ad, and with the page number supplied it was no problem to find again. I did look for copies of Collier's with higher resolution that contained a Mehl ad and came up empty.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:56, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie891 edit

Interested

  • suggest repeating note A at his date of birth in the body
  • Russian Empire is linked in the lede but not the body, suggest standardizing
  • Q. David Bowers, in an article on Mehl," perhaps date the article?
Done down to here.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:09, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any idea why Cowell would have done this?
The source doesn't say. I did a search of The Numismatist archives for relevant info and although Mehl advertises his connection with Cowell in some ads, nothing I see gets into the why of it.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:34, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The February 1904 advertisement offered The Hub Coin Book for sale for $.25, although in an unfortunate misspelling, the "k" in Book was rendered as a "b"." In the ad or in the edition of the book itself?
  • I'm unfamiliar with what distinguishes the "popular press" from other press-- could you maybe link?
  • "Mehl offered the Numismatic Monthly as a replacement journal" who did he offer?
  • "Mehl had remained concerned " was he concerned before? I don't recall mention earlier in the article though my taking a break in between reading may have contributed to forgetting
  • What is a "bas-relief" could you link?
  • Suggest some inflation calculations -- i.e. "spending $200 on a single insertion" wouldn't sound that much to a contemporary reader.
The above done.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:47, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What would be the " busier part of the year" for numismatics?
The source says "the busier six months of the year". I would hazard a guess that the fall and winter would be the busier time.
  • Suggest noting when the great depression began and referring to it at first mention as "Great Depression" which is probably how the vast majority of readers know it.
Done, more or less, though stating when the general time period is.
  • "brought in 9,800 book orders during the first week" how can an ad be determined to bring in orders?
Such things are often tracked by including a code as part of the address to track such things, a non-existent department that responders would include as part of the address. The source doesn't say though.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:47, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've covered everything. Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:47, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work, I'm happy to support, mainly on prose. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:25, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the support.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:06, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley edit

No quibbles from me. I thought I had spotted a typo – "Centinel" – and then chuckled as the penny dropped, so to speak. I looked twice at "brought" rather than "took" in the second para of the lead, but I suppose it works all right. This article strikes me as balanced, well sourced, of appropriate length and detail, and sensibly illustrated. Happy to support. Tim riley talk 16:53, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:09, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – pass edit

Starting source review...

I think I've fixed all those.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:09, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing that. I've now completed my review. All references are well-formatted and the p's and pp's are good; also all the links from References to Sources work fine; and all the sources seem reliable. It all looks fine to me. Moisejp (talk) 02:14, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:39, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 31 August 2021 [7].

13th Missouri Cavalry Regiment (Confederate) edit

Nominator(s): Hog Farm Talk 03:39, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another Missouri cavalry unit. This one fought in Arkansas, Missouri, and Kansas in 1863 and 1864, with its most significant action occurring at Pine Bluff (Arkansas, 1863), Fort Davidson (Missouri, 1864), Little Blue River (Missouri, 1864), and Mine Creek (Kansas, 1864). It was originally drawn from Sterling Price's headquarters guard and was armed with experimental rapid-fire cannons, although little seems to be known about that. Hog Farm Talk 03:39, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

  • Suggest scaling up the raid map slightly, providing a legend, and including a source to verify the map's contents on the image description page
    • @Nikkimaria: - I have increased the raid map scaling from 1.2 to 1.4. I don't know how to create a legend, where should I look? The map was created by a professional cartographer who specializes in the American Civil War who also happens to be a Wikipedian. I don't know what source(s) Hal J. used for this. The Sinisi source includes a pretty detailed route description that should cover the map details, but I don't know for a fact that that was the source used. I've adjusted the alt text for the Byram's Ford image so it doesn't duplicate the caption, but I have no idea what to use for alt text for the map that isn't super similar to the caption. Hog Farm Talk 00:59, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • {{image key}} or a related template may work well for a legend. The Sinisi source is fine even if it wasn't the original source, as long as it matches up with what is presented. As far as the alt... it's tricky for such a complex map, but WP:ALT suggests focusing on summarizing what is being presented, and/or referring to adjacent text. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:04, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've changed the alt text to state that's a map of Confederate movements, and to see the accompanying text for description. For the legend, since it's not standard symbols, I've added a prose description of what the things mean to the image caption. I have added Sinisi as a source to the file description page. Hog Farm Talk 05:39, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alt text should not duplicate captions. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:24, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild edit

  • I was a little surprised to read a biography of a cavalry unit and find nothing on the horses. Eg, what type, how many, remounts, where did they come from, how were they cared for. How did the unit fight; ie were they essentially mounted infantry? Horse holders? How many?
    • I've added a good bit about horse procurement, and some basics about fighting. Like with the one below, I can really only speak in general terms for this.
  • This is a military unit, what weapons did they use? There is one mention of a mounted attack, how did that work? Swords? You twice mention Union weapons and the cannon which the unit never used, but for all a reader can tell the unit being described was equipped with breastplates and matchlocks.
    • I don't have a source that directly states what this unit had besides the experimental cannons, but thankfully I recently purchased an older book about Confederate cavalry in this part of the war that goes into detail about how they were armed. I've added a bit, although I have to be pretty general. Lots of shotguns, single-shot muskets, six-shooters, and large knives. So stuff that's a pain to while riding a horse (aside from the revolvers)
  • "after participating in some further fighting". I don't think this really works tense wise.
    • I've rephrased this, is the new phrasing an improvement
  • "the unit spent the rest of the war serving outpost duty". "serving outpost duty"? Is that USEng?
    • Works in USEng. Anything you would recommend me rephrasing this too?
  • "This directive was remanded". "directive"? Do you mean the order? "remanded"? See wikt:remand. I grow more puzzled by this when I find the unit fighting under Marmaduke later in the paragraph.
    • Is "rescinded" a better word? Switched to order, as well. The source is just really vague here - ordered to join Marmaduke, then that was not done, and then later they were under Marmaduke. Not very clear, and I'm not aware of another source that contains a detailed formation history of this unit.
  • "was too poorly disciplined to be an effective combat unit." Perhaps add a 'considered'? And do we know by whom? Possibly the person who "remanded" the directive?
    • Done. And it was considered so by Wood himself.
  • "When Marmaduke drew up his plan of attack against the post, Wood's battalion was assigned to a force which was ordered to split from the main Confederate force, which was advancing from the east, and take side roads to attack the Union garrison from the southeast." Suggest this goes in the previous paragraph, so as to split the plans and their execution.
    • Done
  • "split from the main ... split from the main". Vary the language? In fact, consider tweaking this bit, it reads a bit "flat".
    • Done
  • "The battalion was reported to have a strength of 219 men and 222 horses". When?
    • October 1863. Added (I don't know why I didn't include the date in the first place)
  • "The unit issued a strength report on November 10, which found that". "found" → 'stated' or 'claimed' or similar.
    • Done
  • "The report did not mention any artillery component of the unit". Delete "of the unit".
    • Removed
  • "associated with Price's headquarters. In March 1864, Steele was sent". Perhaps a paragraph break here?
    • Split
  • "Meanwhile, the Red River campaign had been repulsed". "Meanwhile"? During the Battle of Poison Spring?
    • Rephrased
  • "by pursuing Confederates during the retreat". "the" → 'their'.
    • Done
  • "while Marmaduke's and Major General James F. Fagan's division moved against Fort Davidson." division or divisions?
    • Yes, this should be the plural. Fixed
  • "unable to carry the fort via assault". "via" → 'by'.
    • Done
  • "The Confederates were unable to carry the fort via assault, and its Union defenders abandoned it that night. Wood's battalion had suffered about 30 casualties during the fighting at Pilot Knob and helped pursue the Union soldiers who had abandoned the fort." The chronology seems to jump around. Why not 1. attack faile 2. casualties during this failure 3. fort abandoned 4. pursuit. And delete "who had abandoned the fort", I think it's clear.
    • Done
  • Could "depot" be linked to Supply depot?
  • "Four companies of recruits were added to Wood's battalion while the unit was at Marshall, although these men were detached from Wood's battalion during the campaign." I kinda know what you mean, but it reads oddly.
    • Does "Four companies of recruits were assigned to Wood's battalion while the unit was at Marshall, although they served separately during the campaign." work better?
  • "Wood's horse was shot during the fighting". Killed.
    • done, after checking the source (for a horse that was shot but not killed, see Old Baldy (horse), who suffered at least 5 wounds during the war)
  • "Pleasonton continued the fighting with night combat". This seems a little stilted. Maybe 'Pleasonton continued fighting into night'?
    • Done
  • "most of whom had retreated before". Delete "had".
    • Removed
  • "Price's column became stuck at the crossing of Mine Creek". Stuck in what way? (Did the wagons stick in the ford?)
    • Rephrased
  • "While the crossing was occurring" "occurring" → 'taking place'.
    • Done
  • "the better-armed Union soldiers". I refer to my earlier comment; better than what?
    • Clarified. The Confederates mostly had single-shot weapons, while the Union troopers had repeating rifles at Mine Creek
  • "Fifty of the prisoners were from Wood's battalion". Exactly fifty?
    • I guess so. McGhee p. 105 says It [Wood's battalion] suffered casualties in that debacle [Mine Creek] of 5 killed, 17 wounded, and 50 taken prisoner

That's it for an initial run. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:36, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • @Gog the Mild: - Initial round of replies done. Would recommend checking the new background information to make sure it is acceptable. Hog Farm Talk 18:39, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Second run edit
  • Perhaps add a brief description of the Williams guns? They seem a little unconventional.
    • Added a brief description
  • "having fought in some further fighting". Umm.
    • Rephrased
  • "and operations against railroads." Perhaps insert a verb? Unless you meant to say that it "fought ... operations against railroads."
    • Switched to past tense, to make is consistent with the rephrasing I've done for the earlier part in the sentence
  • Lead " it was enlarged to regimental strength"; body " four companies that had been attached to the battalion during the campaign and the eight existing companies were consolidated down into ten companies, forming a regiment." So was it "enlarged" or "consolidated down"?
    • It was enlarged. The number of troops increased, but the number of companies decreased. Is there a specific way I can rephrase this to make it clearer?
Should "13th Missouri Cavalry Regiment" be in bold in the lead at first mention?
It's bolded in the very first sentence, so I thought another bolding might be excessive. It was bolded again, but Shooterwalker below requested that the second bolding be removed. Hog Farm Talk 05:39, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe something like 'At an unknown date, probably while the unit was in Texas or Arkansas, the four companies that had been attached to the battalion during the campaign and the eight existing companies were consolidated down into ten companies. Although the number of companies was reduced, there was an increase in manpower and it was designated a regiment, the 13th Missouri Cavalry Regiment.'?
    • Done (in the body). Thanks for the wording suggestion!
  • "The shotguns in particular were inferior to the use of carbines." Maybe 'The shotguns in particular were inferior to carbines.'?
    • Done
  • Perhaps mention that all of these weapons, bar the pistols, were single shot, unlike many of the Union firearms. (I assume none were muzzle loading?) I realise that you already say this later in hte text.
    • @Gog the Mild: - Well, based on background knowledge, they would have been single-shot, and the muskets would have been generally muzzle loading. However, the source (Oates) does not state this. General works on Confederate cavalry focus on the more important theaters, where the weapons situation was much better (so not really comparable). Not quite sure what to do here. Hog Farm Talk 04:23, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If it is simply not covered anywhere, even on a theatre wide basis, then fine, just leave it.
I was excited when a 600-page one volume work on the Trans-Mississippi Theater came out earlier this month, but the reviews are pretty bad, so will not be reading that one. This is just a horribly understudied part of the war. Hog Farm Talk 05:39, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like the new background.
    • Thanks!
  • Is it worth mentioning that Price's force consisted entirely of cavalry?
    • Probably. Added.
  • After the attack fizzled out, the men of Clark's brigade fell back to the creek bed, although Cabell's men made another unsuccessful attack. The Confederates were unable to carry the fort by assault". After the first sentence, the start of the second seems redundant.
    • Removed. I almost removed this when I reworked this spot in the first round
  • "they began to meet Union resistance." Optional: Insert 'more' or stronger'.
    • Went with "more"
  • "drove the Confederates backwards". "backwards" → 'back'?
    • Done
  • Link single-shot.
    • Linked
  • "over the course of the entire campaign". Delete "entire".
    • Removed
  • "The new unit was named". Why do you describe it as "new"?
    • I'm not sure, because it wasn't a new unit. I've removed the word

Gog the Mild (talk) 16:28, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • The weapons ones will require some research/source consulting, so I'll try to get to that tomorrow. I've got to travel early tomorrow morning for work, so stopping here for today. Hog Farm Talk 04:43, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looking good. Just a couple of minor points left above. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:22, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support for prose by Shooterwalker edit

Going to give this a read and see if there are any issues. Aiming for readability and clarity, more than just grammatical correctness. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:45, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lead
  • "and had 275 men by the end of September" -> "and grew to 275 men..."
    • Done
  • "after having fought in some further fighting and operations against railroads" -> faught in some further fighting feels redundant, and this can probably be said in fewer clearer words
    • This was rephrased in response to one of Gog's comments above. Is the new version better?
  • Maybe I'm confused, but the bolding of the rename "13th Missouri Cavalry Regiment" looks to be the same as the original title. Was the regiment called something else before, in which case should that be bolded? Or is this a new regiment being renamed to match the old one?
    • Removed the bolding, as its the same unit
  • On the whole the text is quite good.
    • Thanks!
Background and formation
  • "Overall, Confederate cavalry in the Trans-Mississippi was often armed with shotguns, muskets using the percussion cap system, hunting rifles, and Bowie knives." -> "Overall, Confederate cavalry in the Trans-Mississippi was typically armed with Bowie knives, shotguns, hunting rifles, and muskets using the percussion cap system." (flow)
    • Done
  • More generally strong prose!
    • Thanks! The prose is largely due to Gog's review above
Service history
  • "this success was followed up by the occupation" -> "followed" is fine, without "followed up"
    • Removed "up"
  • "When Marmaduke drew up his plan of attack against the post, Wood's battalion was assigned to a force which was ordered to split from the main Confederate force, which was advancing from the east, and take side roads to attack the Union garrison from the southeast" -> this sentence is quite complex and takes a few read-throughs to understand. It might be better phrased as two shorter, cleaner sentences.
    • I've split this into two sentences
  • "Another Confederate attack and subsequent fighting through the streets followed, " -> "This was followed by another Confederate assault through the streets,"
    • Done
  • "The battalion was reported in October to have a strength of 219 men and 222 horses" -> "By October 1863, the battalion was reported to have a strength of 219 men and 222 horses" (helps really clarify the timeline, and improve readability and flow)
    • I've rephrased this a bit. I'm not sure if I like "By October 1863 ..." here, as the unit's strength seems to have fluctuated off and on, and this figure really only represents a single figure in time. Alternate phrasing suggestions welcome.
Price's raid
  • This section is excellently written. A pleasure to read.
    • Thanks!
Closing comments
  • As a reader who has only a basic understanding of the military side of the American civil war, I think it might be useful to pull the reader back into the broader context. Make it crystal clear the implications of their losses, and what was going on in the political side when the regiment was consolidated and disbanded. In other words, Wikipedia encourages us to state the WP:OBVIOUS. Otherwise this is an excellent article, and very close to being featured article quality. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:44, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Shooterwalker: - Thanks for the review! I'm a little confused as to what you would like added with the last point. As to the political side, the sole source that discusses the consolidation (McGhee) just says that the consolidation occurred to make it a full regiment. As to "The National Park Service states that the unit may have been disbanded in May 1865", I don't have anything more specific than this to work with, so I can't add anything further than a statement in the final paragraph that the CSA no longer existed after the surrenders. I'm mainly confused on what you mean about "the implications of their losses", which was mainly just that people got shot. Hog Farm Talk 04:54, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think the ultimate question I'm left with, as a reader, is whether they played a major role in deciding the war or the wider political dispute that was at stake. Did they play a major role? A minor role? No role at all, as they were sidelined? It's just helpful when an article about something specific can also place it in the wider context. I won't push it too hard, since there are other articles that dive into the civil war in other respects. Happy to support the prose as is, and excellent job, again. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:35, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not quite sure how to approach this. The unit was so insignificant that it's only mentioned in rather specialized sources (so basically, I'm partly responsible for the common complaint that FACs are rarely any topics of significance). Hog Farm Talk 05:41, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Consider it a suggestion rather than a requirement. If something does occur to you or pop up in the sources, by all means, add it. Good work! Shooterwalker (talk) 18:03, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Lee Vilenski edit

I'll begin a review of this article very soon! My reviews tend to focus on prose and MOS issues, especially on the lede, but I will also comment on anything that could be improved. I'll post up some comments below over the next couple days, which you should either respond to, or ask me questions on issues you are unsure of. I'll be claiming points towards the wikicup once this review is over.

Lede
  • cavalry regiment - I'm really not a fan of links like this, makes me think we are going to have an article on cavalry regiments. Could we reword to avoid? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:15, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rephrased to make it cavalry unit in the first sentence, and moved the regiment link to the next mention in the lead
  • Major General Sterling Price - same... do we need a link for Major General? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:15, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've had links for ranks requested in a lot of other FACs/ACRs/GANs
  • grew 275 men - grew to, or grew by? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:15, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Corrected
  • Laynesport seems like an odd redlink... Would Foreman, Arkansas be a suitable redirect target? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:15, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think so, since Foreman was definitely a different place than Laynesport. From some brief searching, it looks like Laynesport is very likely notable, so I'll try to get a short article there sometime when I'm not busy. Don't get me started on how USA places were mass-created. Notable stuff like Laynesport are redlinks, while junk like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big Right Hand, West Virginia get articles
  • 72 casualties, 50 of them as prisoners of war. - can we define casualties? To my ears, that means deaths. PoWs aren't dead (unless they are in this case)? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:15, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've specified that this is a total of killed/wounded/captured
  • and the men of the 13th Missouri Cavalry Regiment were paroled six days later - does parole have a different meaning in the army? I didn't realise they were in jail. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:15, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes - in military usage of this time, it actually means you didn't go to prison. Not sure how to explain this beyond the link without going down too much of a rabbit hole.
Prose
  • state militia - pipes to a redirect. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:21, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Linked directly to the article title (the article linked was titled at the redirect when this article was created, which is why it was done that way), although frankly I don't think piped linking to a redirect is an issue of any sort.
  • Is there a circa for the caption in the image. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:21, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unfortunately, no. All I can say is that since its a photograph, it would be before Price died in 1867. My OR guess is that it's an older Price and the uniform may have been from when he was in the US Army, but I have nothing to back that up.
  • government-in-exile - are the hyphens necessary? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:21, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • probably not, dropped the hyphens.
  • A number of weapons used by Confederate cavalrymen in the Trans-Mississippi were privately produced in Texas.[8] A number of weapons - two sentences start with the same phrase. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:21, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rephrased the beginning of the second sentence
  • Is Robert C. Wood not notable? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:21, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Very likely no, although my attempts at searching were clouded out by a somewhat more significant CSA colonel from Mississippi and Robert C. Wood, a 20th-century governmental official
  • In general the captions are a bit poor - "map of Arkansas" doesn't really state much. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:21, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've tweaked the captions for Price, the Arkansas map, and Byram's Ford. Are the new captions better?
  • 219 men and 222 horses - more horses than men, is that normal? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:21, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure. Oates reproduces a form of the strength report in a table, which shows that the larger division this unit was in had about 8,000 horses and 5,000 men, with Wood's battalion having one of the lowest horse:human ratios. But Oates also refers to it as a "surprising surplus", so I don't really know. Hog Farm Talk 07:58, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comments

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:38, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Lee Vilenski: - First round of replies is done. How do things look now? Hog Farm Talk 07:58, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Minor comments from Chidgk1 edit

Some of these comments about the lead may be due to me being a Brit and US English being different - if so please ignore as it is understandable

"The unit originated in early April 1863, when ..." sounds a bit strange as if it more or less formed itself. Maybe people were so keen to fight that is correct. If not how about "The unit was formed in early April 1863, when ..." or "The unit was created in early April 1863, when ..." or just "In early April 1863 ..."

    • Went with the one starting "In early April 1863 ..."

"The next month, the unit participated in the Battle of Pine Bluff, where it drove back ..." could be "The next month, the unit fought in the Battle of Pine Bluff, driving back ..."

    • Done

I presume we don't know why they no longer had guns.

    • Nope. McGhee (and the body of the article) explicitly state that what happened to the cannons is unknown

"After spending the summer of 1864 at Princeton, Arkansas, Wood's battalion was part of a force Price took into the state of Missouri during Price's Raid. Price's force entered the state in September, and the unit made an unsuccessful assault during the Battle of Pilot Knob on September 27." could be

"... before spending the summer of 1864 at Princeton, Arkansas. In September they joined Price's Raid into the state of Missouri, but were unable to take Fort Davidson during the Battle of Pilot Knob on the 27th."

or

"... before spending the summer of 1864 at Princeton, Arkansas. They joined Price's September raid into the state of Missouri, but the unit's assault during the Battle of Pilot Knob on September 27 failed."

or omit the exact date

"... before spending the summer of 1864 at Princeton, Arkansas. In September they joined Price's Raid into the state of Missouri, but their assault during the Battle of Pilot Knob failed to capture Fort Davidson."

    • Went with this phrasing
  • (Additional comment)

Additionally, if you liked this comment, or are looking for an article to review I have one at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates#Greenhouse_gas_emissions_by_Turkey Chidgk1 (talk) 11:47, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

  • Is there a reason for the formatting difference between FNs 38 and 71?
    • Standardized (I think)
  • The Oates work should probably use {{cite thesis}}. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:23, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure. It originated as a thesis, but the Oates's preface of the version I'm using states This book is a revised form of my graduate thesis. The reprint edition my copy is of seems to treat it as a book, and the author notes that the thesis was revised to produce this work. This seems to be de facto a book, although I'm open to changing the citation template if @Nikkimaria: or others feel strongly about this. Hog Farm Talk 16:07, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Any idea how it was revised, or whether it went through the regular book publishing process? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:26, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I can't easily find anything detailing this, so I've switched it over to cite thesis. Hog Farm Talk 16:42, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator comment edit

@FAC coordinators: - As I seem to have addressed everything with the source review and image review, and there are three supports representing a mixture of MILHIST and non-MILHIST editors, may I have a dispensation for a second nomination? Hog Farm Talk 17:55, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:44, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 31 August 2021 [8].

Edward Mitchell Bannister edit

Nominator(s): —Wingedserif (talk) 23:19, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Edward Mitchell Bannister, an African-American abolitionist and painter. He first received national recognition for his art in 1876 at the Philadelphia Centennial Exposition, and he was a founder member of the Rhode Island School of Design and Providence Art Club. I have particularly attempted to expand our coverage of Bannister's earlier abolitionist years in Boston and the specifics of his artistic style and subjects.

In support of this nomination, I have solicited other editors' help with GOCE copyediting, a successful GAN, and a recent peer review. This is my first FAC nomination. (@Ceoil: since they offered to look at this earlier.) —Wingedserif (talk) 23:19, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Winged. Wasn't expecting this, seemed to have missed the PR, but you have some formatting issues with closing brackets (ie [[]]) in refs 10, 11, 13 and 30 in i this revision. Also ref 39 is returning a syntax error. All easily sorted, and far from deal breakers. Will read though again shortly, with a full review in a few days. Ceoil (talk) 23:55, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ceoil, sorry, didn't mean to surprise you, I assumed you'd seen the previous pings/listing. And the ref changes you mentioned above are done —Wingedserif (talk) 01:33, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Great. Gripes to follow. Ceoil (talk) 01:57, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I welcome them! —Wingedserif (talk) 02:31, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

  • File:Edward Mitchell Bannister.jpg and File:'Hay Gatherers' by Edward Mitchell Bannister, c. 1893.jpg When was the first publication?
For the first, the carte de viste, Wiki Commons says the photo was taken circa 1870; the Kenkebala exhibition catalog colophon says only "after 1870". For a date of first publication, between 1870 and 1901 is probably the most accurate we can get... The copy itself might have been taken from Holland's 1992 dissertation. Hay Gatherers was painted c. 1893 and the photo is likely also from Holland's dissertation. Holland's exhibition history appendix lists Hay Gatherers as part of the "Fleisig Collection" in 1893; I'm not sure if that indicates a sale into a private collection (the work is still privately owned today) or a proper first exhibition. (I'm also still waiting for Bannister's catalog raissone to be finished...) —Wingedserif (talk) 04:19, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
When you say For a date of first publication, between 1870 and 1901 is probably the most accurate we can get, what information is this based on? Is there any documented publication prior to 1926? For the second one, public display does not count as publication under US law. (t · c) buidhe 18:33, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For the portrait, "between 1870 and 1901" is based on source captions that list 1870 as the earliest possible date for the photo and the fact that Bannister died in early 1901. Sorry, I did not realize that the publication in this case means the date of the creation of the photography/copy, not first exhibition. I haven't been able to find earlier copies than Holland's 1992 thesis. By my understanding, the photo of Hay Gatherers should be in the public domain, as we are now 100+ years past the death of Bannister and the photo fits the criteria of "faithful photographic reproductions of two-dimensional public domain works of art".
Publication is not equivalent to creation either. To count as publication, copies of the work generally have to be distributed to the public, see the legal definition[9] PD-art only applies if you can show the underlying work is PD. {{PD-US-unpublished}} is a possibility, but you would have to show it wasn't published. (t · c) buidhe 22:46, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, the Hay Gatherers painting is in the public domain, as we are well past life of the author plus seventy years after the author’s death, making the photograph of it eligible for PD-art. —Wingedserif (talk) 23:24, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, that's not how it works! It needs to be PD-US which is more complicated than public domain in most countries. See the Hirtle chart for details. (t · c) buidhe 00:55, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
When you say "It needs to be PD-US", what "it" are you referring to? By that chart, the painting, produced c. 1893 and necessarily before the death of Bannister, meets the criteria for both PD-old-70 and PD-US-expired. Both of those apply whether or not the painting was ever "published" or not. Therefore, the painting is in the US public domain. The photograph of it is public domain as well, per PD-art. —Wingedserif (talk) 03:19, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I did not check licenses for images in the gallery. (t · c) buidhe 07:31, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • It appears to me that this is still the case, i.e. that gallery image licencing has not been checked -- any takers? @Nikkimaria, Casliber, and Buidhe:? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:39, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've updated the license for one of the images of the gallery. All the gallery licenses are now uniform and should be fine. Curiocurio (talk) 13:34, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment edit

Approaching the three week mark and very little interest. Unless more reviews are attracted over the next few days, preferably with some indication that a consensus to promote may be forming, I am afraid that this nomination is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:51, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Cas Liber edit

Taking a look now...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:08, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • At the time, Boston was an abolitionist stronghold, but it was also sharply divided by race; in 1860, Boston was one of the most segregated cities in the US - you could merge the two latter clauses into one really here, maybe " At the time, Boston was an abolitionist stronghold, but it was also sharply divided by race—ranked as one of the most segregated cities in the US in 1860" (one less "Boston" anyway)
    • I trimmed this, by cutting the "sharply divided" bit, since that's also implied by "most segregated". —WS
  • Carteaux was admitted to her Home for Aged Colored Women in 1902 and died in 1903 in a mental institution. She and Bannister are buried together. - needs a citation(s)
    • Put in a citation from the Rhode Island History Journal source, which focuses on Carteaux. —WS
  • The first two sentences of the Artistic style are repetitive. A possible solution is to switch sentences and trim, to something like, "Bannister advertised himself as a portraitist as a young painter, but eventually became popular for his landscapes. He also painted biblical, mythological, and genre scenes." or somesuch (as the references allow)
    • Combined as you suggested. —WS
  • Can any of the Further reading items be used as sources? If they have more material to add then leaving them out makes me think the article is not comprehensive, and if they don't then why do we list them....
    • Two of those were recent news articles that I had dropped in. I added two sentences from then, and deleted a couple of sources that only treat Bannister briefly. The Bearden book looks to have been written in collaboration with Holland and had more detail, which I've written into the article. The remaining two "Further reading" items are books that I haven't been able to locate. —WS

Overall a good read and within striking distance of FA-hood I think...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:38, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I tentatively support this on prose and comprehensiveness grounds, but I tend to skim prose sometimes so other editors might pick up issues I have missed. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:10, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Curiocurio edit

Tonalism and lede edit

I did a read through of the article and thought it was well done. However, the infobox says his style was Tonalism, and maybe I missed it but I didn't see Tonalism mentioned in the article. Also, the lede seems a little skimpy for a FA candidate. Perhaps it could be expanded a bit. Curiocurio (talk) 22:59, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've replaced "Tonalism" with "American Barbizon school" in the article; good spot, I hadn't realized that sources actually don't mention the former. I had kept it from the version of the article I expanded, because Tonalism does seem apt for describing his later work, but until sources say that, it'd be WP:OR. I've also expanded the lead to mention his largest accomplishment (the 1876 first prize) and to mention Christiana, their house, and Bannister's legacy, which are discussed more later in the article and did seem to be missing from the lead. lmk what you think! —Wingedserif (talk) 17:43, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The lede is much better. However, the first sentence still does say "was an American Tonalist oil painter", and Tonalism isn't mentioned in the article. Perhaps you could say "was an oil painter of the American Barbizon school", and later, "Bannister's style of landscape painting". Stylistically, Tonalism is more succinct than American Barbizon school but as you say it's necessary to follow the sources. Curiocurio (talk) 19:58, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ach, sorry, my eyes just skimmed over it in the lead. Removed and replaced "tonalist", as you recommended. —Wingedserif (talk) 04:45, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Tim riley edit

  • Lead
  • "Life-long" – Merriam Webster and the OED both give this as a single, unhyphenated word.
  • Done! —WS
  • "his more well-known" – "better-known" would be the usual form
  • Gonna push back on this one; "well-known" has a MW dictionary entry and reads as more common to me. —WS
"well-known" certainly, but "more well" is strange English: the word is "better". Tim riley talk 13:30, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Got it, done! —WS
  • Early life
  • There is a "likely" in three paragraphs in succession. A bit of a variety would enliven the prose.
  • One "likely" changed, another removed. —WS
  • Boston activist, artist, and student
  • "Once Bannister was established as an artist, abolitionist William Wells Brown praised Bannister" – no need to repeat Bannister – a pronoun instead of the second one would help the flow of the prose
  • This was to avoid pronoun ambiguity, so I dropped the "his" too. Done! —WS.
  • "He sang a tenor in the Crispus Attucks Choir" – should this be "sang as a tenor"?
  • Oop, yes! —WS.
  • "the Crispus Attucks Choir … The Histrionic Club" – looks odd to capitalise the second the but not the first.
  • Done, lc'ed 2nd "the". —WS.
  • "one of several reclamations of Gould Shaw" – "reclamations" baffles me. I can't work out the meaning of this sentence.
  • Meant this to explain why the "Our Martyr" label was so important, but agree that it was awkward. It's "one of several memorials" now. —WS.
  • "They marched under a banner reading "Equal rights for all men"" – this naturally leads the reader to wonder whether they wanted equal rights for women, too. Do we know Bannister's line on that point? Might be good to add it, if known.
  • This I don't know—the quote came from an archival newspaper and wasn't mentioned in the other sources that I read. Confusingly, "men" might have been used in its old gender-neutral sense there. —WS.
  • Providence
  • "but a planned trip to Europe fell through due to funding problems" – or in plain English, for lack of money.
  • Done! —WS
  • "Stetson often mentioned Bannister in his personal diaries and once praised Bannister" – another place where "him" would be preferable, I think, to a second "Bannister".
  • Done! —WS
  • Artistic style
  • "his tastes in literature were typical of an educated Victorian painter, including Spenser, Virgil, Ruskin, and Tennyson, from whose works much of his iconography can be traced" – two points here. First, it could do with a citation, and secondly it isn't clear if his iconography can be traced to all four of them or just to Tennyson.
Afterthought: unless there is a particular reason for listing the four writers in that order it might be an idea to list them in either chronological (V, S, T, R) or alphabetical order. A minor point, but you may like to consider. Tim riley talk 12:58, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In all my searching, all I could find was a reference to Bannister looking like Tennyson, so I think this sentence has to be struck. I did keep a mention of his love of poetry and classics, which a couple of sources say without citing specific authors. —WS
  • "His later palette exhibited brighter, but more muted colors" – perhaps I'm being dim but I can't see how a colour can be brighter and more muted at the same time.
  • Changed to "lighter, more muted" —WS
  • "This was a large part of the double blind" – does the source really say double-blind rather than double-bind? If you look both terms up in Merriam-Webster you will see that the latter is plainly what is meant.
  • Good catch; that was a typing error on my part. —WS
  • Legacy
  • "After his death, Bannister was largely forgotten by art history" – another repeated "Bannister" that might be better as a pronoun.
  • Done! —WS
  • "Art historian Anne Louise Avery is currently compiling the first catalogue raisonné and a major biography of Bannister's work – WP:DATED looms here. You need something like "In [date] it was announced that art historian Anne Louise Avery was compiling..." or "As of 2021 art historian Anne Louise Avery is compiling..."
  • Dated to 2018, using the web source. —WS

That's all from me. This is an excellent and interesting article – a pleasure to read and review. Tim riley talk 10:25, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Very glad to support the promotion of this article. Meets all the FA criteria, in my view. I have much enjoyed reading and reviewing it. Tim riley talk 21:46, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source reviews edit

Review by Nikkimaria edit

- spotchecks not done. Version reviewed.

  • The "Edwin" name is missing a source
Cited to William Wells Brown source; its bio for Bannister is titled "Edwin". —WS
  • "Seril Dodge House at left, where the Providence Art Club was first permanently located" - source?
I made a mistake: there are two Seril Dodge Houses right next to each other. The Art Club first headquartered at the Seril Dodge House that is visible at the right side of the image. They only used the left-handside, older Dodge House from 1916 on. I'm replacing this picture, caption, and alt text. —WS
  • Be consistent in when locations are included
Added to all book citations. —WS
Still inconsistencies here - see for example FN23. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:15, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, every {cite book} should have a location now. —Wingedserif (talk) 23:52, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in how web sources are formatted, and do not italicize publishers
Updated refs so publishers/works are consistently listed under the right cite arg —WS
Still inconsistencies here. FN5 for example links to cbc.ca, which is a work, but the display is simply "CBC". Nikkimaria (talk) 21:15, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done —WS
  • FN2 should cite the original source - this is just a republication
Citation updated to Encyclopedia of African-American Culture and History
Will be responding in single section below, so both source reviewers can respond in the same place. —WS
  • FN8 is missing date. Ditto FN26, check for others
Added —WS
Still issues here, eg FN31. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:15, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done (note that this was a new source I had added to address other review concerns) —WS
  • The Libertator refs should include original source details
I've added volume and issue numbers for the two articles; what other information did you mean? —WS
Page(s). Nikkimaria (talk) 21:15, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Added —WS
  • FN12 is missing publisher
Added! —WS
  • Boston Post should be italicized
Italed. —WS
  • Page ranges should use dashes throughout, and be consistent in whether they are abbreviated
Checked every |pages= and |p= field to add en dashes and make sure the ranges weren't abbreviated. —WS
  • FN18: is this citing FN3? If so, why not include both authors?
Both are included in new note. —WS
  • Fn33 is dead
Updated URL. —WS
  • Fn37: can you explain the formatting choices here?
See fix below in other source review. —WS
  • Be consistent in whether "The" is included in newspaper names
All The's added —WS
  • Fn39 is missing accessdate
Done! —WS
  • Is there a reason the first Further reading entry was not cited as a source? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:38, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have not been able to find a digitized version or get to a library that has a copy. —WS
Is interlibrary loan a possibility? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:15, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've been traveling, so I haven't been able to. I think I could gain access sometime in August; from the title's worldcat entry, the title isn't in public libraries near me, only university libraries. FWIW, I don't think this exhibition catalog is necessary for the completeness of this article—in my exp., exhibition catalogs rarely contain original historical research. —Wingedserif (talk) 23:52, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Review by Usernameunique — Pass edit

References

  • #1 — Suggest "| name-list-style = amp" parameter. ISBN should be hyphenated.
Done! —WS
  • #2 — Publisher can be given as Encyclopedia.com. It appears to have a date, too. Is Encyclopedia.com reliable?
Citing this to original publication in Encyclopedia of African-American Culture and History (see other source review above). —WS
  • #3 — Suggest "| name-list-style = amp" parameter. ISBN should be hyphenated. Retrieval date not needed for printed matter.
Done! —WS
  • #4 — Any particular reason to use a master's thesis?
  • #7 — Any particular reason to use a Ph.D. dissertation, let alone so extensively?
Will be responding in single section below, so both source reviewers can respond in the same place. —WS
  • #8 — Date missing.
Done! —WS
  • #9 — Retrieval date not needed for printed matter.
Done! —WS
  • #10 — Retrieval date not needed for printed matter. Why do you use the "– via" parameter here but not elsewhere?
Ret. date removed. I had used "via" to try to mention the repository, but I have removed that from the citation. —WS
  • #11 — Retrieval date not needed for printed matter.
Done! —WS
  • #12 — Retrieval date not needed for printed matter. ISBN should be hyphenated.
Done! —WS
  • #14 — Retrieval date not needed for printed matter.
—Done! —WS
  • #16 — This would be better off in a separate "Notes" section. What is the source for the article being potentially apocryphal? Shouldn't it theoretically be easy enough (if time consuming) to search through that year's issues? Two periods at the end.
Note section made; period dropped. The hypothesis about the story possibly being apocryphal is mine (and therefore potentially WP:OR). I did go through many issues of the New York Herald through newspaperarchive.com but did not find any such article. A lot of the sources I found pick up and repeat this story using the same verbatim quote; I started to doubt whether they had found the article in doing so or were just trusting their sources. For example, Men of Mark (1887) says that the article came out "twenty years ago" and all the sources I've seen seem to have assumed the article dates to exactly 1867. The note was the best compromise I could think of to express my doubts about the story, not being able to track the article down myself. (I could try again.) —Wingedserif (talk) 01:17, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The notes section looks good. But now that you have it, you should convert the cites into footnotes (i.e., the same style as in the body of the article), rather than the in-text shorthand. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:14, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done! —WS
  • #18 — This would be better off in a separate "Notes" section. "pp." missing in the first cite—but both cites would be cleaner if styled as a note rather than a reference.
Notes section made and page citations added. I realized that I should probably provide information about the source that Holland & Jennings cited as providing the quote. Let me know if the treatment I used was OK, or if I should try to find more information to use the original citation (ie, the 1876 article's title). —WS
I don't think the original source is needed, though it's nice to nail down such details. Nor do I think the "As quoted in" wording is needed (it seems implied, if you just cite to the later source), but if you do use it, you might link Holland & Jennings 1992 to the source (e.g., how "Maryon 1912" is linked at Herbert Maryon#Articles). --Usernameunique (talk) 05:20, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Expanded to full citation template for Holland & Jennings. If you're OK with it, I think I'll leave citation for the quotation as is, since the Kenkebala book is so much more easily accessible for readers than the 1876 Christian Recorder. —WS
  • #19 — Chesley seems like it's a first (or middle) name, not a last name. Why just the "W"?
You're right, and a little searching revealed that he's WL-able. —WS
  • #20 — Retrieval date not needed for printed matter.
Removed. —WS
  • #22 — What is "Unbound"?
The name of the specific blog run by the Smithsonian. Looking at it now, though, I think the claim is a bit of a stretch from the source I had linked. I'm going to delete this citation and look for another to replace it. —WS
  • #23 — ISBN should be hyphenated.
Done! —WS
  • #25 — Vivien Raynor can take a link. Retrieval date not needed for printed matter.
Done! —WS
  • #26 — Missing date.
Done! —WS
  • #28 — Retrieval date not needed for printed matter.
Done! —WS
  • #29 — Retrieval date not needed for archived source, which by design is how it appears on a particular day.
Done! —WS
  • #30 — Retrieval date not needed for printed matter.
Done! —WS
  • #31 — Any reason to cite a Ph.D. dissertation?
  • #36 — Missing date.
Done! —WS
  • #37 — I'm confused by "Catalogues Raisonnés in Preparation. or Art Research (IFAR)-Catalogues Raisonnés in Preparation".
Looks like when I used the cite helper, it weirdly cut off the front of the full site name. I've set the publisher to "International Foundation for Art Research" —WS
  • #38 — Missing author.
Done! —WS
  • #39 — Missing author. Missing date. Missing retrieval date.
Done! —WS
  • #42 — The Boston Globe may as well be linked. And any reason "The" is not included?
Done! (There wasn't.) —WS
  • General — What's the reasoning behind red linking some, but not all, journals?
Gone through all the citejournals and added in WLs–turns out most of them have articles already. —WS

Further reading

  • Inconsistency between "Rhode Island" and "R.I."
Switched so both use spelled-out state name. —WS
  • Why are only initials given for Otto's first name? Any OCLC, or link to it online?
The Holland thesis and Perry book only gave initials for their citation of the article. This looks to have been by a Joseph K. Ott (I had mistyped his last name). I cannot find any other digital reference to it with Worldcat, Google Scholar, or just plain search engines. —WS
Are you sure "1828–1901: " is part of the title? Searching for the just "The Barbizon School in Providence" on Google turns up a few hits (although it remains admittedly obscure). --Usernameunique (talk) 05:25, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ach, you're right—year range removed from the title. —WS


This version looked at. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:22, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Additional points

  • Notes 1 and 3 should have footnotes, not full citations.
  • As pointed out above (with the Maryon example), note 2 could say "appears in Simmons 1887, pp. 1127–1131.", with "Simmons 1887" a link to the full work (which could appear in "Further reading" or a separate "Bibliography" section). But I'll leave this up to you. --Usernameunique (talk) 03:14, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've done both of the above (I was having trouble with the sfn template, so I used harvnb instead). Let me know what you think! —Wingedserif (talk) 14:23, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wingedserif, I've changed the formatting of the notes to allow for footnotes. See what you think of my edits—it's what I had in mind with the above comments. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:34, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thank you for stepping in—as I mentioned, I'm not too familiar with the citing templates you mentioned, even with the examples, so I wasn't sure what you were asking for. I do think that I will remove the in-note pp. range for Simmons—since the range is already in the full ref, I don't think we need to have it duplicated. —Wingedserif (talk) 02:36, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Use of theses edit

I wanted to centralize the questions about this article's compliance w/ WP:SCHOLARSHIP here, for everybody's ease of reference. In short, the article as it is now cites often to two theses (one MA, one PhD), which is normally discouraged.

The solution for the Lee Costa art history MA thesis should be easy but will take some time on my part. Lee Costa's thesis was republished in a scholarly edited collection Locating American Art. I can't find a copy online, so I am going to try to track one down so that I can confirm whether my current citations are still valid (since we have no idea how the text may have changed in the publication process). Similarly, some of its aesthetic judgments are sourced to an article by Gwendolyn DuBois Shaw, "Landscapes of Labor"—I'm going to try to get access to that as well.

The Holland PhD thesis I am less sure of. I have gone through and switched as many citations as I can to other sources. However, Holland's thesis is the longest, most comprehensive work on Bannister I've been able to find. There are details I have only been able to confirm through her thesis (which might raise questions of whether those details are WP:DUE or not), and I think most are worth keeping. Bannister did have quite an impact in his early works and I think it's worth discussing his artistic style in depth; to do so, Holland's thesis discusses Bannister's work in the context of the cultural environment of Boston and the comparative works of Bannister's colleagues. Holland acknowledges the guidance of David Driskell, an expert in African American art, and Lynda Roscoe Hartigan, a renowned curator, in her thesis, as well as that of two Columbia advisers, Barbara Novak and Suzanne Blier. The thesis was cited in a handful of other theses, as well as the academic books Hopes and Expectations: The Origins of the Black Middle Class in Hartford (Beeching 2016), Child of the Fire: Mary Edmonia Lewis and the Problem of Art History’s Black and Indian Subject (Buick 2010), Diaspora and Visual Culture: Representing Africans and Jews (Mirzoeff 2014) and the non-academic The Other Side of Color: African American Art in the Collection of Camille O. and William H. Cosby, Jr (Driskell, Cosby, Hanks 2001). Holland's encyclopedia article and exhibition catalog (the publication of the latter was before her PhD) on him are also cited in this article—I think her work is generally reliable.

I'll leave it there for now; I'm curious to hear what people's concern with the sources and specific citations are. —Wingedserif (talk) 03:34, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've replaced the Costa MA thesis with citations to her published book chapter. I've also added the Du Bois Shaw article, which has allowed me to replace a few Holland thesis citations and in other cases add an additional citation in support. —Wingedserif (talk) 20:51, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What about Abbot? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:15, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Abbot thesis I'm essentially just using to say "this gallery displayed Bannister works during this time", which I do not think is an extraordinary claim. I have also supported the claim with a web source. The published thesis has been cited in (at least) African American Artists and the Art Market and The Routledge Companion to African American Art History. —Wingedserif (talk) 14:43, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Coord note edit

Hi Nikkimaria and Usernameunique, could I get a sense of where we're at from your perspectives re. sources? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:19, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Have replied on a number of points above. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:15, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've left a few comments above about the formatting in the notes section. That will be easy to clear up and then I'll be signed off. I would also note that given the explanations regarding the theses above (and the fact that the remaining masters thesis is used for one, minor, point), I'm not concerned about their use. --Usernameunique (talk) 03:16, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Wingedserif, looking over this with a view to promotion but could we pls have a citation for the final statement under House? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:14, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just added a citation for the year of the sale and university ownership program. I removed the professor's name because I didn't find it listed in any of the news articles about the house renovation—I just don't think it's WP:DUE. Let me know if there's anything else! —Wingedserif (talk) 11:51, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley edit

  • "he and Christiana Carteaux moved out of their home on College Hill in Providence, Rhode Island". This could imply that they became homeless. I would say where they moved to.
    • Done —WS
  • "until institutions like the National Museum of African Art brought him back to national attention in the United States" Maybe add when. 1970s?
    • Done —WS
  • "Hannah Alexander Bannister". No change needed, but my mother also had the second name Alexander, her mother's maiden name. I wonder whether Hannah had that second name for the same reason.
  • "The brothers' role as barbers and status as mixed race". This is stated as if you have already covered their mixed race. It should be covered above.
    • This one is hard to decide what to do about—sources are divided about the parentage of Bannister: some say his mother was white, others disagree, and there's simply not that much information about his parents. Furthermore, the point is more how the brothers were perceived; the Holland source quote is "Bannister's place in Boston's black community also derived from his designation as a light-skinned African American [...], his middle-class profession [...], and upper-class aspirations. ... Edward and William Bannister, both identified in the 1850 census as mulattos, benefited from this group's greater opportunities for employment and social mobility". I'd prefer to leave the sentence as is, mentioned at the part of his life where the source discusses it. What do you think? —Wingedserif (talk) 14:44, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the points you are making here are worth adding to the article - the disagreement in sources about his mother's race where you mention her above, and identification in census as mulatto. In view of the importance of race in Bannister's life, the more detail the better Dudley Miles (talk) 15:10, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added more detail to the initial note about Bannister's parentage, to explain how this article's major sources have dealt with the uncertainty. Let me know if you think that works, —Wingedserif (talk) 03:46, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am still confused. You say possibly Barbadian parents, which would usually imply both black. One could be white Barbadian, but this needs explanation and the note says nothing about possible Barbadian parentage of his mother. Holland contradicts herself saying he was mixed race and both parents of African descent. The latter must be wrong as he said in census he was mulatto. Maybe leave out Holland's views on the subject if she does not make sense. Bannister saying mulatto in census should be mentioned and implies mother not African and this needs discussion in the main text. I realise this is difficult in view of the confusion in the sources but it needs sorting out for the reader. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:51, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • More detail just isn't in the most-used/most-extensive sources, and they do contradict one another. It's difficult to interpret Holland's writing on the subject because the change from source to source might be the result of more research, or just a change in her opinion. I am reticent to use the term "mulatto" in the article since, at that time, US census takers were the ones who determined the race entry for individuals—all it records is how he was perceived by a census taker on that day; I don't think it's a good indicator of overall social treatment. I think the best option, if explaining all the source discrepancies is too confusing, is to cut the note down. —Wingedserif (talk) 15:59, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I misunderstood you on mulatto - I thought you meant that it was his own description. How about changing "near the St. Croix River, to possibly Barbadian parents." to something like "near the St. Croix River. His father was black Barbadian and his mother's parentage is uncertain, but he was regarded as mixed race." I think you could cut down the note as it has some speculation which is not very relevant. Also I forgot to ask, were barbers then regarded as middle-class professionals? Dudley Miles (talk) 16:42, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I changed that first sentence to use your wording and cut down the note. I did keep the hypothesis about the Black Loyalists because it's mentioned twice in sources. In the context for the quote I provided above, Holland indicates that barbers were a middle-class profession. —Wingedserif (talk) 15:21, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps worth mentioning that Christiana was of mixed African American and Narragansett Indian parentage?
    • Done —WS
  • "Bannister's colleague, Jacob R. Andrews" Colleague in what?
    • Done. Andrews framed other Bannister paintings and he was also a member of the Histrionic Club. —WS
  • "solar plates". This needs a link or an explanatory note.
    • Done, linked to cyanotype —WS
  • "Prudence Nelson Bell". This is formatted as a link to a Commons file. I thought external links in text were forbidden. Nikkimaria have I got that wrong?
  • Correct, that shouldn't be linked like that. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:01, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done, removed link —WS
  • "despite Gould Shaw's Boston Brahmin background." I do not think you need "despite" as he was a strong abolitionist.
    • Going to push back on this. The Kresser source says, "[Brahmin abolitionists] did not consider African American social equality an end in itself, nor did they wish their moral efforts to be relativized through association with a particular cause. Their worldview did not recognize material definitions of social justice; consequently, it did not sanction a regime in which identifiable groups fought and negotiated for equal measures of esteem, goods, or opportunity." Later, "While Lewis and Bannister acted quickly to celebrate Shaw’s legacy, Boston’s Brahmin class, a ponderous collective both deeply conservative and tortuously discreet, worked slowly but purposefully toward a visual interpretation of its own." That "despite" expresses that Bannister's portrait stands in opposition to the Brahmins' self-identification and was used for a specific, practical purpose (the relief fair) opposed to the Brahmins' form of abolitionism. If you'd like me to make that connection more explicit, I can try—I had a hard time representing the source material in writing that part of the article. —Wingedserif (talk) 14:26, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that if you say "despite" it would be helpful to explain why. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:10, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I took a stab at this, which involved reordering a couple paragraphs as well, to help make the point. —Wingedserif (talk) 03:46, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not understand "abstract ideals of Boston Brahmin abolitionists" or "indifferent martyr". Dudley Miles (talk) 14:51, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the first, I have written an explanatory sentence that is a paraphrase of the citation quote. For the second, can you suggest a replacement or say what you do not understand? "Indifferent" is the simplest word I can think of to express the idea that the Brahmin representation's of Gould Shaw showed him as an unengaged, idealized martyr, not one that was invested in the cause he died for. —Wingedserif (talk) 15:59, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about replacing "the Boston Brahmins tried to redefine Gould Shaw as an indifferent martyr" to "the Boston Brahmins portrayed him as having died for a cause he did not greatly care about"? Dudley Miles (talk) 16:42, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I get what your suggestion is going for; I'm trying to think of a more concise replacement... what if I changed the sentence to this?: "Through art like the 1884 Robert Gould Shaw Memorial, the Boston Brahmins tried to reject the possessive "Our Martyr" label given to him by Black artists like Bannister and Edmonia Lewis." —Wingedserif (talk) 15:21, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That seems OK to me but I would say "rejected" rather than "tried to reject". Dudley Miles (talk) 11:05, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Bannister eventually studied at the Lowell Institute with the artist William Rimmer for about a year." When?
    • Done, while Rimmer taught at the Institute between 1863 to 1865; I think that's as specific as it gets in the sources. —Wingedserif (talk) 14:26, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "sailing Narragansett Bay" sailing in or sailing around?
  • More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:03, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Unlike the Hudson River School style,[1]:49 Bannister did not create meticulous landscapes". It sounds odd to say that Bannister was unlike a style. Maybe "Unlike the Hudson River School artists,[1]:49 Bannister did not create meticulous landscapes["
    • Done! —WS
  • "Approaching Storm". Another external link which should be removed. You could add "(see right)" instead.
    • Done! —WS
  • "In one work, Hay Gatherers, Bannister depicts African American field laborers that combines his rural landscapes with a representation of the racial oppression and labor exploitation that marked Rhode Island". This is ungrammatical.
    • Split this up into two sentences to make it grammatical. —WS
  • "he combined a seemingly idealized landscape with his early political practice". Combining a landscape with practice sounds odd to me.
    • I think I've made the two elements sound more compatible. —WS
  • "Rhode Island College dedicated its Art Gallery in Bannister's name with the exhibition: Four From Providence: Alston, Bannister, Jennings & Prophet" I do not know what "dedicated its Art Gallery" means in this context. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:00, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not see anything about the exhibition in the source. Perhaps "The Rhode Island Heritage Hall of Fame inducted Bannister in 1976 and Rhode Island College's art is exhibited in Bannister Gallery, named in his honor." Dudley Miles (talk) 15:14, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found the exhibition pamphlet information, to keep the title. I do think keeping the year is important. —Wingedserif (talk) 00:02, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Looks fine now, although some of the references may become dead in the future so you might consider running the archiving bot at [10]. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:20, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for taking the time to review the page! I just ran the IA bot to archive the web sources. —Wingedserif (talk) 17:48, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 30 August 2021 [11].

Star Control 3 edit

Nominator(s): Shooterwalker (talk) 00:20, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a classic video game from the mid 1990s. It was well-received on release, but lives in the shadow of Star Control II, not to mention the bankruptcy of the publisher just a few years later that led to an intellectual property split which unceremoniously ended the series. Still, the game has a legacy of its own and is worth highlighting, coming up on its 25th anniversary in just over 7 weeks.

My hope is to get this to featured quality by the time of its anniversary, and I'm willing to work extra hard to make that a reality. A lot of work has been put in already, including a peer review and a good article nomination. I'm confident that the research is comprehensive and thorough, and that there are no issues with image copyright. I'd like to think the prose is in good shape too, but there's always a few good suggestions in the FA process. Thanks in advance to the reviewers and looking forward to working on this. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:20, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I received permission from the committee to open this FA nomination. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:22, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Sandbh edit

Support.

  1. In the Plot section, who is The Captain?
  2. In the Design and Production section, it says, "smoothly on a 486". What is a 486?
  3. Should the article say something about the bankruptcy of the publisher just a few years later that led to an intellectual property split which unceremoniously ended the series?

The FAC criteria appear met to me although I cannot speak for the media in terms of compliance with image use policy. Sandbh (talk) 05:28, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Sandbh: All three of these are good suggestions and I added some short phrases to clarify. Let me know if there's anything else. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:53, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first two were well done. Can't see any action taken wrt to the last one. Sandbh (talk) 23:52, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This image [12], at 16K, is too small for an FA article. Sandbh (talk) 23:58, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Sandbh: I improved the phrasing around the fate of the sequel. Otherwise, I've decided to leave the better coverage of the series at the main article. I'm wary of going off on a tangent about the whole IP history after Star Control 3. (The copyright reverted to the original creators, but not the trademark, leading to a game called The Ur-Quan Masters, which followed from Star Control II, but not Star Control 3, which is the main topic here. It gets really pedantic.) I've tweaked it and left it at a good point, to avoid (a) going off-topic, (b) being redundant, (c) those redundancies turning into a WP:CONTENTFORK over time.
  • The image is a tricky thing. As you can see from the history, a bot came along and shrunk it. There is a comparable image here, but I've always had a hard time uploading, and I'm not sure if a bot will come along and shrink it again anyway.
I know that's not quite what you suggested, but hopefully that addresses the remaining issues. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:15, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Shooterwalker: Good. Could you try adding a nobots template to the article, and uploading a higher res image? Sandbh (talk) 00:44, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Before attempting something like that, please take a look at WP:IMAGERES. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:58, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Sandbh: The WP:IMAGERES link from Nikkimaria indicates that the image is already at the high end. Instead of wrestling with this guidance, I tweaked the image caption so the reader gets what they need from it. It's always tricky when I'm getting conflicting advice here, but this is my best effort to thread that needle. Let me know if this is acceptable now. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:42, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Sandbh: Checking back in one more time to see if you had time to read the comment from Nikkimaria. Hoping I found an acceptable alternative. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:37, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Shooterwalker: All good by me. Sandbh (talk) 07:40, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again! Shooterwalker (talk) 22:15, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Lee Vilenski edit

I'll begin a review of this article very soon! My reviews tend to focus on prose and MOS issues, especially on the lede, but I will also comment on anything that could be improved. I'll post up some comments below over the next couple days, which you should either respond to, or ask me questions on issues you are unsure of. I'll be claiming points towards the wikicup once this review is over.

Lede
  • Star Control 3 is a 1996 action-adventure game developed by Legend Entertainment. It is the third installment in the Star Control trilogy. - could probably merge these. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:10, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lede sentences usually cover the publisher. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:10, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added the publisher and platforms, which makes each sentence longer. Kept them separate for readability. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:53, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lede feels a little short, it goes from the lede sentence into the plot. For instance, it doesn't cover the release dates, the consoles it was released on, and not much development info. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:10, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • mysterious collapse of hyperspace - this doesn't mean much to a reader without prior knowledge Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:10, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think actually explaining how the game works, rather than pointing out changes from SC2 would be helpful. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:10, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarified the main gameplay that ties the series together. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:53, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think a link is required for "sequel". Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:10, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Combat offers more detailed steering and aiming, as well as additional player versus player multiplayer options - is this online? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:10, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is from a very early period that included many player vs player options, not just online. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:53, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Prose
  • The body of an article needs to also be written as if the lede didn't exist. I'd recommend something explaining what Star Control as a series is first. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:16, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is hard to explain as each game is quite different. But I rephrased this to start with what's the same instead of what's different. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:53, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The gameplay results around how it differs from Star Control 2, rather than how the game actually plays. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:16, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tried to rephrase some of this, so it feels less like a comparison and more like an explanation of the series' evolution. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:53, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • All three of the original Star Control games feature 2D "melee" ship combat.[10] Star Control 3 offers the overhead viewpoint from the first two games, as well as a new 2.5D pseudo-3D viewpoint - I have no idea what this means. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:16, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tried to rephrase this with less jargon and more wikilinks. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:53, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • multiplayer player versus player - isn't the first thing implied by the second? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:16, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • network, modem, and serial connections - seems a bit in depth? Why not "online"? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:16, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was a big turning point in game history, and using a local area network was sometimes easier than using the internet. It's unique to this period of gaming and I doubt many games still offer that feature anymore. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:53, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Much of the game involves dialog with alien races, each with unique personalities - but what does this actually do? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:16, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • assembled a "bible" - might need esplaination - I'm assuming this is some sort of cheat sheet. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:20, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The story expands on the mystery of the Precursors' disappearance, and introduces new enemies in the form of the Hegemonic Crux - this isn't really development. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:20, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • inches-thick + not needed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:20, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The team eventually finished 24 alien characters and animations - this reads like there was 24 animations... Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:20, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • (the first Star Control game for Sega consoles since the original),[23 - seems like trivia. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:22, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The game was also delayed - no need for this sentence. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:22, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "modern computers" WP:RECENTISM Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:22, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aren't sales sections usually after the critical reception? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:25, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I forget where the MOS is for reception sections, but my understanding is that we don't state scores for the reviews in the prose if they are in the box. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:25, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to Metacritic, Star Control 3 has a score of 89% based on the reviews of 5 critics, indicating "generally favorable" reviews. - "according to review aggregator website Metacritic, the game recieved "generally favourable" reviews. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:25, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reception is probably the weakest point - it pretty much just gives a summary of the publications, rather than give critical insight. Generally we make a point, and comment on that with the reviews. There's quite a few reviews in the review box, but the section is quite small. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:27, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comments
  • These must have creeped in from another editor. Fixed them. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:53, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:23, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Lee Vilenski: Tried to address all of these, with comments. I agree that the gameplay needed a clearer sequence, to explain the gameplay properly to an outside reader. Hopefully it's in better shape now. Happy to keep running with this. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:53, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Lee Vilenski: Did another round of revisions, attempting to address these through re-phrasing and re-organizing. Sales sections usually fit wherever they flow the best, for example at the start with Chrono Trigger. I took a crack at re-phrasing the reception section somewhat. I've actually been advised to not draw any critical insight from the reviews, instead using Wikipedia's neutral summary style. But I tried to expand on the main themes – the combination of different gameplay, the story and characters, and the comparisons to Star Control II – while still erring on the side of concision. Thanks for the thorough review and hopefully that addresses your comments. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:42, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was just thinking something per WP:RECEPTION. I'll take another read through. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:13, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Lee Vilenski: I came back to it with a fresh perspective. I try to avoid synthesizing together sources, but this felt like it was a pretty plain observation that helps summarize the reviews. Hopefully the section gives a clearer overview about where the critics landed now. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:37, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • No problem. Drop me a line when/if you have covered all the points above and I'll take another read. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:40, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Lee Vilenski: I think I did! Apologies if that wasn't clear. I worked through your last round of comments, along with multiple passes on the reception now. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:46, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for the review and the support. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:15, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Viridian Bovary edit

Hi, my comments are mostly general as I'm not familiar with video game articles. Please let me know if you disagree with any of them. --Viridian Bovary (talk) 12:42, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • All images should have ALT text.
  • I don't think the wikilink on "published" is needed but I guess it's fine to keep it.
  • As the third installment in the Star Control trilogy, the game was released for the personal computer in 1996 and the Macintosh in 1998. I suggest removing the "As" at the beginning.
  • The single-player mode is similar to the previous game, combining space exploration, alien dialogue, and ship-to-ship combat. How about: The game employs a single-player mode that is similar to the previous installment, combining space exploration, alien dialogue, and ship-to-ship combat.
  • I have a query. Shouldn't the sentence about the game's release come after the discussion of it's development in the lede?
  • Star Control 3 features a 2D "melee" ship combat system, similar to that of the first two games. I don't know what a "melee" is. Perhaps you should link it to melee.
  • I'm not sure who "the Captain" is.
  • It debuted on PC Data's computer game sales charts at #11 in September 1996, and climbed to tenth place the following month. According to MOS:NUM, Comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all figures: we may write either 5 cats and 32 dogs or five cats and thirty-two dogs, not five cats and 32 dogs. So I think either the "11" or the "tenth" should be altered.
  • I think it'd be better if you could try paraphrasing the PC Gamer's quote.
  • I can see some repetitions of "gave the game" / "Giving the game" some stars. I think it's better if you can revise these sentences to avoid over-use.

This is all for now. Nice work on the article. :) I shall have a look at it again once my initial comments are addressed. I have a current FAC open and would welcome any comments. Thank you. --Viridian Bovary (talk) 12:48, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Viridian Bovary: I just tried my best to fix these issues. "Melee" and "captain" are terms from the games, so I tried my best to clarify that. I'm getting a bit of conflicting advice on where to put the release information, but User:Lee Vilenski is right that this is probably standard. (See Chrono Trigger or Halo: Combat Evolved Anniversary.) Hopefully that addresses all your comments. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:15, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definitely much improved but I'd suggest paraphrasing the PC gamer's quote since it's a tad too long.
  • Reception looks much better now. If you don't mind, I've copy-edited it slightly. Also, I have a few other comments.
  • I think the sentence: The gameplay is distinct from the rest of the series,[2] combining gameplay from the first two games with new game mechanics of its own. sounds a bit tedious; "game" is repeated too many times in the sentence. I suggest rewording it.
  • Each alien race has a unique ship, with a unique weapon and secondary ability. I feel there is a better way of saying this without using "unique" twice.
  • Where the first two games allowed two players to play at the same keyboard, the game includes new multiplayer modes for network, modem, and serial connections. I suggest specifying Star Control 3 in place of the game.
  • The combat controls allow more degrees of rotation than the prior games, with more detailed aiming, steering, and scaling. I think "than the prior games," is a redundancy.
  • The dialog screens feature digitized full motion video of mechanical puppets, instead of the 2D animated pixel art of the previous games. I suggest rewording it to: As opposed to the 2D animated pixel art of the previous games, the dialog screens feature digitized full motion video of mechanical puppets.
@Viridian Bovary: The copy-edits much are appreciated. Good catch on some of the redundancies that definitely felt tedious. I rolled back just one quote, as the operative part of "more than make up for it" is really the "more than" part. I also kept the phrasing of about the dialog screens, as inverting the structure sets it up to talk about all of the art. But those small things aside, let me know if there is anything else. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:15, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies for the prose nitpicks and thank you for following those up. Happy to support this for promotion. Well done. --Viridian Bovary (talk) 04:45, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

  • Check grammar in captions
  • Don't use fixed px size
  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:StarControl3_Solarsystem_View.png needs a stronger FUR. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:18, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Nikkimaria: Thanks for the review. Fixed the captions, sizing, alt text, and FUR. Let me know if I missed anything. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:15, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please double-check the Bates caption - still seems like it's missing words. Also alts shouldn't need to be nowiki. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:43, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, still not clear: "their" could refer to Accolade, or to Bates' team, and I'm not sure which. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:50, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Check-in with coordinators edit

  • @FAC coordinators: Wanted to check-in here. There are 3 general reviews that are supportive, and 1 image review that is neutral-to-supportive. The anniversary for this game is September 24th and the window is starting to close on TFA selections, but I also understand that we need to follow the process until we're sure this is FA quality. Is there a sense of what this article might still need for this nomination to succeed? I can prioritize trying to reach out to editors who are willing to help with the right things. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:07, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query noted. Advice sought. Hang on.
  • It needs a source review and I have listed it at requests.
  • In terms of obtaining a speedy promotion, another general review, preferably by an experienced reviewer, would help.
Gog the Mild (talk) 19:22, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Update: the TFA scheduler for September has said that if it is promoted in the next month or so they will run it on the 24th. (You owe me a favour. ;-) ) Gog the Mild (talk) 19:33, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The TFA scheduling is a huge boon, thank you. I don't know any Wikipedians in high places, but I can offer my work and my time. Reach out on my talk page if you think of anything. (In the meantime, let me see if I can scare up some more reviews for this nomination.) Shooterwalker (talk) 15:08, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Scared-straight comments Support from Panini! edit

AH! You scared me. Alright, I guess I'll review it.

Lead + Infobox
  • It doesn't seem like the release dates are backed with references in the body, so the infobox could be a good place to do so.
  • This could apply to writers, designers, etc. as well. Wait, do they even need to be cited? I don't know, let me ask WT:VG. Nevermind, you cite them in the body. Alright, hotshot, the article isn't perfect so quit trying to think 2-5 steps ahead of me.
  • I think the installment is spelled incorrectly with one l here. It might be on purpose (outside of U.S. spelling, but other examples of this in the text don't seem to exist from my search through.
  • This doesn't seem changed
  • Accolade is linked a second time in the third paragraph. I know the company is great and all but it must be humbled.
  • Hyperspace, I also discovered, is linked twice as well.
  • "Star Control 3 was considered a critical and commercial success upon release." This could be followed by a couple of why's.
Gameplay
  • I think the first paragraph is too small for it to be split from the subheader below it.
  • The combat section is only two paragraphs long, and small ones at that, which makes me think they can be combined. From there, I believe the ship combat header could be removed because it breaks up the already small paragraphs.
  • The interactive story header is fine, but the image should really be moved to the right if it's not a bother. It's causing a massive gap between the image and the Plot header and it also moves the text away from the interactive story header as well.
  • The word "combat" is repeated a lot in short succession in the ship combat paragraphs.
  • "Players can instantaneously travel around the sector using a "warp bubble" device, in contrast to hyperspace travel in Star Control II." From a readthrough, the difference between the two is not obvious, so I assume other readers might struggle with this too.
  • "The player's allies invent this warp device in response to a hyperspace collapse, which becomes the subject of the player's investigation." This doesn't seem to explain gameplay and rather explains why the tech exists (Plot). This should be explained in the Plot section, and if it's already there, this can be removed.
  • The last paragraph switches from dialogue to dialog.

The Plot was a fun read. Good Job!

Development
  • The image doesn't necessarily need to specify that Bates is pictured above, as he is all that's there.
  • In fact, if possible, I'd crop the other guy out. The image could easily be cut to half its size without messing with its focus.
  • Now would be a good time to hyperlink Accolade, where it appears in the first paragraph. What a big ego that company has.
  • The last sentence of the first paragraph and the first sentence of the second paragraph can be combined; they talk about similar things but are split up.
  • I think a picture of these "mechanical puppets" would be beneficial. It's hard to visualize what these things are.
Reception + Legacy
  • The PC Game Parade source is unused apart from the table; I assume it's because it's a publication you don't have access to, but I've been told that reviews that only appear in the table shouldn't be mentioned.
  • Normally when I have a sales or awards section that's too small, I combine it with the review aggregator paragraphs or put it above the aggregator paragraph. Since the sales section is two lines long (Chromebook), I would say it doesn't need its own subheader.
  • "A few publications were critical of the game's strategy-based colony system, while still recommending the game overall." I like this sentence! Reception section for individual video games should mix general critical thoughts and individual ones, and this currently is the only instance of this.
  • I would also move the award paragraph upward; see my note above.
  • Kotaku should be italicized in the second paragraph of Legacy

I don't have this page on my watchlist, so please ping me in response. I might have a GA up soon (maybe) but QPQ isn't necessary. Panini!🥪 14:46, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Panini!: Thanks so much for the review! I was able to address most of the comments, but I've always had issues with images on my computer. If you have the time and energy, I think your suggestions are good ones. A quick google search for "Star Control 3 puppets" would easily pull up many examples of what the prose is describing. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:00, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Shooterwalker, I added the image. I'm gonna need you to write an alt text because as I've never played the game I can't describe where they are or if the border is a computer or something like that. This image was the best quality one I found, but if you'd like something I can take another look. In addition, would you like me to crop the image of Bates? Panini!🥪 19:02, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I also put two notes above. Panini!🥪 19:18, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Panini!: Thanks for helping out with the image. I adjusted the caption and the alt text. I also addressed the comments above. With these changes, the Reception section summarizes the general opinion of each reviewer, as well as summarizing a few points across the reviews – the writing, the combat, and the strategy system. I feel that there are diminishing returns when you start going into too much detail, and retreading the same reviewers again and again, so I think this is hopefully the right balance. I appreciate your help, and I wouldn't mind cropping the Bob Bates image if you have the time and energy. Hopefully that's everything. Shooterwalker (talk) 04:29, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks, good; Support. I'll crop the image later today, probably. Panini!🥪 12:25, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from IceWelder edit

The article looks good overall but there are some things I think should be addressed:

Infobox
  • Link Daniel Greenberg (game designer).
  • Should Andrew Frazier be credited as the composer?
  • The MS-DOS release date is sourced using the game's Metacritic page. We know that these dates are taken from the user-edited GameFAQs, which is unreliable. The source should be replaced.
  • The Mac OS date is not sourced anywhere; the body only mentions the year.
  • Handled most of these. Unfortunately I couldn't find anything to back up the Mac OS release date. Let me know how I should handle it, as I did a pretty exhaustive search on the web, and in print. Shooterwalker (talk) 04:56, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
  • ... the game was released for the personal computer in 1996 and the Macintosh in 1998 – Macs are also personal computers; just use MS-DOS and Mac OS like in the infobox.
  • Planetary exploration is also replaced with ... – Redundant 'also'.
  • Consider linking Space warfare for "ship-to-ship combat".
  • The "instantaneous" in "instantaneous fast travel" feels superfluous as that is the definition of fast travel.
  • ... as well as additional player versus player multiplayer options – Should be "player-versus-player" and MOS:SEAOFBLUE should be fixed (e.g. by unlinking "multiplayer").
  • Game publisher Accolade hired Legend Entertainment ... – "Game publisher" is redundant here as Accolade was introduced as such a few sentences prior.
Gameplay
  • Star Control 3 is an action-adventure science fiction game with strategic elements. – SEAOFBLUE. Suggestion: is an action-adventure game with strategy elements and a science fiction setting. Otherwise, you can also drop "science fiction".
  • Whereas all three games feature ship-to-ship combat ... – "Whereas" implies a contrast but none follows. Consider: Like its predecessors, Star Control 3 features ship-to-ship combat. Also link space warfare if you did so above.
  • ... which the previous games in the series have called the "melee" mode – "have called" -> "call", as the games still do this.
  • Two starships face off in a space battle, and attempt to ... – This comma should be removed.
  • The combat system is integrated into a single player story mode – "single player" -> "single-player".
  • The player can warp to any star system by clicking on a Super VGA star map with a mouse. – Is the color space of the map relevant here? To improve flow, consider integrating the sentence with the higher-up one that already addresses the "warp bubble" device.
  • The bit about the PWM -> MIDI soundtrack change is not relevant for the Gameplay section. Since it is already mentioned in the Development section, it can just be removed here.
  • Took these all under advisement as well. You're right that the soundtrack part is both off topic and redundant here, and as a bonus, I was able to improve the paragraphing as you suggested later. Shooterwalker (talk) 04:56, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Plot
  • ... the Captain experiments with ancient Precursor artifacts, and creates a new ship that can instantly "warp" between stars without hyperspace. – Unnecessary comma and quotes (link Warp drive if necessary).
  • The Captain eventually traces the origins of the hyperspace collapse to the galactic core, and assembles an alliance of ten alien races to investigate the unexplored quadrant. – "galactic core" is a duplicate link and the comma should be removed as well.
  • "inter-dimensional" should be "interdimensional" (occurs twice)
Development / Hiring and continuity
  • Briefly mention that Accolade published Star Control II and that Ford and Reiche were of developer Toys for Bob (which is mentioned later on).
  • Link George MacDonald (game designer) and Michael J. Lindner.
  • Legend Entertainment also consulted with Ford and Reiche ... – "Legend Entertainment" is used in full here but you use "Legend" just before and after that. Consider striking the 'Entertainment' here for consistency.
  • MacDonald's quote is a full sentence at the source, so the punctuation should be within the quotation marks (MOS:LQ).
Development / Design and production
  • ... a concept document was created by Legend Entertainment founder Mike Verdu – "co-founder".
  • Link animatronic.
  • "SOTAFX" is a company name and should not be in italics.
  • "rendered in CGI" feels like an "ATM machine" situation. Consider "created digitally" (and maybe link that to Computer-generated imagery).
  • Link "blue screen" to Chroma key, "miniature film sets" to Miniature effect
  • Link "isometric" to Isometric video game graphics and remove "pseudo-3D"; "isometric" already infers as much.
  • After that sentence, swap the refs for numerical ordering.
  • "in order to" is usually a filler. I recommend a simple "to".
  • with a different cast from Star Control II is ambiguous. If it means that Star Control II had different voice actors, use "with a cast different from [that of] Star Control II".
  • Link soap operas.
  • Swap the refs after the soundtrack sentence.
  • In the release sentence, replace "Fall" per MOS:SEASON, amend the release date source as noted above, and swap the release and delay reason fragments for flow (e.g. "It was delayed to the complexity ... and finally published on ...").
  • Remove "Sony"; feels redundant here and fixes SEAOFBLUE.
  • but the console port was canceled during development -> but both ports were canceled; "during development" is unnecessary since the cancelation is what stops the development.
  • A version for the Macintosh -> A version for Mac OS (Macintosh is not a singular device).
  • Consider mentioning the 2017 Steam release ([13]) alongside the GOG one.
Reception
  • PC Game Parade should be italicized in the reviews table.
  • PC Games as it is used here is an English-language magazine, while the PC Games on Wikipedia is an unrelated German publication. PC Games should be unlinked in all places (review table, prose, citations) to avoid confusion.
  • Upon its release in 1996, Star Control 3 was considered a commercial success. – "Upon its release in 1996" can be dropped as it would not be considered successful beforehand.
  • PC version -> "MS-DOS version"; Macs are also PCs.
  • calling it one of the best games of the year -> "of 1996".
  • Link Macworld.
  • ... and rated it lower than the PC version -> "than the MS-DOS version".
  • by the additional multi-player mode -> "multiplayer" for consistency.
  • Found another couple reviews while looking for the release date stuff. These suggestions are all helpful and I made good use of them. Shooterwalker (talk) 04:56, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reception / Legacy
  • GOG.com should be unlinked (duplicate link) and not be in italics.
  • The GOG store description appears to be penned by Stardock (the re-publisher) rather than GOG. While the attribution should be fixed, I feel like removing might be the better option as this is a primary-source statement.
  • Critical Hit describes ... – "desribes" -> "described".
  • Critical Hit's quote should end with the punct inside the quote marks as it is a complete sentence at the source.
  • More importantly: Is Critical Hit a reliable source?
  • "suggests" -> "suggested"; "explains" -> "explained.
  • Link and italicize Kotaku and consider crediting the article's author.
  • ... felt that the new character design lost the charm of Star Control 2's digital paintings. – Star Control 2 -> Star Control II for consistency.
  • Italicize Hardcore Gaming 101, "describes" -> "described", correct the contraction "it's", and punct again inside quote marks.
  • Star Control 3 thus marked the last official installment to the series. – What about Star Control: Origins?
  • I addressed most of these. The GOG piece is actually from when Atari was the publisher, but I added a second link to a GOG news update, to drive home that the comment is independent and reliable. The last installment is what several sources say. For context, there was a big intellectual property split, and Origins was unable to license any of the content from the original games. Shooterwalker (talk) 04:56, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Other
  • In the citations, "Staff" and "[Outlet] staff" credits are redundant and should be removed.
  • Some citations use the |publisher= field incorrectly. For example, |publisher=Playstation Plus Vol 1 Issue 10 should be |magazine=PlayStation Plus, |volume=1, |issue=10. I believe this occurs seven times.
  • The citation for Star Control 3 on GOG is duplicated (#39/#50). This will have been resolved already if you removed the ill-attributed GOG statement above.
  • I am not a huge fan of the paragraphing in the Gameplay and Plot sections. It looks a bit messy and a look akin to the Development and Reception sections would be ideal. I will not make my support dependent on this, though.

Regards, IceWelder [✉] 21:20, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for your patience. I cleaned up some of the references, and that should hopefully address some of the comments. Some of the changes allowed me to create a better flow and improve the paragraphing as well. Let me know if there's anything else. Shooterwalker (talk) 04:56, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your changes. I will take a proper look at them as soon as I can (hopefully later today). Regarding the release dates: The September 24, 1996, date for the MS-DOS version appears to be correct, but it should at least cite the original press release instead of Metacritic. The Mac version was released in April 1998 according to MacAddict no. 22, p. 67. I also found this press release if you want to add some context to that. Regards, IceWelder [✉] 08:53, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@IceWelder: Wow, I'm glad I found that MacAddict source. Can't believe I missed the date in there, and thanks for double-checking the sources. Even bigger thanks for digging up those press releases. Keep me posted and hopefully we can wrap this up soon. The 25th anniversary is just a few weeks away. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:15, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Going through my original points, I believe two have not been addressed:
  • The Gameplay section still mentions the star map to be "Super VGA". I feel as though the color space used is irrelevant here, and it is a bit misleading to point this out specifically for the map as seemingly the entire game uses SVGA colors.
  • I am still not convinced that Critical Hit (#46) is a reliable source. The site has no editorial policy to speak of and the editor (and author of that specific article) gives the impression of "gamer-turned-writer" rather than an experienced journalist.
In addition to the above, I believe the GOG store page source (#45) is now obsolete as there are sufficient secondary sources for its two claims. IceWelder [✉] 18:21, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@IceWelder: Those two suggestions are well taken. I removed the Super VGA comment, and also removed Critical Hit. I will start a discussion at WP:VG/RS just in case someone knows more, and the source could be restored. I've gotten some conflicting advice on sources through the FA process, so I'd rather err on the side of more, for those who want them. Thanks again, and hopefully that's everything. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:54, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this. At the current stage, I feel comfortable supporting the nomination. IceWelder [✉] 21:24, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for the review. Happy editing! Shooterwalker (talk) 22:24, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Second check-in with coordinators edit

  • @FAC coordinators: : Wouldn't normally be this persistent, but I'm mindful of the anniversary day approaching. Last we checked, a coordinator said it would be helpful to have one more general review, and a source review. A few weeks later, no specific source review, but we did get two general reviews, which did get into issues around citations and verification. I'm hoping this is enough, but let me know if you have any advice to get more reviewers if they are needed. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:29, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi, looking okay, will probably go through in more detail later today. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:13, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yep, still need that formal source review. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:34, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've already done a regular review, but if it's in a hurry, I can check out sourcing? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:50, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • If you can check source reliability and formatting that'd be great, Lee. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:03, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

Since I was just looking over this, some comments:
Due to lacking access, I will have to leave the book pages for #8/#30 and the questionable {{cite video game}} to Shooterwalker. Regards, IceWelder [✉] 15:26, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Lee Vilenski: I wasn't sure what the policy is around magazines at archive.org, though I thought those were all fair use and policed by that site. I still went ahead and removed them to be safe. As a reviewer I sometimes find it hard to do any kind of source check for articles that are cited to paper sources. I included them in the first place because I thought it might make it easier to do spotchecks, so here is a diff if it helps.
  • I was able to fix the other remaining issues including the page numbers. Thanks to IceWelder for helping with the translation, and indeed, CNET Gamecenter is considered a reliable source when it comes to game sales data. Thanks so much for taking the source-check on. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:30, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I took five statements and checked the citations for those facts, and saw no issues, so happy to support based on sourcing. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:43, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you so much. @FAC coordinators: hopefully between the source reviews and the other general reviews, we are good to proceed. Let me know if you'd like to see anything else. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:44, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 30 August 2021 [14].

1983 World Snooker Championship edit

Nominator(s): BennyOnTheLoose, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:45, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 1983 edition of the World Snooker Championship, won by Steve Davis. This was Davis' second of six championships, as he defeated Cliff Thorburn in the final. Thorburn made the first maximum break in the history of the championships. Benny and I are looking forward to your comments. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:45, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Image licensing looks OK (t · c) buidhe 03:39, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support for prose, from Shooterwalker edit

I'll take a shot at this one. Look for further comments from me shortly. Shooterwalker (talk) 13:25, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

General comments / Lead / Overview

I know we went through this before on other articles in the topic area. So I raise a few things, understanding that consistency and precedent may make these requests moot:

  • "for the purposes of sponsorship" might be excessive detail for the first sentence. It might fit better at the end of the paragraph, when you mention the sponsor.
    • I think it's better to keep it at the start (the name that is), but maybe we don't need to explain that it's due to sponsorship, as it's almost a given. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:13, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The very first world championship seems like excessive detail for the overview, but I respect that other articles have given the history a similar treatment.
  • Above comments aside, the opening of the article is excellent, and very readable.
Qualifying
  • The first sentence might be fine with commas instead of semi-colons. (e.g.: "the Snooker Centre in Sheffield, the Romiley Forum in Stockport, and Redwood Lodge in Bristol.")
  • "equalise" -> I'm used to seeing the word "tie" or "draw". Is this a term specific to snooker?
  • No, I've certainly seen it used for association football. Wiktionary has one of the definitions of equalise/equalize as "(intransitive, sports) To make the scoreline equal by scoring points." Happy to use an alternative, though. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 18:02, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Houlihan won the 17th frame, but with breaks of 52 and 71 Murphy took the next two frames to progress into the second round." -> "Houlihan won the 17th frame, but Murphy took the next two frames with breaks of 52 and 71, allowing him to progress to the next round."
  • "whitewashed" is unclear in its meaning here, as someone less familiar with the game. It probably needs a slight explanation, a blue link, or a less WP:JARGONy synonym.
    • We have linked on the first use of the word earlier in that section Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:59, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
First round
  • "bookmakers favourite" -> "bookmakers' favourite" (unless bookmakers favourite is also some sort of jargon)
  • Higgins led Dean Reynolds, who had taken him to a deciding frame in the second round of the 1982 UK Championship, 5–1 and finished their first session 6–3 ahead. -> the placement of the subphrase between commas here really breaks the flow, and makes this sentence confusing
  • Removed that subphrase as it's not really very relevant to this tournament. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 18:11, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's unclear why the glasses are important enough to be worth mentioning?
  • "10–5 despite suffering from flu symptoms" -> "10–5, despite suffering from flu symptoms"
Second round
  • Given that most of the paragraph is about Higgins vs thorne, maybe it's better to add the Taylor vs Webeniuk sentence to the next paragraph, for organization.
  • "and after Reardon" -> "and, after Reardon"
  • "During the semi-final" -> isn't this the second round?
Quarter-finals
  • "annoyed by referee John Williams who awarded" -> "annoyed by referee John Williams, who awarded"
Semi-finals
  • "Thorburn took the first two frames of the third session, to lead in the match for the first time since he had won the initial two frames." -> am I misunderstanding this, or are the first two frames and initial two frames redundant?
Final
  • "It was Thorburn's third appearance in a World Championship final, after he had been runner-up in 1977 and champion in 1980, and Davis's second, two years after his victory in 1981." -> this is a mouthful and might be more readable as two sentences.
  • "Thorburn then won two frames but Davis finished the first day 12–5 ahead" -> "Thorburn then won two frames, but Davis still finished the first day 12–5 ahead" (emphasizing that two frames was still not enough to overcome him, yet)
  • There are a lot of quotes in the last paragraph, and I recommend re-evaluating if you need them all. Some could be re-stated as a prose summary. I think the first sentence would be a good candidate, just to make the sentence more readable.
Wrap-up
  • The article is quite well written. I was struggling to find prose that was truly less than featured quality, which is a really good sign. The prose doesn't need much more work, in my opinion. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:22, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Shooterwalker, thank you so much for picking up a review.:). Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:09, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Found time to give it a second look over and there is nothing outstanding that would stop this from being featured quality. Happy to support. If you find some time, I have another featured article nomination that could also use a review. No pressure. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:31, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TRM edit

  • Lead is a little short for me, compare it to other, recently-promoted World Snooker Championship articles.
  • "a maximum break of 147 points, becoming the first player to make a maximum break " maximum break repeated.
  • Not convinced you need to link UK.
  • "received a prize of £30,000" only just struck me, didn't the winner also receive a trophy? Only just struck me because remembering Taylor romping up and kissing it...
    • You don't really win the trophy, the same with every sport, you just get to retain it for a year. That's the Joe Davis trophy from the 1920s. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:03, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "on the pink with just two balls remaining." what does that mean (to a non-expert...)?
  • I find the Qualifying section a little hard to follow. It seems to jump back and forth from first to second qualifying round. Can this be put into a more orderly fashion?
  • "qualified directly for the main draw. Wildman received a walkover" these two appear linked, so surely something like "qualified directly for the main draw, receiving a walkover..."?
  • "best-of-19 frame" ->" best-of-19-frame"
  • "priced at 11/8 " could link fixed-odds betting for non-experts. And all bookies had the same price??
  • The source only gives Coral's price, so we probably need this to amend to something like "one bookmaker" or specify which. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:35, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Higgins' -> Higgins's (per MOS I'm sad to say).
  • "increased this to" his lead instead of this.
  • "and won the " -> "before winning the"
  • "only made a highest break of 36 " -> "made a highest break of just 36" (although non-experts may not get how weak this is for a pro).
  • "with high-quality" according to?
  • Removed as I looked in a couple of sources and only saw this claimed in one of them. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:09, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "single frame lead" single-frame
  • "that was tactical" according to?
  • "Thorne added only one further" won rather than added.
  • "Canadian Werbeniuk wanted to watch" was this one of those "peeking round the dividing screen" moments? Can we expand if that's the case? I love those...
  • Feels like the maximum break is almost glossed over, yet it was (and still is) a seminal moment in all of snooker history. Can we add a bit more to that, e.g. Thorbs sinking to his knees, getting congratulations from everyone including Terry etc?
  • "then won six of ... then won the first" repetitive.
  • "match scorers for a second opinion" this is interesting. Did they have TV replays? VAR?
  • "won the next two to" two frames.
  • "2:12 am.[42][35]" order.
  • "to 5-11" en-dash.
  • "to fain the lead" eh?
  • "a simple red" according to whom?
  • "an easy half-ball cut shot" now, I'm not looking for a biblical description here, but this is (a) POV and (b) jargon-tastic.
  • "winning the third frame, and winning" winning winning.
  • Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:32, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Thorburn was exhausted" how do we know that? Perhaps add "according to Everton" or something, we can't state it as fact and then two sentences later give Everton's opinion on the matter as "the truth".
  • Hard to believe that Frank Callan isn't worthy of a link.
  • Redlinked. Time to put something useful into the draft article. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:30, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "match "I know" maybe a comma after match here.
  • "prize money brought Davis's prize money" repetitive.
  • £80,000 to £750,000 is a steep jump, was it as a result of him winning? In the 1982/83 season did he not get that sponsorship etc and just relied on prize money?
  • "Steve Davis wins his second..." full stop.
  • Again, I don't like the table where the frame scores are repeated on either side and literally the only difference is the bold. We must be able to do better than that?
  • Century breaks, I'd (once again) like to see something delineating the breaks from the names, e.g. a colon.

That's all I have. Apologies again for the delay. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:36, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We haven't quite finished working through these, I'll get to them tomorrow. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:41, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I was waiting until the comments had been responded to in full... The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:01, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Aoba47 edit

  • For this part, and broadcast on BBC television, I would link to BBC Television to clarify why the television part is necessary. When I first read this part, I did not believe the "television" part was entirely necessary. However, I am an American so I know absolutely nothing about the BBC.
  • For this part, the bookmakers' favourite, would it be possible to avoid the disambiguation page?
  • For this part, Dennis Taylor wore glasses, the glasses link seems unnecessary to me.
  • I have a question about the miscarriage sentence. How does this tie into this championship? Did Thorburn or the media discuss this as having some sort of effect on him and how he played? If not, it seems out-of-place here and better suited for the Cliff Thorburn article.
    • BennyOnTheLoose might know more. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:30, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks, Aoba47. I've had a look in a few sources, including Thorburn's autobiography, and removed the miscarriage sentence, as the effect on Thorburn doesn't seem to have been crucial to he outcome of the semi-final or final. Regards, 19:36, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thank you for checking this. I really appreciate that you took the time to double-check everything. Aoba47 (talk) 20:50, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These are my only comments. I believe the article is well-written and engaging (even to a reader like me who knows absolutely nothing about snooker; I do not mean that in a negative way, but it is just not something I have experience with myself). My comments are focused on the prose. I hope this is helpful. Once my above comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this FAC for promotion. Have a great rest of your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 02:17, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for your responses. Aoba47 (talk) 01:05, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Everything looks good to me. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 20:50, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by Girth Summit edit

  • Overview: The first two sentences of the second paragraph are in the past tense, but the third sentence starts 'The players are selected...' - is this intentional? Is it because the first two sentences no longer hold true for the current version of the event, but the third one does? Just wonder whether this could be made clearer.
  • Qualifying/first round: should we introduce the fact that Williams was world billiards champion the first time he is mentioned?
  • Consider linking 'flu symptoms' to Influenza (and whether 'flu' is informal, should we write the whole word?)
  • Second round: 'the latest finish for a snooker match at the crucible' - is it possible to clarify whether that means 'at that time', or whether the record still holds?
  • I think it's still true, but I don't have a link to confirm that. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:11, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Semi-finals: the final sentence seems to end with a comma rather than a full stop - it looks like something been accidentally cut off, the sentence is incomplete.
  • Final: The sentence about Davis's speech doesn't quite make sense to me. " ...and said that his father, and his coach Frank Callan, were the only two people in that could help him with snooker." Is something missing, or is there a stray word? Should it be "the only two people in his life that could help him with snooker", or similar?
  • Entirely unactionable comment: I feel bad for John Virgo that that's the only picture we have available of him.

Otherwise, an enjoyable read, and thoroughly researched. I expect to support this once the comments above have been addressed. Girth Summit (blether) 14:29, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to support, nice work. Girth Summit (blether) 18:05, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass edit

Will do. Hog Farm Talk 16:18, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Who is Chris Turner and what makes "Chris Turner's Snooker Archive" a reliable source?
    • Chris Turner is probably the most well respected snooker statistician out there. His archive sadly was no longer updated from around 2010, but it's a fantastic source. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:05, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " "Official 147s". wst.tv. World Snooker Tour. Archived from the original on 22 July 2020. Retrieved 2 August 2020." - you aren't adding the website for the other web refs, and I think it's obvious enough that "wst.tv" is short for "World Snooker Tour" that the wst.tv should be removed
  • Morrison 1989 needs page numbers
  • No action needed: (just noting for posterity) Downer is self-published, but the work is heavily used and meets WP:SPS
  • ""The Top 10 sporting epics". Eurosport UK. 30 January 2012. Archived from the original on 11 May 2012. Retrieved 11 May 2012." - the original webpage redirects to homepage, and the archive is dead for me. Is this a temporary error for the archive?
I think so? It's hard to believe that Eurosport, a mediacomglomorate was once held on a yahoo site, but it is true. I'll check round for a better archive. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:25, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spot checked a few sources, and no issues uncovered.

That's it for my source review. Hog Farm Talk 16:32, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie891 edit

Will review. I have an open FAC, if you're interested

  • "The defending champion was Alex Higgins, who defeated Ray Reardon 18–15 in the 1982 championship final" I'd prefer to have the year mentioned earlier since before here you're establishing context-- its unclear until the end of the sentence that the champion is defending in 1983, so maybe something along the lines of "The defending champion in 1983... in the last year's championship final"
  • Our article is at BBC Television, should the t be capitalized?
    • I think this is a context thing. The brand is "BBC Television", whilst we are talking about television on the BBC, which is why I originally only linked the BBC. I can't say I particularly care either way, however. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:36, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps consider inflation calculations for prize money?
    • Perhaps. It's not a normal thing, and historically the prize money has had barings on the ranking points. Maybe Benny will have further thoughts. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:36, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • how was it decided who got a bye? Also, why would Wych have been in the tournament but not even travel there?
    • Positions for the qualifying work the same as they do for the main tournament, players ranked 17-32 in the world rankings were given a spot in the final qualifying round. The draw is made significantly before the event, and isn't changed when a player doesn't turn up. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:36, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • How did you decide who gets nation qualifiers (I.e. "Canadian Bill Werbeniuk")
    • Just for colour, really. But, anyone not British is quite notable (even now). Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:36, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand from the description provided what advantage Taylor's glasses were supposed to have given him-- also "with Perspex lenses and a large framed and unusual 'upside-down' structure at the championships for the first time." is a mouthful that I don't really follow
    • I've removed that bit. The important bit is that he wore the glasses for the first time. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:27, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why would someone make a deliberate miss? This can probably be chalked up to my lack of knowledge on the topic.
    • So, back in the 1980s, if you played a foul, you would recieve foul shots, and your opponent would then play. If you intentionally played a shot that didn't hit the correct ball, but do so in such a way that your opponent doesn't have an easy shot, it would be an advantage, and bad sportsmanship. We no longer have this issue, as if you miss now, you can be asked to retake the shot. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:36, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • the last sentence in "semi finals" looks incomplete
  • Seems in pretty good shape as a whole. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:44, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Query for the coordinators edit

Gog the Mild - there are a few items being addressed for new reviews above, but as we have source/image and three supports, any chance of me/Benny looking at another one? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:56, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Go ahead. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:50, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 29 August 2021 [15].

Battle of Halidon Hill edit

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 14:29, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We are back in the 14th-century again. Once more the Scots decide to risk an open battle. Once more they get hammered by the English. Even more badly than usual. The English king orders "No prisoners!" and executes those who are taken. One RS is titled War Cruel and Sharp. Indeed. Fresh from a rigorous GAN review from Tayi Arajakate (for which many thanks - perhaps you would care to review this FAC?) I believe that this has a fighting chance of being adjudged up to FA standard. No doubt it has all the usual failings of my nominations, but I am relying on you to flag these up and I appreciate your so doing. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:29, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass edit

Will do this. Hog Farm Talk 15:02, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nicholson 1965 is not used
That seems, somehow, to have survived from when I picked up the article in January unweeded. Thanks for picking it up. Removed with prejudice.
  • Maxwell 1913 - shouldn't Maxwell be listed as the translator, since he didn't actually write this ancient source?
He should be. Changed.
Done.
Nope. But he is this one David Dalrymple, Lord Hailes and added.
All added.
  • Are you sure the spelling Wyntourn is corrected? Our article at Andrew of Wyntoun doesn't have the r.
Looks like it's my typo. Amended.

Sources are all reliable; experienced and trusted nominator so spot checks not done. Author-links are optional (I like them because I use them to easily find the reputation of a given cited source when I'm reading articles), but are not necessary criteria components. The only action points are the unused but listed Nicholson source and the queries about Maxwell and Wyntourn. Hog Farm Talk 16:04, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Hog Farm, that was even speedier than you usually are. And just as thorough. All addressed I think. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:39, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed the spelling in the inline citation and long citation to Wyntoun without the r per above reply; revert me if this is incorrect/unwanted. Hog Farm Talk 19:18, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nah. I was sure that I saw that spelling somewhere, but I can't find it and the clear HQ RS consensus is as it now is now. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:27, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

  • Suggest scaling up the Aftermath map (which would also prevent the caption from wrapping so much). Nikkimaria (talk) 15:21, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria, how's that? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:31, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Better, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:32, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would also suggest cropping out the upper portion (Orkney, Shetland and a lot of sea) of the map, it pushes the relevant part to the bottom and also makes the section stick out. Tayi Arajakate Talk 20:07, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Tayi Arajakate, good idea, but cropping the top would take out the scale and some other information, but may be the least bad option. I had shrunk the map to avoid it sticking down, but Nikkimaria didn't like it so small. Cropping out the top would also cure this. Unfortunately the crop tool seems to not work on svg files. Any ideas? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:03, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose it can still be manually cropped but looking at it again, it would remove the longitude degrees as well which is only marked at the top so never mind the suggestion. Tayi Arajakate Talk 15:23, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jens edit

  • I really love your articles, but it is so hard to find any issues! This time, I managed to at least find one:
  • Edward's chosen target was the Scottish border town of Berwick. An Anglo-Scottish border town, – "border town" sounds a bit repetitive. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:19, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jens: Complaints, complaints, that's all I ever hear. ;-) I find it difficult to proof read my own work, so thanks for picking that up. Tweaked. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:52, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jens, is there more to come on this? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:51, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am supporting. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:04, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Tim riley edit

Another splendidly readable battle page from Gog. Only a handful of cavils from me:

  • commonly known as turpis pax, "the cowards' peace" – my Latin is rusty fifty-something years after O-level, but I don't think turpis means "cowards'": I think "shameful peace" would be more like it.
Mine is even rustier - it never really stuck. Changed.
  • Edward III was aware of the scheme … Edward III was happy – perhaps drop the "III" the second time? There are quite a few more "Edward III"s later that could with advantage be plain "Edward"s.
IIIs culled.
  • "so populous and of such commercial importance that it might rightly be called another Alexandria, whose riches were the sea and the water its walls" – I really can't believe these are the ipsissima verba of a 14th-century bishop. I mean, "of such commercial importance"? Not convincingly medieval phrasing. I'm a great fan of your source, Eric Robson, as a broadcaster, but I wouldn't necessarily class him as a WP:RS as a historian. I find from a swift Google that most books quote the remarks as "a city so populous and of such trade that it might justly be called another Alexandria, whose riches were the sea and the water its walls". And I see from this and this that the quote is not from Bishop Edington but from the Lanercost Chronicle.
I consider "of such commercial importance" to be a superior translation into contemporary English to "of such trade". However, you are correct that every other source I can find ascribes it to the Lanercost, so thank you for picking that up. I have clearly been reading straight past it. Changed the wording and the source. (To a slightly more recent one than your suggestions.)
p.s. - don't forget to change "Bishop Edington" to the "Lanacost Chronicle" in the text.
I thought that I had! I have now. Thank you Tim. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:15, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tim riley talk 22:03, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • However, whatever concerns Edward – two "evers" in a row. You could do without the "However", I think.
True, a little sloppy of me.
  • The Scots did not have the time … The Scots devastated the countryside _ perhaps just "they" the second time?
Done.
  • an English defeat would likely be a disaster – curious Americanism where BrE usage would be "an English defeat would probably be a disaster"
I have been reviewing too many USEng artilces. Terminated with prejudice.
  • how vulnerable the Scots were to English longbows, so they came through the marshy hollow – in my book, "so" is not a regarded as a conjunction in formal prose: "and so" would be better, I think.
Done.
  • Of the 9 most-senior Scots present … 6 were killed … only 5 survived … a lower figure of 7 – we usually give numbers below 10 as words rather than figures.
I am used to giving casualties in figures. Changed in the first instance, but not in the second, so as to avoid "of 203 men-at-arms made knights – "dubbed" – immediately before the battle, only five survived

That's all I can come up with by way of quibbles. – Tim riley talk 11:40, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Tim for picking up several of my idiocies. That was very thorough of you. All of your comments are now addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:57, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Very happy to add my support. I always enjoy Gog's battle articles – military history can be dry for the lay reader, but Gog gives us vivid, page-turning stuff. Beautifully and helpfully illustrated, thoroughly detailed (but not too much so), balanced, and widely sourced. Meets all the FA criteria in my view. Tim riley talk 13:12, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Queries Support from WereSpielChequers edit

Very readable, I've made a couple of tweaks hopefully they are of use.

They are, thank you.
  • A map showing Berwick, Tweedmouth, Roxburghshire and the various possible crossings of the Tweed would be very useful. I appreciate we may not have all the details, but the relative positions of the armies, each I think on the other side of the border, and the routes they could follow would benefit from a map.
Done. To the best of my mapmaking skills.
Thanks, much appreciated. I suspect we don't know much of the detailed dispositions, routes and possible crossing points.
  • Also the map of Scotland and the environs could do with showing Orkney and Shetland as then Norwegian and whether the bit of Ireland shown was then under English control.
Orkney and Shetland are labelled "(Norway)". I would disagree as to Ulster being under English "control" in 1333 - and one could debate the definition of "control" to death. In any event, I don't see that it is relevant to this article.
Thanks, must check my glasses, I wasn't sure about that part of Ireland, but didn't the Isle of Man go from Scottish control to English that year?
  • Douglas seems to have spent the time assembling ever more troops, rather than using those he already had to mount diversionary raids. This inactivity contrasts with Robert Bruce's swift response to the English siege of Berwick in 1319.[27][33] Douglas launched minor raids into Cumberland, which were insufficient to draw the English forces from the siege but gave Edward a pretext for his invasion.[34]
Ah, thank you. I seem to have copy edited the meaning out of that. Changed to "The Scots launched minor raids into Cumberland, which achieved little. Douglas assembled ever more troops, rather than using those he already had to attempt to draw the English away from Berwick." Better?
Yes, much better thanks.
  • I'm not sure how the raids into Cumberland were usable as a pretext for an invasion which already included a siege of Berwick, nor do I get whether the minor raids into Cumberland were a late development, or whether rather than using those he already had to mount diversionary raids, apart from a few minor raids into Cumberland might not make more sense.
Rewritten. The sources don't explicitly say this, but back in 1333 I suspect that an English invasion followed by Scottish raids could readily be presented as the reverse. Sources of reliable information were non-existent. (I was going to say "few", but I think that would be overstating things.)
Thanks, that works for me.
  • the water supply cut sieges rarely last long without water, but British towns and castles of this era often had wells. Was this perhaps the main water supply cut, or even the chance of supply by water being cut by English ships blockading by sea and troops preventing boats travelling down the Tweed from the Scottish parts of its catchment?
Good point. I have overdone the summary style. Unpacked a little to "four underground pipes supplying water to the town were cut"
Thanks, I suspect given the tidal location we are talking fresh and clean over brackish and polluted, but that would be drifting into OR.

ϢereSpielChequers 13:36, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WereSpielChequers and thanks for the review. Some good points there; all now addressed I think. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:07, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome, thanks for an interesting read. ϢereSpielChequers 13:56, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HF edit

Will review this soon. Hog Farm Talk 15:14, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Balliol's support within Scotland was limited and within six months it had collapsed" - were there specific reasons why it collapsed, or just a general dislike of the Scots for a collaborator with the English
Unpacked a little. See what you think.
  • "A gallows was constructed in sight of the town walls and, as the highest-ranking hostage, Thomas Seton was hanged while his parents watched." - is this still on the 11th?
Yes. Took a bit of digging, but we have a date for the purported relief (12 July) which I have added. The hanging was the next day - the 13th - also added.
  • I think there's a little bit of chronological overlap in the battle description. "More than 500 Scots were killed in this fight, including both of the schiltron's noble commanders, before it too collapsed and the survivors fled" - but then in the next section, this sciltron is said to have not broken yet, and it isn't mentioned to have broken until after the other two are run into the sea. Is it possible to try to make the chronology a little clearer
I have tweaked the wording in both attack and rout to try and smooth the chronology.
  • "English casualties were reported as in some chronicles as 14, while others give a lower figure of 7" - I've read that chronicles about battles from this age sometimes only enumerate the number of knights who became casualties, but not the non-noble foot soldiers. Is it known if this is a figure of knights or a total?
It's the total. You are quite right about casualties among common soldiers often not being mentioned, but in this case the chronicles explicitly include them in their counts. (A phrase from a Scottish chronicle on this battle: "so many nobles were killed that it would be tedious to give all their names"!) If this were not the case I would have so specified.
  • This is an a category about registered historic battlefields - likely worth a mention, especially for WP:CATV's sake.
A very good thought. Added.

Very good work here; anticipate supporting. Hog Farm Talk 03:49, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks as ever HF. Your usual set of insightful comments. All addressed above I believe. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:02, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wondering if "The uncultivated scrub and march of 1333" should be marsh instead of march, but comprehensive support otherwise, as I checked sourcing and images as well. Hog Farm Talk 14:21, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. Yes it could. And thank you. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:49, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Z1720 edit

Non-expert review.

  • "as Edward was happy to cause trouble for his northern neighbour." cause trouble might be WP:IDIOM, maybe "as Edward wanted to destabalise the rule of his northern neighbour."?
I don't see that this is an idiom. It is, in the words of WP:IDIOM a "direct, literal expression".
  • " but turned a blind eye to his forces sailing" blind eye is an idiom, perhaps "but did not interfere with his forces when they sailed..."
Changed.
  • "He had prepared for Balliol and Beaumont, but he died ten days before they sailed." Delete the second he
Done.
  • "Almost immediately, Balliol granted Edward Scottish estates to a value of £2,000," add a Template:Inflation for the amount?
Done.
  • "According to a contemporary chronicle," to prevent MOS:EASTEREGG, maybe "According to The Lanercost Chronicle, a contemporary account of north English history,"
I don't see that this is an Easter egg. It does not "require the reader to open [it] before understanding what's going on". There is a link to "a contemporary chronicle", a reader clicks on it and finds details of a contemporary chronicle.
A reader has to click on the link to discover that this information came from the Lanercost Chronicle. Why not name the chronicle in the article, as is done in another place in the article? Z1720 (talk) 21:44, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Because it breaks the flow of the prose (IMO) by going off into an explanation of the source and will mean nothing to virtually all readers. Explaining that level of detail is just what Wikilinks are for.
  • "Douglas was now faced with a difficult situation, but felt obliged to come to the relief of Berwick." Not sure if the first half of this sentence is NPOV, as it puts an opinion in wikivoice. I don't think it's needed and the sentence can start with "Douglas felt obliged to come to the relief of Berwick."
Rephrased.
  • "The Scots were challenged to do their worst." I think do their worst is an idiom, so reword? Maybe a direct quote of their response would be more appropriate.
Rephrased.
  • "Whatever concerns Edward had for his queen," I don't think this is needed as it doesn't really provide information to the reader.
Removed.
  • "They devastated the countryside but Edward ignored this too." comma after countryside?
Not in my school of commaisation. But feel free to try and persuade me why it is needed.
When I read it in my head, I place a pause there and therefore think a comma is necessary. Others might read it differently, which is why I put a question mark for this comment.
I assumed so, and accept that commas after buts are common. I find it almost impossible to say it in my head with a pause and when I say it out loud with a pause it sounds as if I have a speech defect. My understanding is that, like serial commas, either approach is acceptable so long as it is applied consistently. Hence I grudging restrain myself when I come across ", but" when reviewing. (But usually not when copy editing.)
  • "He positioned the English army on Halidon Hill, a small rise of some 600 feet (180 metres), 2 miles (3.2 km) to the north-west of Berwick, which gives an excellent view of the town and the vicinity." -> which gave an excellent view, as this keeps the sentence in past-tense.
I don't want it in the past tense. That would imply that the view has changed, which it hasn't.
  • "Douglas gave a fire-eating speech" What is a fire-eating speech? Please wikilink or explain in the article.
Changed.
  • "One Scottish account says that of 203 men-at-arms made knights – "dubbed" – immediately before the battle, only 5 survived." I think the dashes should be replaced with brackets, as it reads weird to me, but I might be wrong)
Done. (Although it now reads a little oddly to me.)
Although the brackets are an improvement imo, I think rearranging might be even better, like "One Scottish account says that 203 men-at-arms were made knights immediately before the battle in a process called dubbing; only 5 survived."
Nope. Then you distract the reader by trying to sneak a complicated explanation into a sentence mostly about something else.
  • There's an image of a monument to the battle in the "Scottish rout" section, but no mention of this monument in the "Battlefield today" section. Is there any information on monuments or displays erected to commemorate this event?
Very good point. Done.
  • The ISBN of "Brie, Friedrich (1960)" is located in the OCLC. The ISSN number of "Nicholson, Ranald (1961)" is in the OCLC. I am able to access it by clicking on the OCLC number in the article, which brings me to their World Cat page. These should be added.
Why?
This inclusion or non-inclusion will not factor into my support. However, per WP:CITEVAR, reference style should be consistent. I interpret this to mean that all the citations should have the same parameters defined, if available. Most of the citations with an ISBN and ISSN have those included, the two highlighted above should also have them included. Z1720 (talk) 21:44, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have consistently used ISBNs when they were allocated to a book when it was published and OCLCs when ISBNs weren't. This, obviously, mostly applies to pre-1967 works. This is a fairly common approach. WP:INDICATEAVAIL says "providing an ISBN or OCLC number", which seems to allow for this.

Those are my thoughts. Please ping when the above are responded to. Z1720 (talk) 19:05, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Z1720, lots of good stuff there; I do like your reviews. Your comments all addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:07, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comments above. Z1720 (talk) 21:44, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Z1720, likewise. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:15, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My comments have been addressed, so I can support. Z1720 (talk) 22:18, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Z1720, appreciated. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:28, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Query for the coordinators edit

@Ian Rose @FAC coordinators: Five supports - four from non-MilHist editors - source and image review passes and it has been up for 11 days. Can I fire up another one? Gog the Mild (talk) 23:57, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, missed this -- academic now... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:57, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 29 August 2021 [16].

Cullen House edit

Nominator(s): Girth Summit (blether) 14:44, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a historic building in Scotland, built around 1600 and substantially enlarged and remodelled several times in its history, and family seat to the Earls of Seafield. I started it back in 2019 as a userspace draft, but didn't move it into mainspace until April 2020 and got it up to GA. I've done a bit more work on it this year, and have taken it through peer review - I think it's about as good as I can make it now, so thought I'd see whether it's up to FA standards. Thanks in advance for any reviews. Girth Summit (blether) 14:44, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Image licensing looks good. The one thing I would recommend, if possible, is finding a better quality image of the house to use as the lead image. (t · c) buidhe 00:48, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for this Buidhe. I've searched for licensed images on commons and on geograph.org, but have drawn a blank. Do you know any other good places to turn to? Girth Summit (blether) 07:29, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I had a little go at the image, as I can't travel there and take a new photo. I've enlarged, sharpened, brightened and straightened it a little (it won't take much intervention without looking terrible). The changes take a while to filter through but it you are sure you are seeing the new version you may prefer it. If you hate it please revert it over at Commons and you can get the original back. Please note that this is not meant to be permanent – just a stopgap to help out until a seriously better image can be found. Hope this helps, best wishes, DBaK (talk) 23:50, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from DBak edit

Having had my minor moans (see below) very usefully answered, I am happy to support this excellent article. Cheers DBaK (talk) 21:46, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Minor moans about repetition – and I am not sure how or whether they can be fixed! Don't you hate people who do this? Sorry! Firstly there's a little patch of repetition of Baronialized, three in a row I think, and a little later we say separately designated as a Category A listed building or words to that effect several times in a row. I absolutely get it that these are correct and descriptive, and I am not arguing with their inclusion. I am just saying I found it slightly inelegant to keep hearing it. I am not even sure why, and, as I say, I know it is hugely annoying to bring a problem with no suggested solution. I once had a boss who hated that so much, he'd be spitting feathers right now. Anyway, it may not be fixable and may not be perceived as a problem by anyone else, and I am perfectly happy to be told to stfu or some similarly polite formula. I just wanted to mention it, and now I have! Best to all DBaK (talk) 12:08, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks DBaK - I take the point about the repetitive language. I've reworded some of the Category A stuff, so hopefully that's a bit better. I'm not sure what to do about 'Baronialized' - the only ways I can think of rewording without losing meaning end up being quite wordy, e.g. 'remodelled in the Baronial style', or similar. The sources I'm using repeat that word more than I do! I'll see if anything comes to me; happy to hear suggestions if anyone has any. Girth Summit (blether) 13:28, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you! I like the Cat A improvements – it's just an easier read. I can see that Baronialized is a problem, and does need to be said. Maybe there's no fix and it should simply stay as is. If I suddenly see a brilliant way forward, I will certainly suggest it! Cheers DBaK (talk) 23:55, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered - just trying to make this easier for the FAC coordinators, do you feel like making a support/oppose statement here? No problem if you intend to sit on the fence, just checking. Cheers Girth Summit (blether) 18:16, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
     Done – see up ^ there somewhere. Cheers DBaK (talk) 21:46, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild edit

I will recuse and review this. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:12, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • WP:INFOBOXREF: "References are acceptable in some cases, but generally not needed in infoboxes if the content is repeated (and cited) elsewhere".
    Good point, gone.
  • "The house has been extended and remodelled several times since 1602". Do we need "since 1602"?
    No, gone
  • The lead seems very long. And four paragraphs? See MOS:LEADLENGTH, which suggests "Two or three paragraphs" for articles of "15,000–30,000 characters". This one is 16,000, barely above the "One or two paragraphs" level; that 16k includes the lengthy lead, so an argument could be made that the lead should be one or two paragraphs.
    Fair point. I've trimmed some text, and merged P1 and P2. Any better, or do you think more needs to go?
It still seems long to me, but it just about sneaks under what I would consider the maximum allowable.
  • Link laird.
    linked
  • The lead says "The house was originally built between 1600 and 1602" but I can't find that in the article.
    I can't find where 1602 was coming from. Several sources say that 20 March 1600 was when work was started; something I've read must have given a 1602 completion date, but I'm not now seeing it, so I've removed it from the lead.
  • " Alexander McGill and James Smith". Architects? Could we be told?
    (I sort of thought that was implicit from the fact that they were being asked to draw up plans for a remodelling, and they were linked.) Now clarified.
    But you have "Thomas White, a landscape architect from Nottinghamshire, drew up plans for new and extensive landscaped gardens".
    True, but I couldn't provide a wikilink for him.
MOS:FORCELINK "as far as possible do not force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence."
  • "carrying off what they could and destroying what could not be easily transported". Optional: avoid "could" twice in five words?
    reworded
  • "James and John Adam ". Who were?
    ("Who is Gazza?") Clarified
  • "and built the large bow window" → 'including building the large bow window' maybe?
    Yes, better, changed.
  • "these were not carried out". "these" → 'this'.
    better, changed
  • "Detailed records survive showing the layout of the house's gardens in 1760, showing walled courts". "showing ... showing".
    reworded
  • "The house's current Baronial Revival appearance". Link Baronial Revival at this first mention.
    linked
  • "reputed" occurs four times. Some synonyms?
    Only one now.
  • "when it was designated a Category A listed building". I think this is worthy of a separate sentence.
    I have given moved things around a bit, see what you think.
Looks good.
  • Link capitals.
    Done - hope nobody brings up MOS:SOB
  • "Baronialized". Why the upper case initial letter?
    I'm not wedded to it, but it is the style used in most (but not all) of my sources. I've checked a ample of six books on my shelf (all by British academics, in reputable publishers): two books (both 20th C) use lower case, four books (all 21st C) use capitals. I recognise that the Wikipedia house style leans towards lower case however, so will change it if you or other reviewers think it should be lower case.
    I have searched and failed to find anything in the MOS which allows the capitalisation to remain. Admittedly MoS is a warren, so feel free to relook.
    I will change if anyone wants me to - I have no axe to grind on capitals. Just to explain the approach I took, most sources I have read treat Scottish Baronial, or Scotch Baronial, as a proper name for a particular architectural style (in the same way they might treat Gothic): they capitalise it. When talking about old buildings that were modified in the 19th C to conform with this new aesthetic, most sources I have read treat the past-tenseverb 'Baronialized' as being derived from a proper name by capitalising it. I have followed that style, as many of our articles to with the verb 'Gothicised' (seek and ye shall find). Please read this as being intended to be explanatory, rather than persuasive - if anyone asks that I change it, I'll be happy to. My instinct would be not to capitalise, I'm following the sources rather than my own view of 'proper writing' here.
The MoS agrees that "Eponyms are capitalized". So, yes, Gothicised, cus of the Goths. Likewise Corinthian. Georgian. Jacobean. And so on. But not Baronial. Er, I am assuming that the style was not named after someone called "Baron"?
No, definitely not named for a person. I invoked 'Gothicised' as an example of a proper noun retaining its capital when turned into a verb. The majority of the best sources I have read on the subject - by that, I mean work by academics either about specific buildings, or about Scottish architecture in general - treat Scottish Baronial as a proper name and consistently capitalise both words; when they refer to nineteenth-century modifications of older buildings to conform to the fashion of the time, the majority also capitalise the verb. The MOS tells us that we only capitalise "words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources". My own small review shows a 4:2 majority, which is a majority, however I accept that it is perhaps not substantial enough to overcome the general guidance that "Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization". There are scholars who do not capitalise it, and so it is probably not strictly necessary - I will therefore bow to your concerns, and make it lower case.
By no means definitive, but indicative and interesting - [17]
Also interesting: Scottish Baronial. Then we get into the classic quantitative versus qualitative NGram discussion (how many of these results are coming from books written by academics, as opposed to general guidebooks and the like?), which is a battle I don't feel like fighting. I'm content to go with the 'use lower case where you can' spirit of the MOS.
Yes, it is. And yes, no way of extracting RSs from the noise; which is why I prefaced with "By no means definitive, but indicative". Still, as you said, a lack of evidence of overwhelming use of upper case.
  • "many of its historical features remain intact". "its" → 'their'?
  • "many of its historical features remain intact". "its" → 'their'?
    fixed

Nice. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:29, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much Gog the Mild - as ever, a good eye for detail. Please see above, I've addressed almost everything, just the question of capitalisation remains. Girth Summit (blether) 16:59, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That all looks good. Supporting, but I shall keep an eye on the B/b thing. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:12, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support gratefully accepted, Gog the Mild - a couple of more comments above. Girth Summit (blether) 19:38, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
B/b thing resolved, see comments above. Girth Summit (blether) 08:26, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HF edit

Will look at this soon. Hog Farm Talk 14:49, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Lead says that it was in "some disrepair", while the body says that it was "quite dilapidated". Maybe its just me, but the latter seems to imply a greater degree of damage than the former
    I guess I was trying to avoid repetitive language, but I agree that you're right that they have slightly different meanings, and they're sufficiently far apart in the article not to have to worry about repetition. The source says 'dilapidated', so I've changed it to that in the lead.
  • In the lead, you identify Kit Martin as a specialist in saving old buildings, recommend introducing him as that in the body as well
    Introduced, with a little bit of moving things around.
  • "The house has been extended and remodelled several times, by prominent architects such as William Adam" - Did William Adam work on the house? This is what this in the lead implies, but the body only mentions him working on the bridge on the grounds
    You've got me Adam senior only worked on the bridge, not the house. Gone.
  • Do we know the approximate dimensions of the building? It seems a bit odd for a FAC about a building to not really state how large the structure is
    This is frustrating. I can measure off an areal photograph on Google maps, which tells me that each of the main wings is about 60 metres in length, but that's OR off a dubious source. None of the sources I've been able to lay hands on actually give any dimensions. Canmore tells me that there are plans and elevations of the building, made in 1930-31, stored at the National Library of Scotland in special collections, but those aren't digitised and I think I'd need to recruit a friendly academic to go and access that stuff for me. Would this be a showstopper?
    No. If it's not realistically available, then its not a big deal. Hog Farm Talk 03:44, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image licensing looks fine
  • Sources all appear to be reliable

Very good work; not much for me to pick on here. Hog Farm Talk 01:36, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hog Farm - thanks for the review, much appreciated. Comments above. Girth Summit (blether) 14:31, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support on WP:FACR 1a, 1b, source reliability, 1d, 1e, 2a, 2b, 2c, 3, and 4; did not check against others. Hog Farm Talk 03:44, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Venicescapes edit

Thank you for the invitation. I'll work through this slowly.

Infobox

1. The coordinates clutter the infobox, and I would delete them. They’re already present above. The map is sufficient to place the house in context geographically.

I am not an expert on templates, so perhaps there is a more elegant way to do this, but the coordinates are not duplicated anywhere. The only place they appear is in the infobox template: their presence there is what determines the location of the pushpin in the map, and it also appears to cause the coordinates to appear at the top-right of the article. That seems to be the way that infoboxes work - I'm not aware of a way to do this differently?

2. Consider using a series of breaks so that the name of each architect/builder stands on its own line. In this case, delete and before the final name.

Done

3. I would be more telegraphic in the infobox. Consider: Architectural style: Scottish Baronial Revival (older features remain)

Done

4. Consider embedding a child template for Various architects to avoid Various, including. I think it would make the Infobox look cleaner. This could also be Contributing architects.Venicescapes (talk) 08:39, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes - please look at what I've done with the list of architects now, is this better, or do you still think a child template would help?

5. You link to Scottish Baronial Revival, which according to the article is a nineteenth century style. Since the house is in the original style on which the revival is based, would this be better: Renaissance_in_Scotland#Architecture? In this case, you might want to insert a See also link to Scottish Baronial Architecture at the beginnning of the architecture section.Venicescapes (talk) 12:17, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So, the house was originally built in the original authentic style, but it was massively extended in the 18th century, and the additions then were in more of a Georgian style. Bryce's 19th-century work on the building attempted to reconcile the competing styles, and bring the overall look into the then-fashionable Scottish Baronial style, which is how all the sources I've looked at describe its current appearance.

Lead

First paragraph: I would delete now divided into fourteen separate dwellings (it detracts from the importance of the house as the seat of the family and is covered in the third paragraph). The sentence It was the seat of the Ogilvies of Findlater, who went on to become the Earls of Findlater and Seafield, and remained in their family until 1982. should probably be moved to after Scotland. It concerns the family, and it interrupts the history of the building of the house in its present location.

Result: Cullen House is a large house about 1 kilometre (0.6 mi) south west of the coastal town of Cullen in Moray, Scotland. It was the seat of the Ogilvies of Findlater, who went on to become the Earls of Findlater and Seafield, and remained in their family until 1982. Building work started on the house in 1600, incorporating some of the stonework of an earlier building on the site. It has been extended and remodelled several times, by prominent architects...

Done

Second paragraph: I would delete when the incumbent Countess was forced to pay a large ransom to prevent it from being burned down. The information is covered in the main part of the article. The stated purpose of the paragraph is to mention the two times the house was captured.

Done

Third paragraph: You have two instances with compound predicates that are separated from their subjects by commas. There are various solutions. Consider:

Martin worked with the local architect Douglas Forrest to convert the house into fourteen individual dwellings, retaining much of the original interior of the building.

The house was badly damaged by fire in 1987, after which it underwent an extensive programme of restoration that lasted until 1989.

Both done

Perhaps some clarification is needed here: She did not use it as her primary residence, nor did Ian Ogilvie-Grant who inherited it on his mother's death in 1969.

Was this the first time that the house was not the primary residence? If so, consider, Unlike previous members of the family (or something similar), she did not use...

I can't say for certain. Certainly, this is the first time I came across sources commenting upon the fact that it the current owner wasn't living there most of the time. My guess would be that the previous owners spent a substantial amount of their time away as well - it would have been normal for them to have spent quite a bit of time Edinburgh and/or London on business. Nobody saw fit to comment upon it though, whereas there were quite a number of sources from the first half of the 20th C commenting on how much little time the Countess actually spent in Cullen. So, I'm confident about what I've written, but I'm not sure that I have any more to say about the previous owners.

It seems that Ian was Nina's son, but it is not stated. Consider: ... nor did her son Ian Ogilvie-Grant who inherited it upon his mother's death in 1969.

Done
It was the seat of the Ogilvies of Findlater, who went on to become the Earls of Findlater and Seafield, and remained in their family until 1982.
Since the relative clause is a little long, I would insert it before remained: ...Seafield, and it remained in their family...
Done
The house has been extended and remodelled several times, by prominent architects such as James and John Adam, and David Bryce.
Delete comma after times. Also after Adam (you could also do: James Adam, John Adam and David Bryce).
Done (and listed as you suggest)
It has been described by the architectural historian Charles McKean as "one of the grandest houses in Scotland", and is designated a Category A listed building.
Delete comma after Scotland (it separates the second predicate from its subject)
Done

Images

On my screen, the images pile up with the info box on the right. Consider placing the two images of the arms (they’re closely related) into a multiple image box, perhaps positioned on the left. Venicescapes (talk) 08:27, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've put them into a multiple image box; I tried it out on the left, but it looked awkward to my eye, and I couldn't find a way to wrap the text nicely - what do you think about having it on the right.

History

Initial construction

I had to read the first paragraph multiple times.

Consider beginning with: Set on a clifftop above the Cullen Burn, Cullen House was built by the Ogilvies of Findlater, who had their seat at Findlater Castle.

Done

Can you give a sense of the direction and distance between Findlater Castle and Cullen House? I’m not clear if Cullen House is in addition to, or in substitution of, Findlater Castle.

I've added a bit on this, but I should confess that this is a little bit of OR based on measuring the distance off a map. I think it's still verifiable though, any decent map of the area would show both structures.

Their parish church had traditionally been at Fordyce, but in 1482 the Ogilvies were granted the lands of Findochty and Seafield. By 1543 they had changed their patronage to Cullen Old Church,[1] which they elevated to the status of a collegiate church.

Most of my confusion came from these two sentences. The phrase concerning the lands of Findochty and Seafield is wedged between two phrases that talk about church patronage. Assuming that I understand correctly, consider: The lands of Findochty and Seafield were granted to the family in 1482, and by 1543 they had changed their patronage from their traditional parish church at Fordyce to Cullen Old Church, which they elevated to the status of a collegiate church.

Reworked in-line with your suggestions.

Buildings from around this time, which served as accommodation for the church's canons, stood on the site of the current house.

Were these buildings constructed by the family?

Almost certainly, since they were the patrons of the church; my sources aren't explicit about those buildings though, and it's not impossible that they predated the Ogilvie's patronage of the church.

On 20 March 1600, work was started on a large new L-plan tower house for the laird, Sir Walter Ogilvy, and his wife Dame Margaret Drummond, building upon some of the structure of the canons' lodgings.

Since the first paragraph discusses the earlier buildings on the site, I would move the information on the canons’ lodgings to the beginning. Consider: On 20 March 1600, building upon some of the structure of the canons' lodgings, a large new L-plan tower house was begun for the laird, Sir Walter Ogilvy, and his wife Dame Margaret Drummond.

Done

The family continued to prosper: in 1616, Walter Ogilvy was created Lord Ogilvy of Deskford; his son James was further elevated to become the first Earl of Findlater in 1638; in 1701 another James would become the Earl of Findlater and Seafield.

This seems unrelated to a section that is nominally dedicated to the Initial construction. Do you know of any work done by Walter or James that could tie this into construction?

I've moved the bit about the fourth earl into the next section, so that we are continuing with the chronological approach.

Extension and modification

In the centuries following its initial construction, the house underwent a series of renovations, extensions and modifications.

Since you bring the history up to fairly recent times, you might want to consider: Since its initial contruction, the house has undergone a series….

This is a fair point, but I'm trying to give a sense that it was repeatedly extended and remodelled in the 17th-19th centuries, which is described in this section. There was then an extended period when the house was neglected and allowed to fall into disrepair, before its latest renovation, which I cover in the next section.

A tower was added in 1660, shortly after the third Earl inherited it.[2] In 1709 the architects Alexander McGill and James Smith were asked to submit plans for a complete remodelling in the Palladian style. These were drawn up, but in the end less radical extensions and modifications were executed to the north and west wings, between 1711 and 1714.

Should Earl be capitalized?

No, I don't think so. My understanding is that if the whole title is given then it's a proper name (so Earl of Findlater), but if it's just the word on its own then it's lower case. I think I'm consistent on this now.

Do you know anything about the Palladian plans and why they were not executed. Was it a question of taste, cost, other?

I don't know. My guess would have been cost, but the sources aren't specific.

The house was ransacked for a second time during the Jacobite rising of 1745. James Ogilvy, 5th Earl of Findlater and 2nd Earl of Seafield, had travelled with his wife to Aberdeen to meet the Duke of Cumberland who was pursuing Bonny Prince Charlie's Jacobite army. In their absence, a group of Charles's supporters forced their way into the house on 8 April 1746 and ransacked it, carrying off as much as possible and destroying what could not be easily transported. Three days later, continuing his pursuit that would end at the Battle of Culloden, Cumberland arrived at the scene accompanied by Findlater to find the doors of the house forced open, the windows broken, and broken furniture and discarded papers strewn around the grounds.[6][8][9] Findlater subsequently petitioned Parliament for the sum of £8,000 in compensation for the losses incurred, but it is not clear whether he ever received any payment.

This whole paragraph is problematic. The section is entitled Extension and modification, but this is later history. Perhaps a different title for the section, although both the preceding and following sections concern building. Another idea could be a separate section on history.

My problem here is that this ransacking took place in the middle of the period of extension and modification. I think that breaking it out into a different section would interrupt the chronological flow. I've changed the section title to Extension, modification and Jacobite assault, does that work for you?

Architects James and John Adam worked on the house from 1767 to 1769, installing the main staircase and building the gatehouse, and John Baxter made more internal modifications, including building the large bow window in the east facade, between 1777 and 1778.[7][2]

Recommend breaking off the second part into a separate sentence. Perhaps:. … building the gatehouse. Between 1777 and 1778, John Baxter made more internal modifications, including the building of the large bow window in the east facade.

Note: add the and of

Done

Check numerical sequence of references.

In 1780, Robert Adam was commissioned by the fourth Earl to provide a design for an entirely new house; this was not carried out however, nor were James Playfair's 1788 designs for an extensive remodelling in "the Saxon style". Playfair's walled garden was constructed in the grounds in that year.[7][2]

Earl capitalized?

Done

Again, do you know why the designs were not executed?

Again, no, probably cost but the sources aren't specific.

Check numerical sequence of references.

Ugh, the numerical sequences are a pain. I fixed all those when it went through GA, and thought I'd been careful while moving things around during the Peer Review, but I must have overlook a few. I think it's sorted now.

Venicescapes (talk) 17:32, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deterioration and renovation

However, the house was not her primary residence, and she spent most of her time at her home in Nassau in the Bahamas; the house was open to the public for part of the year in the 1960s.

Consider: However, since she spent most of her time at her home in Nassau in the Bahamas, the house was not her primary residence, and it was open to the public for part of the year in the 1960s.

I prefer your version, changed.

He also lived elsewhere, and used the house commercially to host shooting parties and private functions.

Delete comma after elsewhere (compound predicate) OR transform into compound sentence by inserting he after and.

Changed

If possible, avoid triple compound sentences. Consider: In 1972 it was designated a Category A listed building. By this time, however, it had become quite dilapidated, and its contents were sold off in 1975.

The authors of the sources I used seem unafraid of the triple or quadruple compound sentence! Nevertheless, changed.

Firefighters fought to contain the blaze and managed to put it out within three hours, but severe damage was caused to the south east corner and the west wing.

Consider: Firefighters fought to contain the blaze, and although they managed to put it out within three hours, severe damage was caused to the south east corner and the west wing.

Better, changed.

Suggest dividing sentence: Restoration work was carried out over the course of the next two years, using photographic records and material recovered from the fire to restore the external masonry to its original appearance. Specialist joiners and plasterers were brought in to work on the interiors, but some of the building's internal features including an early seventeenth-century painted ceiling in the second salon were irreparably damaged.Venicescapes (talk) 12:11, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Better, changed.

Architecture

I would move the information on its location (set on a clifftop above the Cullen Burn) to the very beginning of the article: Set on a clifftop above the Cullen Burn, Cullen House was built by the Ogilvies of Findlater, who had their seat at Findlater Castle. This section should deal with just architecture. The resulting sentence could be: Cullen House is a large, ornately decorated, turreted house. OR Cullen House is a large turreted house that is ornately decorated.

I think this needs to be somewhere in the body of the article, if it is to be included in the lead. I don't think that a brief description of the building's situation is entirely out of place at the start of a section about its architecture? I guess I could have a separate section on 'situation', but it would probably be very short. Do you insist on this change?
Sorry, I meant at the beginning of Initial construction
Understood - done

I would move The original seventeenth-century L-plan tower house, which itself incorporated stonework from earlier buildings on the site, has been extended by the addition of wings to the north and south. to the beginning of the Exterior subsection. As is, it gives the impression that you’re about to explain the evolution of the house, but then you return to the broad statement by McKean.Venicescapes (talk) 09:41, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved this.

Interior

Triple compound sentences can be cumbersome. Consider: The main house has been divided into seven separate apartments, but each of the principal rooms has been preserved, many of their historical features remaining intact.

I've moved things around slightly and made into two sentences.

Can you give a sense of the size of the various apartments?

Unfortunately, no - Hog Farm raised a similar issue, about the dimensions of the whole building, but none of the sources I've been able to access give me any figures for dimensions. Apparently there are plans and elevations dating to 1931 in the Scottish National Library in Edinburgh, in their special collections, but I don't have access to that and I'm not sure they would count as a published source for our purposes.

Beyond this is a two-storey stair hall, with a staircase and ceiling by James Adam, and an elaborately carved wooden door, dated 1618, with its original key and lock.

Are both the staircase and ceiling by James Adams? If not, reword.

Yes - stair hall, staircase and ceiling are all James Adam. Do you think I need to reword to avoid ambiguity?
Try: Beyond this is a two-storey stair hall, with a staircase and ceiling, both by James Adam, and an elaborately carved wooden door...
Done

…with its original key and lock.

This seems excessively detailed, unless the lock is by a renowned locksmith.

I like this little detail - there aren't many doors that old in Scotland, and very few with their original furniture. Are you set on losing it?
It's fine.

Many of the house's original public rooms retain original Victorian ceilings; others, which were damaged in the fire of 1987, have been restored or reproduced. A grand Jacobean painted ceiling, depicting a siege of Troy and bearing the Royal arms of Scotland (suggesting that it predated the 1603 Union of the Crowns),[5] was destroyed by the fire, and has been replaced by a painting of bubbles and astronauts by Robert Ochardson.

bubbles and astronauts … oh my!

Ha - yes, you get a really strong sense of Walker and Woodworth's opinions about that ceiling when they describe the interior - their description is very measured, but the derision is dripping out between the lines.

Change to: the siege of Troy

Good point - I haven't heard of another one!

With the parentheses, the sentence is long. Consider breaking off the second part: …was destroyed by the fire. It has been replaced by a painting of bubbles and astronauts by Robert Ochardson.Venicescapes (talk) 08:53, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done

Check numerical sequence of references throughout article. For example: There is a square entrance hall in the north wing, with a fireplace decorated with blue and white Delftware tiles.[18][2] Venicescapes (talk) 09:24, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is fixed now throughout the article.

Grounds

You might want to consider restructuring this section. At the end of the first three paragraphs, you make the same statement about the structure's being listed. Is it possible to combine these into a single introductory sentence? The grounds contain several structures which are Category A listed in their own right. These include a bridge, gatehouse, and a temple. The appropriate references can be after bridge, gatehouse, and temple.

Great idea - that also helps to address one of DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered's concerns about the repetitiveness in this section.

First paragraph: Leading off the house's west courtyard is a bridge built between 1744 and 1745 by William Adam, which spans the gorge of the Cullen Burn. It has a single arch, with a span of 25.6 metres (84 ft) and a height of 19.5 metres (64 ft), and is built of granite ashlar with rubble spandrels. Can you avoid the double span? Perhaps Leading off the house's west courtyard and crossing the gorge of the Cullen Burn is a bridge built between 1744 and 1745 by William Adam. Built of granite ashlar with rubble spandrels, it has a single arch, with a span of 25.6 metres (84 ft) and a height of 19.5 metres (64 ft).Venicescapes (talk) 10:30, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done

Second paragraph: At the south-east entrance to the estate is a gatehouse known as the Grand Entrance, built by James Adam between 1767 and 1768. The two participles should be joined by a conjunction OR rewritten as At the south-east entrance to the estate is a gatehouse, the Grand Entrance, built by James Adam between 1767 and 1768.

Changed

This wide entrance for carriages is built in the form of a triumphal arch, with Ionic columns supporting a pediment with armorial decoration in the tympanum, and decorated with lions, rampant at the apex, and recumbent to the sides. Can you avoid the double with? Also, where exactly are the lions? Inside the tympanum, but on the sides?

Changed. The lions are on top of the tympanum, I've reworded slightly to make that clearer.

Third paragraph: Would it be appropriate to say Grecian temple pavilion with a link to Pavilion? Is the temple inside the walled garden? If so, this should be clearer. If not, the information on the garden might be more appropriate in the fourth paragraph. Is this a two-storey structure? It seems to be but could be clearer. Is the tearoom also circular? The second sentence should be broken up.

I'll come back to this shortly. I'm away from home, and won't have access to the offline sources describing this structure for a few days - I'll try to make it clearer ASAP.
I found another online source, and have rejigged this paragraph with a bit more detail. I moved the bit about the walled garden into the fourth paragraph. See what you think.

Fourth paragraph: I would reorganize the final paragraph for parallelism. The first three all have the structures as the topic, whereas you start the fourth with Robertson and his nephews. Consider: The grounds contain a number of other estate buildings, many of which were designed by Robertson and, after his death, by his nephews Alexander and William Reid who continued his practice. These include an ice house, a garden house, a laundry, and cottages for staff such as gardeners.Venicescapes (talk) 10:16, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done
Thanks for such a thorough and helpful review, Venicescapes - you made some excellent suggestions, and picked up on quite a few things where my writing could have been better. I have addressed almost all of them now, but will need access to an offline source that I don't have with me right now to act on your suggestions for the rotunda/pavilion. Let me know if I've missed anything, very much appreciated. Girth Summit (blether) 12:10, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again Venicescapes - I think I've addressed everything now, including the paragraph about the Temple of Pomona after I found another online source describing it. See what you think. Cheers Girth Summit (blether) 09:36, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. It looks good. Two items. 1. You need to delete had here: There was originally had a statue depicting either Pomona or Pheme at the centre of the rotunda. 2. Grounds should probably be moved up a level. It's not really a subcategory of Architecture, which concerns the house.Venicescapes (talk) 17:27, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again - both done. Girth Summit (blether) 23:23, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete was in third paragraph of lead: In 1982 before being was purchased by Kit Martin, a specialist in saving historic buildings. Insert comma after 1982.Venicescapes (talk) 07:26, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done - that got messed up while applying some of TRM's fixes. Girth Summit (blether) 08:16, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Lee Vilenski - pass edit

  • Sources
    • The majority of the sources look like book citations, which are fine. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:11, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The newspaper items could do with some archive-urls if possible. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:11, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      I've added archive URLs for all the newspaper sources, but they don't seem to be working for me, is there something clever you have to do to get access to archived URLs if they're paywalled? (I have a Newspapers.com subscription, but I'm guessing that Internet Archive doesn't know that?)
    • Seems to be a range of ISBN values, perhaps choose between 10 and 13? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:11, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      They're all ISBN 13 now, good spot
    • Worth using a |via for the newspaper.com links? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:11, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Done
    • Seems a range of linked and non-linked. Historic Environment Scotland is linked, but not The Guardian? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:11, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      I've linked all the sources that seem linkable.
  • Spot check

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:02, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Vilenski I think all the issues you raised with the sources are sorted now,just awaiting any spot checks. Cheers Girth Summit (blether) 16:03, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from TRM edit

  • It might be just me, but the location of the house I feel is secondary to its significance, so I would switch that lead sentence with "It was the seat of the..." and the bonus is you aren't saying "... House ... is a ... house".
    I agree with you about the awkwardness of 'house is a house'. I'm concerned about starting the first sentence with 'Cullen House was...' however, because that implies (to my mind) that it no longer exists - since the first sentence is meant to define what the subject is, I think that saying it's a large house near Cullen is accurate. How strongly do you feel that this needs changing?
    Not strongly. Certainly only my opinion of course. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 13:47, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in 1969. By 1972 ... in 1975. In 1982 " bit jarring all this lot...
    I've reworded a bit to lose two of the years - better?
  • "that lasted until 1989" could say "a two-year" or something to avoid another year...
    Done
  • "the Cullen Burn" never a fan of part-linking formal titles to generic terms.
    Hmm. I'd thought about writing a short article about the Cullen Burn to allow me to link the entire phrase, but haven't found the sources yet to allow it yet. I'm slightly concerned that it might not be obvious to a non-Scottish reader that the Cullen Burn is a small river - how strongly do you feel about this?
    I think it's not appropriate to part-link formal titles. I guess you could footnote it and link burn there. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 13:47, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Unlinked, footnote added.
  • Is there a link for "Findlater"?
    No - the only links available are Findlater Castle, and Earl of Findlater, both of which are already linked in the article.
  • "elevated to the status of a collegiate church." outside my comfort zone entirely but what's the hierarchy of churches and who decides what status each one has?
    See Collegiate Church (which is linked). A collegiate church has prebendary canons supported by a financial endowment by a wealthy patron. It's a kind of mediaeval bling - the Findlaters were showing they could afford to pimp their parish church. If you take a look at Cullen Old Church, you will see that they even had their own fancy carved gallery installed, so they didn't have to sit amongst the hoi polloi. Any change needed here do you think?
    I think it might be useful to have a referenced footnote explaining this because it's certainly not something a non-expert would be familiar with. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 13:47, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've expanded on this with a more detailed footnote - is that any better?
  • "of 1264[2][3] and" comma after 1264.
    Done
  • "The house was nearly ... The house was thoroughly... " repetitive back-to-back.
    Changed second one to 'it'
  • "arms of the Earl of Seafield" any reason that's not "Arms"?
    The MOS generally calls for things not to be capitalised unless they are consistently capitalised in sources. This NGram suggests that lower-case 'arms' is more common.
    But it's the first word in the sentence fragment? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 13:45, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Bloody hell. Should have just looked at the article rather than trying to be clever. Fixed.
  • "after the third earl inherited" did you mention who the "third earl" was?
    I haven't; I'm not sure that it would add much, I don't have anything to say about him apart from his name, which was James Ogilvie - just like the first, fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh earls. Do you think this would be useful?
  • "Jacobite army" could link Jacobite, as you've only linked it in the lead.
    I thought that linking to the '45 rising would have been sufficient, but linked.
  • "petitioned Parliament for the sum of £8,000 in" which Parliament? And inflate £8,000.
    Parliament linked; £8,000 inflated with a footnote
  • Could link facade.
    Done
  • "rooms. [1]" no space
    Good spot, thanks
  • "and in 1915 it was inherited by Nina Ogilvie-Grant-Studley-Herbert, the 12th Countess of Seafield, who was reputed to be the wealthiest woman in Britain after Queen Elizabeth II." seems odd because Elizabeth II had yet to be born in 1915...
    Yes, I was wondering how best to phrase this. I've changed it to 'who later gained a reputation as' - better?
  • "He also lived elsewhere, and he used the" no need for the second "he".
    Yep, done
  • Maybe link "joiner".
    Done, and also plasterer
  • "The subdivided house" probably needs an "as of".
    done
  • Our article on "Faith" appears to be at Faith in Christianity as opposed to Faith (virtue) which redirects to the generic "virtues" article.
    What do you suggest doing about this? The other two virtues mentioned have articles about them already - I don't feel well-placed to write one about Faith to avoid the conflict, but I think that having only two of them linked would look a bit odd.
    You can leave it I guess. If someone (else) gets round to writing an article then it'll just nicely point at it straight away... The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 13:48, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " by James Adam, and" overlinked.
    MOS:DL suggests that linking on first mention after the lead may be useful. This is the first mention after the lead, and it's quite a long way into the article. I'll remove if you insist, but this seems useful to me.
    It's linked here: "Architects James and John Adam worked..." The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 13:55, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah yes - I searched for "James Adam", but of course on first mention I didn't include the surname. Unlinked.
  • "replaced by a painting of bubbles and astronauts" what? I mean, WHAT?
    IKR?! That's all the source gives me, and it's exactly as they describe. They don't criticise it explicitly, but the derision is dripping out between the lines.
  • "polished ashlar. An" overlinked.
    Gone
  • Ref 6 should be pp.
    Fixed
  • Some works are linked and some aren't, what's the strategy in the refs?
    I thought I'd linked all the linkable ones, but I see a couple I'd missed - are there any more where you can see a link could be added?
  • Refs 23 and 24 don't work for me.
    I think it's something funny about the Internet Archive pages. The 'archived from the original' links should work. I wasn't sure whether it was something I was doing wrong, or if the archive pages were broken - want me to remove the archive links?
    I'm not sure which refs they are now! The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 13:59, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think if you clip them out inside newspapers.com and then force archive.org to archive the URL of the clipped page, you're in business. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 14:02, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Urgh, I don't know how to do that, I'm pretty new to Newspapers.com, and I'm useless at getting archive.org to do anything I want it to. Any chance of a hand here? They're now numbered 28 and 29 if that helps. Girth Summit (blether) 14:35, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've done 28 but can't access 29 because I don't subscribe to Independent archives. Basically, use the scissor icon, then drag the rectangle over the clipping you wish to preserve, reshape it and hit "clip" and then "view clipping" takes you to a new URL which is accessible without subscription and can be more easily archived. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 14:41, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The Rambling Man Thanks. That wasn't so difficult after all. I think that's it done now. I've asked EdwardUK to look at the double space issue in the template - is there anything else you need doing here? Girth Summit (blether) 14:51, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The template has been changed to remove the double spaces - not sure how I'd never noticed it before. EdwardUK (talk) 15:37, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 25 has an author (Ben Flanagan)
    Added (ditto from preceding one)
  • It's also "via Newspapers.com"
    Added
  • Ref 27 appears to have a double space in the title.
    I'm not seeing that. The ref uses a template, but I'm not seeing the double space, can you look again?
    Ah, 27 through 29 all have double spaces before the opening parenthesis. It must be something to do with the template you're using? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 13:57, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess so. The template is used on thousands of articles across the project, I'm not comfortable changing it myself, but I'll reach out to its author and ask them to take a look at this issue.
  • Ref 29, spaced hyphen should be en-dash, and avoiding the SHOUTING.
    Done

That's my lot, nice article. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 13:26, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot, The Rambling Man. I've addressed all of your points above - changed most of them, asked for clarification/further thoughts on a few. Let me know what you think. Cheers Girth Summit (blether) 13:53, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Girth Summit some replies above. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 13:59, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks The Rambling Man - I've made a few more changes, see what you think. Girth Summit (blether) 14:35, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is good to go as far as I'm concerned, so happy to support now. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 14:53, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 29 August 2021 [18].

J. Havens Richards edit

Nominator(s): Ergo Sum 23:50, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a Jesuit whose journey to becoming the president of Georgetown University started with his secret baptism as an infant. He eventually became one of the most significant presidents in the university's history and helped to bring it into the modern age.

Support Comments from Modussiccandi edit

Lead

  • "Richards eventually entered the Society of Jesus" this bit feels somewhat redundant because we've just learnt that he "was an American Catholic priest and Jesuit".
    • Fair enough. I've removed it. Ergo Sum 01:02, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "such the completion of Healy Hall" you are missing an "as" here.
  • "high-caliber" the word somehow seems too colloquial. Also, it doesn't seem clear what exactly this means.
    • That's fair. I've removed it because I don't really think it makes sense it that context anyway. Ergo Sum 01:05, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "significantly bolstered the graduate programs" "significantly" can be left out, especially since you've already used the word in the lead.
  • "some proponents of which called for" is a mouthful; you could as well leave out the entire relative clause because I feel it's enough to know at this point that he "navigated tensions".
    • Removed it and added a brief mention that CUA is also in DC. Ergo Sum 01:05, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Early life

  • I'm not sure the Harvard reference to Shea (1891) is formatted correctly. Could it be that the book is missing after Richards (1913)?
    • I'm not sure how that ref disappeared, but I've re-added it. Ergo Sum 01:20, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Henry Livingston was ostracized" consider replacing "ostracized" for accessibility's sake.
    • I know it's more or less a matter of opinion, but I don't know if it's that unusual a word. I can't really think of a one-word synonym that captures quite the same thing. Ergo Sum 01:20, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As a result" doesn't feel strictly necessary.
    • I'm open to rephrasing but I think having some causal link between the ostracization and his abandoning ministry keeps the narrative flowing and is informative for the reader. Ergo Sum 01:20, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not convinced that the 'Ancestry' section is strictly necessary. Of course, it's always better to have more detail but I'm not sure the information in that section (particularly the second paragraph) adds much to the article. Now, I won't withhold support if you leave the section in; let's see what other reviewers think.
    • I can see the argument for trimming it down. I'd like to get some more input on how that should be dealt with. Ergo Sum 01:20, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Georgetown University

  • "Richards was made the rector and president of Georgetown University" this important bit comes quite abruptly. Is anything known about the circumstances?
    • Unfortunately not. The source is just as abrupt as the phrasing in that paragraph and I haven't been able to find any more detail from other sources. Ergo Sum 01:22, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "upon his instruction" I think it's clear from context that Richards was responsible for this.
  • "Richards succeeded in bringing prominent faculty from Europe onto the Georgetown faculty" are there notable examples who could be included with a wikilink?
    • I've added an example and rephrased to be more faithful to the source. Ergo Sum 01:29, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Graduate courses in the arts and sciences were re-established in 1889" can you give more context on when/why they had been abolished in the first place or were they moved to Woodstock too?
    • I'm not really sure. The source says that theology moved to Boston and then Woodstock because of the Civil War but doesn't explain why arts and sciences courses stopped. If I had to guess, I'd say it was because of the Civil War, but I can't say for sure. I checked the Curran source too and didn't find any specific mention of graduate A&S courses. Ergo Sum 01:40, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was the Catholic University of America also based in DC?
    • Yes, I've added a note of this. Ergo Sum 01:31, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and Catholic University dropped its plans" do we need an article here and in the next sentence? (I'm unsure.)
    • While the official name of the school is "The Catholic University of America," it is quite often referred to simply as "Catholic University" (without the article) for short. Ergo Sum 01:31, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "John Gilmary Shea" it would be good to get a very brief introduction to this person (e. g. to say that he was an historian or such). The same is true for Elizabeth Wharton Drexel.

Pastoral work

  • "spiritual father" does this mean his job was only pastoral? Perhaps clarify.
    • I'm not entirely sure what the term means. I've just copied it from the source. I imagine it probably meant a kind of senior position in the institution that involved pastoral rather than administrative responsibilities, but it's a term that means different things in different contexts, so it is hard for me to give an answer. Ergo Sum 01:34, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Later years

  • "his first stroke" I think 'a stroke' would work as well because the second stroke is already marked as such.
  • "in the hospital" I'm not sure the article is needed though I'm admittedly shaky on these things.
    • This is very much a British vs. American English point. AmEng always uses the article when referring to a stay in the hospital, while BritEng always omits it. Ergo Sum 01:35, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Images

  • Am I right to assume that dates aren't available for the images where none is given?
    • Yes, any dates I was able to find have already been included on images. Ergo Sum 01:35, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's good to see another article in this series by you. Have a look at my comments, some of which are really more suggestions. I might have more when after you've addressed them. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 10:22, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, as always, for your input, Modussiccandi. Ergo Sum 01:40, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good stuff. I will support now, given that I was merely offering quibbles to a very good article. I'll be interested to see what (if anything at all) other reviewers say about the 'Ancestry' section. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 08:51, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

  • What is the benefit of including both the 1890 and the Healy Hall image?
    • I figured there were that many images of the subject to begin with, so I'd try to include whatever ones I could find. The two photos are pretty different, since one is a higher quality one of him standing in a studio, while the other is a more candid shot of him actually at the university. Ergo Sum 02:44, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hm. I would say the article is overillustrated for its length with several similar-looking images, and in particular with sandwiching between these two. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:51, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've removed the sketch of him and kept the two aforementioned. This should alleviate the sandwiching. Ergo Sum 16:59, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest improving alt text - no need for so much duplication between alt and caption
    • Improved the alt text. Ergo Sum 02:34, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:J._Havens_Richards_portrait_2.jpg: when and where was this first published? If the author is unknown, how do we know they died over 70 years ago?
    • As with many images I uploaded in the past on this subject, I seem to have incorrectly tagged them. I've adjusted the tag accordingly. Ergo Sum 02:38, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Joseph_Havens_Richards_portrait.jpg: is the tagging on the basis that this was a work for hire, or is the date of death of the creator known?
    • I based it on the second bullet point of the template: unknown author death date + created before 1901. Ergo Sum 02:43, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Given that there is a studio listed though, could the author reasonably be identified? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:51, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I did some digging and identified exactly who the author was (including death date). I've adjusted the license tags accordingly. I think they're right now, but that sort of thing has never been my forte. Ergo Sum 17:06, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:J._Havens_Richards_portrait.png: if the author is unknown, how do we know they died over 70 years ago? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:48, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Touché. I've corrected the tag. Ergo Sum 02:40, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by Z1720 edit

Non-expert prose review.

  • "Henry Livingston Richards' name was sometimes spelled as Livingstone." per MOS:POSS, this should be Richards's
  • "Richards' father sought to send" same as above.
  • "He had an ambitious plan to transform Georgetown into a modern," I'm hesitant to have the word ambitious in wikivoice. Who said that this plan was ambitious?
    • I'm inclined to say that falls within the narrow band of editorializing permitted to enhance the prose of an article, but I suppose erring on the side of faithfulness to sources is best. Removed. Ergo Sum 23:44, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which had previously been removed to Boston and then to Woodstock College." -> "which had previously been moved to Boston, then Woodstock College."
  • "Richards sharply criticized the decision" Delete sharply
  • "The property of the medical school, which theretofore had been owned by its own legal corporation was transferred to the President and Directors of Georgetown College," Put a comma after corporation.
  • "Richards also worked with Bishop John Keane to address tensions" Delete also
  • "Richards' most immediate task" Richards's
  • "construction of which began in 1877 under Patrick F. Healy, but whose interior remained unfinished." delete this comma?
  • "He was able to have the bulk of the work complete" Did he do anything special to speed up this work, such as devote additional funds to it?
    • The source does not elaborate on this. Ergo Sum 23:49, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1893, James Jeffrey Roche, the editor of the Catholic Boston newspaper The Pilot, wrote Charles William Eliot, the president of Harvard University, about the fact that no..." Lots of commas here. Maybe, "James Jeffrey Roche, the editor of the Catholic Boston newspaper The Pilot, wrote to Charles William Eliot, the president of Harvard University, in 1893 about the fact that no..."
    • Unless I'm misreading this, those are the same sentence minus the year. I'm not sure that simplifies it that much. I've swapped some of the commas out for em dashes. That should simplify it somewhat. Ergo Sum 23:54, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " family in Boston due to news of his mother's death." -> "family in Boston after his mother's death."
  • "Richards then returned to Los Gatos in April" delete then, the reader knows this happened after his return to Boston so is redundant.
  • "Richards then returned to Los Gatos in April, where he remained until the summer of 1901, when he returned to Frederick, Maryland. There, he became minister of the novitiate." -> "Richards returned to Los Gatos in April. In the summer of 1901, he returned to Frederick, Maryland and became minister of the novitiate." This puts the Los Gatos activities in one sentence, and the Maryland activities in the other.
  • "With the relocation of the novitiate to St. Andrew-on-Hudson in Poughkeepsie, New York in January 1903, Richards followed as minister." -> "Richards moved to St. Andrew-on-Hudson in Poughkeepsie, New York, in January 1903 when the novitiate was relocated there." This allows the sentence to start with a noun, which is usually preferable to having the verb come before the noun.
    • I must disagree with the rule that sentences should start with a noun, but I do like your phrasing better here. Done. Ergo Sum 00:02, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't want to categorize it as a rule, as I can think of many examples of when a verb should go before the noun. Rather I am generalising a practice in English, a language with many exceptions to rules, guidelines, and practices. I thank you for thinking about my suggestions before deciding to accept just to garner my support, or reject in order to argue. I appreciate editors who bring conversations to FACs. Z1720 (talk) 01:56, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the summer of 1903, he was instead made the procurator, and was in charge of the mission in Pleasant Valley." Why is instead here? Was he not a novitiate when he moved to Poughkeepsie?
    • This is to indicate that he basically switched jobs from minister to procurator. A novitiate is the actual institution, while a novice is one who attends the institution. But, no, he was not a novice. Indeed, as minister or procurator he would be roughly the equivalent of vice president of the institution. Ergo Sum 00:09, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please correct me if I am wrong with this timeline: In summer 1901 Richards moved to Frederick and became a minister of the novitiate. In January 1903 the novitiate and Richards move to Hyde Park, New York, and Richards is still a minister of the novitiate. In summer 1903, Richards becomes a procurator, and is no longer a minister. If this timeline is correct, I am still confused as to why the text said he is "instead made a procurator" as this wording gives me the impression that he was not a minister after the novitiate moved to Hyde Park. Z1720 (talk) 01:56, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • That timeline is correct. He was still minister after the novitiate moved for a few months before ceasing to hold that job and instead becoming procurator. Does that not come across in the currently wording? Ergo Sum 02:09, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • The timeline comes across, but I think "instead" is the wrong word to use in the quote cited in the first bullet point, "In the summer of 1903, he was instead made the procurator, and was in charge of the mission in Pleasant Valley." The current wording makes it sound like in the move to Hyde Park, he became a procurator right away instead of remaining as a minister for a time, which is incorrect. I think "instead" should be deleted from that sentence. Z1720 (talk) 14:32, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • That's fine. I've removed it. Ergo Sum 15:33, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He then transferred again to Boston College in the summer of 1906 as spiritual father, where he remained for a year." Delete then, delete again as these are redundant and assumed based on the preceding sentences.
    • Removed "then" but kept "again." I think it makes sense to keep it since the same section mentions that he was as Boston College not long before. Ergo Sum 00:12, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Richards then became operarius[b] of the Church of St. Ignatius Loyola in New York City." When did this happen?
    • Immediately after leaving Boston College. I have rephrased slightly to make this clearer. Ergo Sum 00:16, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At the same time, he became pastor of the Church of St. Ignatius Loyola." -> "He concurrently became paster of the Church of St. Ignatius Loyola." It shortens the sentence and deletes a comma, which I think I have a personal vendetta against...but that's another discussion.
    • Done. (But tweaked slightly to avoid a split infinitive). Ergo Sum 00:18, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Being advanced in age, he was relieved of the position by the provincial superior on March 25, 1919," Was his old age cited as a reason he was relieved of the position? If so, this should be more explicit in the text.
    • I've taken another look at the source and I think the way I phrased it was a bit misleading. In a religious order, one cannot simply retire from a position to which they were assigned by a superior; they must be relieved by the provincial. But here, the source says he requested to be relieved because of his age and the provincial allowed it. So I've rephrased to retiring, which is really more accurate. Ergo Sum 00:22, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Following his positions in New York, " Delete, this is covered in the previous section and is redundant.
    • This would break of the temporal continuity because the section would begin with no frame of reference as to time. Ergo Sum 00:23, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Those are my comments. Please ping when the above have been responded to. Z1720 (talk) 16:39, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Z1720. Ergo Sum 00:24, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Some responses above. Z1720 (talk) 01:56, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comments have been addressed. I support. Z1720 (talk) 15:47, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

All sources appear to be of appropriate quality, and the references and citations are appropriately formatted and used.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:42, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from TRM edit

  • "in the same city" did you link the city itself yet?
  • Infobox/sucbox says 31st, is that cited?
    • 31 is not mentioned anywhere in the text, but the 2010 Curran source in the body supporting the proposition that he succeeded Doonan implicitly supports it because that page contains a list of the presidents, so it's just a matter of counting them. Ergo Sum 02:14, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Cowles' mother" I think our dreadful MOS says that ought to be Cowles's...
    • You are right. Dreadful it is. Ergo Sum 02:14, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to Jersey City, New Jersey in" comma after NJ.
  • "became a United States Representative from Ohio" my ignorance, but are representatives back then "from" somewhere or "for" somewhere?
    • Yes, that is the typical language. Even at this time, Ohio contained multiple congressional districts so he did not represent the whole state. Ergo Sum 02:17, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "that partook in " -> that took part in
    • Any particular reason you suggest this change? Ergo Sum 02:18, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, my ignorance, but "and public schools in " were no public schools Catholic?
    • To my knowledge, no public schools in the US (below the tertiary level) have ever been officially associated with any religion. Ergo Sum 02:19, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "moved to Boston, Massachusetts with" comma after MA.
  • "the steel industry" steel is a common word, no need to link. There may be a better link like Iron and steel industry in the United States perhaps.
    • Adopted your suggestion. Ergo Sum 02:24, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The rest of his family joined them" them -> he and his father.
    • Done. I think because Richards and father are direct objects here, it would be "him and his father." Please correct me if I'm wrong. Ergo Sum 02:29, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "active in sports" bit easter egg, perhaps "active in college athletics"
    • I worry that phrasing might be a bit redundant. I've tweaked it to "school sports." Ergo Sum 02:37, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in Frederick, Maryland on" comma after Maryland.
  • "probationary period" is there a link?
    • The most appropriate link is Jesuit formation, which is linked earlier in the article. If you think it's worth linking again, I can do that. Ergo Sum 02:52, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • On second thought, I've gone ahead and linked it. Ergo Sum 03:33, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "did work in chemistry during his vacations" I don't know what this means.
    • I really am not sure either. I assume it means something along the lines of doing research in chemistry, but the source is very unclear on this. Ergo Sum 02:53, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "during his vacations.[5] During the summers" during/during is repetitive reading.
  • "be ordained after" link.
  • "to do his" always dislike "do", perhaps "undertake"? "pursue"?
  • "comprehensive university that would be the leading university" repetitive.
  • "secular" link.
  • "the Ratio Studiorum should" shouldn't that be in italics?
  • "of the university. He introduced new courses" could merge these two short sentences.
  • "He also standardized the curriculum" in what sense?
    • If I had to take a guess, I'd say it means he brought it in line with the curricula of other medical schools, but the source simply does not elaborate. Ergo Sum 03:03, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "care of the Sisters of Saint Francis" that's a dab page.
    • Changed to a better link. Ergo Sum 03:16, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with Bishop John Keane to" is there a link for Bishop?
    • This is already linked. Ergo Sum 03:27, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "under Patrick F. Healy but whose" who was he?
    • Added brief explanation. Ergo Sum 03:28, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "invited Johann Hagen to " overlinked.
    • Forgot that I already introduced Hagen. Rephrased. Ergo Sum 03:30, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in South Africa, so" no need to link common geographical locations.
  • " Boston Alumni Sodality" I don't think it's appropriate to part-link formally titled entities.
    • I agree with you but I thought an exception might do well here because a sodality isn't a very common term or concept. Ergo Sum 03:31, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " in Los Gatos, California in March" comma after CA.
  • "a short while " -> "a brief period".
  • "returned to Los Gatos in April. In the summer of 1901, he returned" returned/returned...
  • "scholastics" what are they?
  • Ref 9, spaced hyphen should be unspaced en-dash.
  • "succeeded by James J. Kilroy" that accounts for one position, but there are three positions in the sucboxes at the end of the article which suggest that Kilroy succeeded Richards. Where are those mentioned/cited?
    • Added refs and clarified phrasing. I cannot find a ref that explicitly says he was succeeded by Kilroy as pastor, but as the text says, the pastorship of the church and president of the schools were at this time always held by the same person, so it logically follows that his successor was Kilroy. Ergo Sum 04:01, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I have. I realise that some of the comments do nothing other than expose my ignorance, but that might be helpful for a FA review to ensure our readers get it all. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:49, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your thorough review, The Rambling Man. Ergo Sum 04:02, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, looks good to me, so I'm happy to support. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 07:02, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 29 August 2021 [19].

Yugoslav gunboat Beli Orao edit

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:59, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a Yugoslav ship that was built just before WWII as a royal yacht, and intended to be used as a patrol boat, escort or guard ship in wartime. She was captured by the Italians during the April 1941 Axis invasion, and served in various roles under their flag until 1943, including for training anti-submarine warfare crew. Returned to the Royal Yugoslav Navy-in-exile, she was refitted and used as a tender for a flotilla of motor gunboats in the Tyrrhenian and Adriatic Seas. Taken over by the Partisans, she continued to serve in the Yugoslav Navy until the late 1970s. The article recently passed Milhist ACR after I secured copies of two new books on the Royal Yugoslav Navy and naval actions in the Adriatic in WWII which allowed me to expand the article to the point that I now think it is comprehensive enough to meet the FA criteria. Have at it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:59, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Image review pass per ACR (t · c) buidhe 15:08, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks buidhe! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:25, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed.

  • Could the namesake information in the infobox be elaborated to reflect what's in the text?
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:30, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any idea why the measurements vary between sources?
No, it happens though. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:30, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in if and how publication location is presented
Not sure what you mean here. Do you mean dropping England from London, or what? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:30, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You've got locations for all sources but Niehorster; some locations include city and some are at the country level; some locations include country while others include a subnational entity. I'm looking for a consistent rule for whether locations are included (eg if you're not including it for Niehorster because it's a web source, it shouldn't be there for Miramar either), and then a consistent rule on what level and type of location detail is included. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:26, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, gotcha. Fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:07, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't duplicate between publisher and author fields
Dropped. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:30, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes Leo Niehorster a high-quality reliable source? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:16, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Niehorster has a PhD and is a published author (with The Military Press, a reliable military book publisher in the UK) on orders of battle. I've used him in a couple of dozen FAs/FLs. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:30, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One query, Nikkimaria. Thanks for taking a look, as always. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:30, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild edit

I could find remarkably little to pick at when I reviewed this for ACR, now it is at FAC I shall recuse and try harder.

  • "post-World War II". All entries in the infobox should commence with an upper case letter.
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:07, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "she was pressed into service as the Admiralty yacht". Perhaps you could tell readers, or at least me, what the function of the Admiralty yacht. (And the upper case A with the lower case y seems to beg a couple of questions.)
dropped the A (as it can cause confusion because the Admiralty is usually associated with the British Royal Navy), and added a short explanation. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:07, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Re-armed" implies that at some point she had been disarmed? If so, should it not be mentioned?
reworded. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:07, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a flotilla of motor gunboats that had been loaned to the Yugoslav Royal Navy-in-exile." By?
Complicated, they were US-built ones leased by the Brits then loaned to the Yugoslavs. Not sure that is needed, so just went with the Royal Navy. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:07, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as a naval yacht". Without even a link to help us out, what the devil is a naval yacht?
similar to an admiralty yacht, but for wider use, but Armed yacht is close, so linked that and tweaked the wording. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:07, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Anchored off Krtole within the bay, the commander-in-chief of the fleet, Rear Admiral Emil Domainko, was summoned to meet with the Italian general whose troops had captured Kotor." The chronological flow would be improved if we were told about the Italian capture of Kotor before Domainko's movements.
Sure, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:07, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She was put into service with the Regia Marina ..." Possibly start a new paragraph here?
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:07, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Zagabria was then attached to the anti-submarine warfare (ASW) school". Any idea when? Even very roughly.
Great question, sadly the source is quite vague on this. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:07, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And that trivia is all I can find. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:16, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look, Gog! See what you think of my responses. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:07, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Pendright edit

@Peacemaker67: A few nitpickers for you! Pendright (talk) 00:54, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lead:

  • She was then used to train anti-submarine warfare specialists out of the naval base at La Spezia
out of -> "from" might be more conventional
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:22, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Background:

  • Beli Orao was ordered from Cantieri Riuniti dell'Adriatico (CRDA) at Trieste in Italy in 1938, originally as a guard ship for the Yugoslav Financial Guard. During her construction, the
  • Might drop the first in and give Trieste, Italy, its normal punctuation
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:22, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could add "built" after originally
Went with something else, but thanks. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:22, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The final design gave her the appearance of a motor yacht or fast passenger ship.[3]
When one compares Beli Orao with the passenger ship linked, the word "appearance" seems a stretch
changed to Motor ship, but there isn't a perfect link for this AFAIK. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:22, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The size of her crew is unknown.[1]
Might this be good info for the Infobox?
Sure. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:22, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Service:

  • After the Italians captured Kotor, the commander-in-chief of the fleet, Rear Admiral Emil Domainko, who was aboard Beli Orao anchored off Krtole within the bay, was summoned to meet with the Italian general at Kotor.[7
the Italian general -> Wouldn't it be "an" Italian general, since no specific general has been named?
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:22, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • During her service with the Italians her two 40 mm guns were replaced by two Oerlikon 20 mm (0.79 in) L/70 guns.
  • consider repllacing one "her"
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:22, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "by" two or "with" two?
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:22, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Until the Italian armistice with the Allies in September 1943, she was used to train ASW specialist crew for corvettes, destroyers and torpedo boats.
Is it "a" specialist crew, or specilist crews?
Just cut it down to ASW specialists. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:22, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 1944 and 1945, she was stationed at Malta,[3] where the British Royal Navy purged the remaining "royalists" from the flotilla, replacing those personnel with politically reliable crew loyal to the Yugoslav Communist Party-led Yugoslav Partisans.
The comma after Malta does not fit well with the flow or meaning of the sentence, as I read it
Deleted.

Finished - Pendright (talk) 00:54, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks as always, Pendright! See what you think of my changes. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:22, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Suporting - Regards @Peacemaker67:
Pendright (talk) 17:30, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Z1720 edit

Non-expert prose review.

  • "Her guns were replaced" Guns were replaced with what? Was this an upgrade to make her a more powerful ship?
Actually less powerful, the 40 mm guns were replaced with 20 mm. The latter were the Italians preferred anti-aircraft guns for which they had plentiful ammunition. Ammunition for the original ones was limited to what had been captured during the invasion, as they weren't made by the Italians. Have tweaked the wording, see what you think. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:44, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me. Z1720 (talk) 21:58, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1978, she was still in service as a yacht, but was scrapped soon after." -> Feels a little awkward. Was she scrapped in 1978? If so, maybe "She remained in service as a yacht until 1978, when she was scrapped."
Unfortunately it isn't completely clear that she was scrapped in 1978, it might have been a year or two later. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:44, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do the sources say that it is unclear when she was scrapped? Perhaps this should be included in the article. If this is OR because the sources don't really say anything about it, then leave as-is. Z1720 (talk) 21:58, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It would be OR. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:08, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Orao's length overall, both 60.45 metres" put "and both 60.45 metres"?
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:44, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She had a standard displacement of 567 tonnes (558 long tons),[1][2] and displaced around 660 t (650 long tons) at full load.[1][2]" If you are citing the same sources, I don't think the references after the comma are necessary.
Well spotted, fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:44, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was laid down on 23 December 1938," laid down is a technical term and should be wikilinked, perhaps to keel laying?
Not sure how I missed that, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:44, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have missed far worse things in articles I have written. Z1720 (talk) 21:58, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "When the fleet flagship, the obsolete light cruiser Dalmacija, was tasked to participate in an attack against the Italian enclave of Zara, the fleet staff transferred to Beli Orao." The comma are creating a choppy prose. Maybe, "The fleet staff of the obsolete light cruiser Dalmacija transferred to Beli Orao when the former was tasked to participate in an attack against the Italian enclave of Zara."
Reduced commas by restructuring the sentence, see what you think. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:44, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me. Z1720 (talk) 21:58, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Triste is listed as a builder in the infobox. Originally I thought this was a company, but its actually the name of an Italian city. Did the city help fund/build this ship? If so, their contribution should be mentioned in the body and if not, it should probably be removed from this section.
It is differentiating it from the CDRA shipyards in other ports, ie it was built in the one at Trieste. I have done this with shipbuilders with multiple yards in previous FAs, but if you insist, I could remove it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:44, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe reword to: Cantieri Riuniti dell'Adriatico in Trieste? Z1720 (talk) 21:58, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:08, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's all from me. Please ping when the above are responded to. Z1720 (talk) 16:21, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All addressed, Z1720. Thanks very much for taking a look. Let me know what you think of my responses? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:44, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Responses above. Z1720 (talk) 21:58, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Have addressed your tweaks. Thanks again, Z1720! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:08, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My concerns have been addressed, so I can now support. Z1720 (talk) 01:55, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

G'day @FAC coordinators: this one has three supports (one non-Milhist) and image and source reviews. Can I have a dispensation for a fresh nom please? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 20:26, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure PM, go ahead. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:35, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Minor comments from Chidgk1 edit

"Her guns were replaced and she saw service as a gunboat in the Regia Marina (Italian Royal Navy), briefly as Alba then Zagabria, undertaking harbour protection and coastal escort duties."

could be tightened to something like

The Italian Navy (had her guns replaced)/(replaced her guns) and used her as a gunboat for harbour protection and coastal escort, briefly as Alba then Zagabria.

or

The Italian Navy rearmed her as a gunboat for harbour protection and coastal escort, briefly as Alba then Zagabria.

Thanks, went for something like that. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 20:51, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If we know why the guns were replaced it could be mentioned in the body of the article.

Yes, unclear in sources, but probably because of lack of ammunition for the existing guns and greater familiarity of her Italian crew with the 20 mm ones, which were the standard light anti-aircraft guns used by the Italians. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 20:51, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Additional comment)

Additionally, if you liked this comment, or are looking for an article to review I have one at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates#Greenhouse_gas_emissions_by_Turkey Chidgk1 (talk) 17:39, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 20:51, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 29 August 2021 [20].

Robert Kaske edit

Nominator(s): Usernameunique (talk) 06:58, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On a bomb-shattered Pacific island in the waning days of World War II, Robert Kaske read a story about two professors so engrossed in their conversation that by the time dusk turned to dawn, they had forgotten where they were. The story led Kaske to abandon his intentions of a business career; he instead made his way to Cornell and founded one of the preeminent medieval studies graduate programs in North America, credited with producing the backbone of the discipline's next scholastic generation.

This article began as a stub intended to give context to the author of a source cited in another article, then quickly grew. It is well-written (if I do say so myself), comprehensive, and thoroughly researched. Significant effort went to tracking down source material—be it Kaske's short stories published as a student, or even the 1974 photo used in the article, provided by the photographer from the original negative. The article reviewed a thorough good-article review in May by Chiswick Chap, and is ready to be nominated here. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:58, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Image licensing looks OK (t · c) buidhe 07:14, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Hawkeye7 edit

How unusual to see and article on an academic. Have written many myself, but in general don't take them to featured. Article is in good shape; some suggestions:

  • Suggest linking sophomore, junior, senior, Jesuit, magna cum laude, Bachelor of Arts, Master of Arts, PhD
    • Done.
  • "the school newspaper" The Xavier University Newswire?
  • World War II: the narrative is a bit jumbled chronologically here, and might give the reader the impression that he returned from the Pacific before the war ended. The 819th Tank Destroyer Battalion departed San Francisco for Hawaii in March 1944, and went to Peleliu in February 1945. You can read more about its history here
  • I thought about using that source, but wasn't sure about it, given that the source and author are unclear. It might be the same source noted in a footnote to Kaske's Festschrift, which says "The Modern Military Field Brance of the Military Archives Division of the National Archives and Records Administration provided a brief 'History of the 819th Tank Destroyer Battalion' and some other material concerning the 819th." --Usernameunique (talk) 06:43, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we add the title of the PhD to article and the infobox? (Military service can also be added to the infobox using the module parameter with infobox military person)
  • Done. Also trying to pin down the end date of Kaske's service (1945 or 1946), and a good source showing his promotion to First Lieutenant. Oddly, Find a Grave seems to have found a source for the latter, but I can't figure out where that site got it from. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:43, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we know the name of his PhD supervisor?
  • Add df=y to the infobox date parameters to harmonize the article's date format
    • Done.
  • I think "Pennsylvanua" is a mispelling
    • Fixed.
  • Is Winston (Wink) Locklair really likely to get an article in the future?
    • I'm not sure whether Wriston Locklair is likely to get an article, but I think he is likely notable enough for one. He was apparently well regarded as a critic before he joined Juilliard, and has a number of obituaries, including by The New York Times (link) and The Charlotte Observer (link). He's also frequently mentioned as an influence on his nephew, Dan Locklair. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:00, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fair enough. I was just curious, given that George R. Coffman is red-linked in another article. I personally don't red link much. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:00, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Carol Vonckx, an English scholar who herself became a professor at Cornell" Yeah, in 1992.
    • She was teaching at Cornell since 1963 but only became a full professor in 1992.[21] In the meantime she may have been an associate, assistant professor etc. In American academia all ranks of professor are called "professor", and full professor is the highest rank at many institutions. (t · c) buidhe 23:01, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Well she was lucky to get a job at all, given Cornell's anti-nepotism rules. I suspect that her career progression was slow. But she was a renaissance historian, not a medievalist. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:00, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:53, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All good. Great work here. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:00, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks, Hawkeye7. A couple responses above if you're interested. In response to your first comment, there are a couple other articles on academics I've brought here, e.g., Caroline Brady (philologist) and John Richard Clark Hall, and a couple others probably in the pipeline—mostly ones (like Kaske) of authors I cited and created a stub about, then went back to build out. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:59, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by Kaiser matias edit

I'll go through this in the next day. Looks like a neat article so far. Kaiser matias (talk) 16:46, 20 July 2021 (UTC) Comments below:[reply]

  • "straight-A student in high school" just in consideration for our non-North American audience, would it be better to use something like "top student" or something like that? I'm not opposed to the wording as is, just thinking out loud here.
  • I think some nuance gets lost in the change to "top student" or similar, as a top student could still conceivably get some non-A grades along the way. But I've linked straight-A in case clarity is needed. --Usernameunique (talk) 00:22, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He was commissioned a second lieutenant even before graduation..." This comes out of nowhere, so it may be worth noting the year he started his studies at Xavier, so give context, especially as the dates of his MA and PhD are listed shortly after. I'd also drop the "even" here, as it seems superfluous.
  • In the "Early life and education" section, is it necessary to link Latin? Seems like a common enough thing to leave out.
  • The relevant guideline says to avoid linking "major examples of ... languages (e.g., English, Arabic, Korean, Spanish)". Latin probably falls into that category, so I've removed the link. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:47, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "won the Latin contest" Is it "the" Latin contest, or "a" Latin contest? The former suggests to me that it's the definitive test out there, which I don't think is the case here. I'd lean towards using "a", or a qualifier ("won the school's Latin contest", for example).
  • Per the source, "The achievements of young Robert during his high school and university years are better documented [than his early years]. He attended Elder High School, an all-male institution established in 1923 as the first of Cincinnati's interparochial high schools. In a curriculum not overburdened with frills, he completed four years of English, Latin, and religion without a grade below A, worked on the school newspaper and the yearbook, won the Latin contest, and played baseball." I assume the author got the information from the school yearbook, which I haven't yet been able to find a copy of. I've gone with your approach of saying he "won the school's Latin contest". --Usernameunique (talk) 23:51, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1938 Kaske also matriculated at Xavier University..." I don't think the "also" is appropriate here. I get why it's used, but think you could reword it to simply say something like "After graduating from Elder High, Kaske matriculated at Xavier University. The year is implied that way, and it flows neater, to me at least.
  • "the name of the column meant 'So what?'" Should qualify it meant "So What?" in Latin.
  • "During a leave ... he took out a marriage license, served as a best man at a Thanksgiving wedding the next day in Cleburne, Texas, and married in January." This is a little unclear to me. From what I understand he took out a marriage license to get married himself, then served as a best man on the day after Thanksgiving (Black Friday, to be anachronistic), and then had wedding in January. Is that accurate? I'll wait to hear back before looking at ways to clear it up.
  • That's pretty much what it meant (although I had meant the first wedding was on Thanksgiving itself, not Black Friday), but looking at the sources again, I see that I mistakenly dated the first wedding by the date of the newspaper article, not by the date referred to in the article. I've now reworded the sentence to "During a leave at the end of 1943, while stationed at Fort Hood, he served as a best man at a wedding in Cleburne, Texas, took out his own marriage license a week later, and married in January." --Usernameunique (talk) 00:12, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Kaske left Washington University in 1957..." Was this due to his contract expiring, or some other reason? Curious if it can be clarified, but I understand if that's not possible.
  • The sources tend to glance over this period, and don't discuss the reasons for his leaving. My guess, given Kaske's subsequent jumping around and his comment about publishing himself out of paradise at UNC, was by 1957 he had established some bona fides, and figured he could move up the academic ladder and/or head to a place with a more established program. --Usernameunique (talk) 00:04, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "'Parris Island of medieval studies'": Having done graduate studies in history (albeit more modern, and more interdisciplinary), I can sympathize with that description for his program. That sounds intense, though I can see how it led to such a strong crop of future scholars.
  • The publications section is quite lengthy, so I wonder if it would not be worth splitting that off into a stand-alone article/list (something like Bibliography of Robert Kaske?) In place leave the summary that's there, but as it stands the publications take up roughly two-thirds of the page on my computer, which is excessive.
  • The bibliography of a scholar would seem to fit naturally into his biography. His Festschrift, after all, includes both. And given that dozens of his works are cited throughout the article, it would be a bit of a messy divide; dozens of works would be listed in both this article and the standalone bibliography. --Usernameunique (talk) 00:36, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Overall a solid article, and you do a good job of showing how Kaske impacted the academic world, which can of course be a challenge. I don't see anything major to address here, so look forward to giving it a final review, and likely support. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:15, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much for the thoughtful comments, Kaiser matias. Responses above. --Usernameunique (talk) 00:37, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Happy with the replies above. Still think the sources could go in it's own article, but I'm not going to hold it against the article, and appreciate your viewpoint on it. Happy to support a well-written article. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:00, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

  • "Kaske, standing, discussing his paper which won seventh place in a 1942 intercollegiate writing contest" - this contradicts what is stated in the source
  • There are two sources (newspaper and yearbook) here. The yearbook writes that Host Robert E. Kaske, editor of the "Athenaeum" and Lawrence Splain, editor of the "News," won sixth and fifth places respectively in the Intercollegiate English Contest. The newspaper article writes that Two Xavier University undergraduates won sixth and seventh places in an intercollegiate writing contest open to students in Jesuit colleges and universities of the Missouri and Chicago provinces, contest judges in St. Louis informed Rev. John J. Benson, dean of the Liberal Arts College, yesterday. Lawrence L. Splain, 5709 Doerger Lane, Cincinnati, a junior, won sixth place. Robert E. Kaske, 4216 St. martin Street, Cheviot, was awarded seventh. I went with the newspaper's description of things given that it is closer in time to the contest, but have amended to account for the contradiction. --Usernameunique (talk) 09:09, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in how locations are formatted
  • Done. Large cities are given without clarification (e.g., London or Philadelphia), but smaller cities are given clarification (e.g., Houston, Missouri). --Usernameunique (talk) 09:00, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This isn't done consistently - for example Chapel Hill has a larger population than Urbana, but the former includes state and the latter does not
  • Fn2: Simian is the publisher, not work title. Ditto FN123, check for others
  • Nikkimaria, because as far as I can tell, those two websites are named "Herson Wagner Funeral Home" and "George Simian". What else would be considered the work names for those sources? --Usernameunique (talk) 21:56, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The domain name, particularly in the latter case. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:05, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nikkimaria, I've changed the "| website =" parameter to "georgesimian.com", and the "| publisher =" parameter to "George Simian". I've also checked the other works using {{cite web}}, and don't think they present any issues. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:01, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Multiple pages should use "pp", and be consistent in whether ranges are abbreviated
  • How are you ordering Bibliography?
  • Be consistent in whether you include locations and/or publishers for journals. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:32, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Locations and publishers are included whenever possible (and I've added one in response to this comment), although at times the journal does not make this clear. Journal of the Rocky Mountain Medieval and Renaissance Association says it is printed at Brigham Young University, for instance, without making clear whether it considers Provo, Utah to be the journal's location. And then Old English Newsletter is "Published for The Old English Division of the Modern Language Association of America by The Center for Medieval And Early Renaissance Studies, SUNY-Binghamton", leaving it unclear as to which one to use. --Usernameunique (talk) 09:00, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, Nikkimaria. Responses above. --Usernameunique (talk) 09:10, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Z1720 edit

I agree with Kaiser matias above that his publications should spinout into their own article. WP:BIBLIOGRAPHY says "If an article already exists on an author or artist, then a separate article for a list of that person's works...is warranted if the list becomes so long that its inclusion in the main article would be unsuitable." I believe it has reached this threshold, as it takes up a large portion of the article. It is expected that an academic will have a large body of publications, especially an important academic in their field like Kaske. This large list makes it difficult for the reader to know which of his works are the most noteworthy and notable. Other FAs on prolific writers, such as Maya Angelou and Lilias Armstrong, have split off their published works. Caroline Brady (philologist) does not split off her works, but she only has 17 works listed, while Kaske's article has much more than 17. I suggest that this section is split into its own article. Then, in a "Selected works" section we can hatnote his list of publications and include his most important works (and works mentioned in the article) in a shorter list. Z1720 (talk) 15:53, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

According to the relevant guideline, "Lists of published works should be included for authors", and "Complete lists of works ... are encouraged, particularly when such lists are not already freely available on the internet." The only other list of Kaske's publications (which is mostly, but not entirely, complete) is contained within his Festschrift, an out-of-print book from 1986. So it is clear that Kaske's works should be listed—the only question is where.
The guideline does not suggest what it means for a list of publications to be so long that it is "unsuitable" for inclusion within the article on the author. Z1720, your concern is that the list makes it difficult for a reader to discern which works are the most notable. But a significant number are, such that there would be little to whittle down. As one colleague observed, "Given that Kaske published no other book and that his list of other publications weighs in at about sixty items, including eleven book reviews, some not well acquainted with the scope of his work might ask why he enjoyed such enormous prestige. ... The answer to the query is relatively simple. First, so many of his articles, even the shorter ones, were seminal studies". (Sowell 1989, p. 119.) And it is unclear how to do the whittling without engaging in guesswork or original research. The best we can do is to mention the articles that people writing about Kaske themselves mentioned. This is done is the first paragraph of "Publications", which guides the reader "to know which of his works are the most noteworthy and notable".
Finally, a note about length. The article on Caroline Brady lists 17 publications, because 17 publications is all she wrote; had she written more, I would have included them. The article on John Richard Clark Hall lists 25 publications, because 25 publications is all he wrote (well, that I could find). For the same reason, the article on Herbert Maryon lists 49 publications. Kaske, for his part, published 65 books, chapters, articles, and reviews. It's not that much more, and given that dozens of his works are cited in the article, not many could be removed. --Usernameunique (talk) 14:22, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I remain unconvinced by the arguments presented here and to other editors above and below me. The articles that were given as examples to justify including more works (Hall and Maryon) both have less works listed than this article, and Maryon was one editor opposed for the length of the published works by one editor, and another recommended the the list be spun out. My biggest thought about this list is an adage that "If everything is special, nothing is special". In other words, if everything is listed, then nothing is important enough for the reader to know about. My recommendation is that any works talked about in the article prose should be listed in a Selected Works sections, and everything else can be placed in a separate "List of" article. Z1720 (talk) 19:22, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, Z1720, I still think that it is appropriate to keep the list of publications in the main article. But reasonable minds may differ, of course, and there is no obviously correct approach here—which is well evidenced by the fact that you began with one suggested approach, then switched to another. As said below, keeping all publications here is "not unreasonable", and that should be enough.
I do wish to correct a significant misreading of the Maryon nomination. No editor ever opposed that nomination due to his list of works. One editor offered an unrelated oppose—due solely to the many citations once used in the lead—and then struck it once the citations were removed. Separately, the same editor sought to clarify that the nomination could not be used to justify the inclusion of "hundreds of entries" in a list of publications—the example there being James F. Leckman and his 473 publications. Happily, however, we are not even close to that point. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:43, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HF edit

Will review this one. Hog Farm Talk 03:48, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "and joined The Traditionists, which that year devoted their meetings to reading Dante's Inferno" - what were the Traditionalists? a literary club?
  • Yep. Changed to "... The Traditionists, a literary club which that year devoted their meetings ..." --Usernameunique (talk) 14:25, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note 4: the storm trooper link - how did you determine the link should go to the WWI unit, rather than the Nazi Sturmabteilung (sometimes referred to as the "Nazi Storm Troopers")? The quote is late enough it could refer to either
  • I didn't realize that there were more than one unit referred to as "Storm Troopers". Any suggestions for what to link to, or to just take out the link entirely? --Usernameunique (talk) 14:27, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems weird to me to have note 6 talking about him returning to UNC placed before where it is mentioned that he left UNC
  • Note 7 seems trivial, I'm not sure that it's needed
  • I could be convinced to take it out, but thought it was fun and interesting. Keep in mind, the source's author (Thomas D. Hill, a colleague of Kaske at Cornell) thought it relevant to include the story to illustrate the point he was making about Kaske's impressive library. --Usernameunique (talk) 14:37, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I really don't think that the full length of publications is something that should be displayed here. Recommend splitting off to Robert Kaske bibliography or some variant of that title.
  • Responded above. As to your below points, I'm not sure that the percentage of the article's length that the list of publications takes up is really relevant—it's no longer than the "References" section, after all, and long references sections don't get moved to separate articles. And as for the Quid Ergo articles, the relevant guideline (quoted above) recommends including them, and a dozen are cited in the article as it is. --Usernameunique (talk) 14:32, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's it from me. The major sticking point for me is the long list of publications that takes up more space on the page than the article itself should be split off to a subarticle. I agree with Kaiser Matias and Z1720 on this. The long list of every Quid Ergo? article written by him is especially bloating here. Recommending keeping the introduction and the most important items, and then splitting off and pointing to there with the {{main}} template. Hog Farm Talk 05:36, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, Hog Farm. Responses above. --Usernameunique (talk) 14:38, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support - I'm still not 100% sold on having the bibliography here, but it's also not unreasonable, and I have no quibbles with the rest of this. Hog Farm Talk 00:16, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Minor comment from Chidgk1

As non-academics might not understand consider simplifying "and frequently constituted seminal studies" as it is in the lead. Perhaps "and were often very influential".

  • (Additional comment)

Additionally, if you liked this comment, or are looking for an article to review I have one at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates#Greenhouse_gas_emissions_by_Turkey Chidgk1 (talk) 15:28, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from TRM edit

  • "of medieval literature. Kaske spent most of his career at Cornell University, " He spent. And where is Cornell?
  • Done the first. As for Cornell, I think it's reputation may precede it enough that the location is unnecessary. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:56, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added that it's in Ithaca, New York. The irony, of course, is that if anyone were to ask "Where's Ithaca?" the answer would be "Where Cornell is." --Usernameunique (talk) 08:12, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "where he was ... where he founded ..." bit repetitive.
  • Open to other suggestions, but nothing is jumping out at me. At least the the "and" in "and where he founded" does somewhat blunt the blow the of the repetition. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:58, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Cornell alum" alumnus?
  • "1964–89" other year range in infobox uses full year, be consistent.
  • "Catholic school, for elementary school" repetitive, why not "a Catholic elementary school"?
  • "Quid Ergo?"[18][17] " order.
  • "the Masque Society" what was that?
  • "that year,[31][32][33][34]" four cites needed for this one fact?
  • Each source has unique information. The first announces the production and contains details of it, the second includes a photograph of Kaske and gives his part, the third is a review of the play, and the fourth is Kaske's own take on the script. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:34, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • But then some of those sources aren't actually citing anything in this article, just providing extra information which is where external links come in, surely? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 07:25, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not necessarily. The purpose of citations, according to WP:WHYCITE, is not only to "enable users to verify that the information given is supported by reliable sources," but also to "help users find additional information on the subject". The four cites used here accomplish both purposes. --Usernameunique (talk) 08:10, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "magna cum laude" link.
  • Link furlough.
  • I looked at furlough, but it's not a great article, and barely mentions military furloughs. Happy to link to a better and/or more specific article, but I didn't see one. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:40, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Amazing. I had never heard the term "furlough" until Covid struck and I was personally placed on it. I'm shocked we don't have a better article. Does Wiktionary offer anything useful? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:10, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "married in January" seems odd to say this here but wait until a lot later before re-visiting and telling us who he married.
  • "But the leave was short and in 1945" not sure why "But the leave was short" is relevant? 1945 was a whole year after he got married...
  • Added info from the source mentioned by Hawkeye7, which shows that Kaske, after getting married in January 1944, left the States in March. (His time at home was probably even shorter than that, given that he was stationed in Texas and California, yet got married in Ohio.) "But the leave was short" is relevant because it underscores how short Kaske's honeymoon period was, and foreshadows the end of the marriage (see "the war left him little time for domesticity" in the "Personal life" section). --Usernameunique (talk) 02:48, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "at Xavier Kaske" comma after Xavier.
  • " bomb-shattered Pacific island" tone issues.
  • What's the issue with it? It closely mirrors the source ("At the end of the war, filling empty time on a bomb-shattered coral island in the Pacific, Lt. Kaske read a story about two professors who talked the night away."), and is a nice turn of phrase. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:52, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "aided by the G.I. Bill, Kaske" for us non-experts, this needs a touch of explanation.
  • " Tavern,[60][28] " order.
  • "student paper, Factotum,[61][62][63] " three cites needed for this one fact?
  • Each source adds some information—the first two announce the appearance of an issue with a short story by Kaske, and the third is a review of a separate issue, with poems by Kaske. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:40, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Kaske might have become a Renaissance scholar" who is speculating this?
  • Emerson Brown, the former student mentioned elsewhere. Per the source, "At Chapel Hill, Robert Kaske nearly betrayed his Traditionist legacy by becoming a Renaissance scholar. Under Hardin Craig's direction, he wrote his master's thesis on Chapman's tragedies; and had Craig remained at Chapel Hill, Kaske might well have continued to work with him." Do you think we need to clarify who said this? --Usernameunique (talk) 02:03, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "dissertation defense" is there a link for this?
  • "At Washington Kaske" comma after Washington.
  • "awarded a $600 research" inflate.
  • no need to italicise alma mater but you could link it.
  • "where on 1 September 1961 he" commas after where and 1961.
  • "salary of $13,000" inflate.
  • "In the fall of 1963 " avoid seasons for timeframes.
  • "America[98][58]—" order.
  • "which Fred C. Robinson said" who was he?
  • "teaching.[114][3][115][116] " order.
  • "wrote, "received most" this quote is huge and mainly factual. Does it all need to be a quote or can it be refactored into regular prose?
  • "The two had a son, David Louis.[127][128][58]" order but three cites for one fact?
  • Reordered. Who's Who is needed for the middle name, while the obituary and engagement announcement give additional information on him. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:50, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't we normally put (div. 1958) for divorce in the infobox?
  • The source is a little fuzzy on these details—perhaps not surprisingly, given that it's a bio contained in a Festschrift. It simply says "Although he was married while home on a short leave, the war left him little time for domesticity. It was nearly four years before he could return to civilian life. ... In 1958, his first marriage over, he married Carol Vonckx of Elgin, Illinois." So it's most likely that the marriage ended in a divorce, but not expressly stated, and it's unclear when exactly the marriage was "over". --Usernameunique (talk) 20:56, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Cornell.[82][131][132][133]" four cites necessary?
  • "James;[134][58] at" order.
  • "on the 26th" ->"on 26 August"
  • "The Johns Hopkins Press." is linked plenty of times, (probably only needs linking first time) but some other publishers aren't linked at all. What's the strategy?
  • The strategy is to link specific presses and societies/associations when they have an article, but not institutions (e.g., when an entire university is given as the publisher). Gave it another look and added two links. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:13, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to $13,700 the" inflate.

That's all I have. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:10, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks as always, The Rambling Man. Responses above. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:53, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Rambling Man, further responses above. --Usernameunique (talk) 09:12, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, all good, happy to support now. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:43, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note edit

Just FYI, I've noted the concerns, arguments, and counter-arguments re. the bibliography. I'll admit the list seems to me to overbalance the article somewhat, and might be preferable as a separate list article, but I don't think this is a reason to delay promotion. If further discussion on the talk page results in the list being moved, so be it -- the article's promotion to FA with the list intact doesn't preclude a move, nor should such a change invalidate the FAC result. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:56, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 29 August 2021 [22].

The Idiot (album) edit

Nominator(s): – zmbro (talk) 16:14, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the great punk rocker Iggy Pop's first solo album. However, The Idiot isn't punk rock (mostly). The album was produced by Pop's good friend David Bowie. Both wanted to kick severe drug addictions so they escaped the States and moved to Europe. Due to the much worse state Pop was in, Bowie composed the music, which reflected the German sound of Krautrock that he was becoming interested in at that time, while Pop wrote the lyrics, mostly in response to what Bowie was creating. As a result, you get what I consider a classic album that doesn't represent what Pop was about (he would show that off on the follow-up Lust for Life).

I've essentially built this article from the ground up. I mostly used Bowie's biographies (as most of his goes into great depth regarding this album), but I've made sure to incorporate multiple biographies of Pop's as well. During the GA review, I wanted to make sure the article wasn't too Bowie-centric and the reviewer did not believe it was. I still feel like certain parts are, but the unfortunate truth is Bowie was the dominant creator of this album (many initial reviews commented on this, and Bowie himself admitted it later). Nevertheless, I believe this article is in very good shape to become featured. I firmly believe it's in a much better state than my first FA Hunky Dory was when I nominated that initially. I'm looking forward to hearing any comments and concerns. Happy editing! – zmbro (talk) 16:14, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Media review edit

  • Buidhe Removed the chateau image (primarily added it for more depth), and added more to the audio sample. If it's still not good enough I'll look into deleting that one and adding another one that's more appropriate. – zmbro (talk) 18:17, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, I agree that's an improvement. Do you think that you could explain more in the caption in the article how this audio clip connects to the article text and illustrates sourced commentary? (t · c) buidhe 18:56, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Aoba47 edit

Addressed comments
  • I would add ALT text for the album cover in the infobox.
  • I have a question about this part, get sober proved unsuccessful, by 1976. Is the comma necessary? I have never been great with commas, and it is an area I really need to research further. I only ask because it does not seem necessary to my admittedly untrained eye.
  • In the context of the story leading up to '76, it is. The sentence basically states that he was addicted throughout most of the mid-70s; he attempted to get sober multiple times in '74 and '75 but by '76, he had had enough and finally wanted to get sober. Does that make sense? – zmbro (talk) 00:28, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the explanation. That makes sense to me. Aoba47 (talk) 02:50, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have comment about this part, break free of his addiction. I do not think "break free" really fits with Wikipedia's tone as it reads a little more dramatic than I would expect for an article.
  • Would "rid himself" be better? – zmbro (talk) 00:28, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that would be a better word choice. Aoba47 (talk) 02:50, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This part, Released before The Idiot in January 1977, the commercial success of Low, is not grammatically correct as the commercial success is being connected with the opening phrase and not Low.
  • Changed to "Low was released in January 1977 and was a commercial success, compelling RCA Records to release The Idiot two months later." that better? – zmbro (talk) 00:28, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is better. Thank for the revision. Aoba47 (talk) 02:50, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "Background" section, would it be possible to clarify Pop's involvement with the Stooges? It is not immediately clear to me how Pop was involved with the band.
  • I think it would be worthwhile to link demo as some readers may not be entirely familiar with the concept. I would link it in this part, (which he assumed were demos).
  • In this part, using a Baldwin electric piano, I would link electric piano. I know that it would put two links in a row, but I think the link would be helpful for readers who are unfamiliar with the instrument.
  • I have a question about this sentence: Santangeli later expressed regret over the final drum sound. Would it be possible to briefly elaborate on why he was disappointed with the final drum sound?
  • Unfortunately Chris O'Leary does not go into more depth regarding this (he literally just states it and moves on). – zmbro (talk) 00:28, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the explanation. The current wording should be fine then. Aoba47 (talk) 03:00, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The link to the overdubbing article should be moved up to the first instance "overdubs" is used in the article (i.e. to provide overdubs on a few tracks).
  • This may be a silly question so apologies in advance. I have a question for this part,Retrospectively, commentators have categorized The Idiot primarily as art rock. It reads to me that retrospective critics have more often associated this album with art rock, and the other genres have either received less of a clear consensus or more influences or genres for parts of the album. So would it be more accurate to only include art rock in the infobox?
  • That's a valid point. I suppose it would make more sense to just have that in the infobox; I primarily just included all definite sourced genres that I was able to find. It also felt right to include them at the time as this album influenced quite a few bands in those respective genres. That's my two cents at least. What do you think? – zmbro (talk) 00:28, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is a tough one. You would know best so I would trust your judgement about this. When I have edited song articles, I have always been told to only include genres that critics directly identify with the song and to not include genres that are more indirectly attributed to the song as elements or influences. That is where I was coming from if that makes any sense. I am not the right person to have a clear answer so I will leave it up to you. Aoba47 (talk) 03:00, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upon further thought I removed the other genres so it's now just art rock, since it has been identified later as influential on those genres. – zmbro (talk) 23:53, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part, with occasional German-electronic overtones, would it be helpful to add a link to the German electronic music article?
  • Do you think Krautrock takes care of that or would it be beneficial to add it anyways? – zmbro (talk) 00:28, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It probably is, and the German electronic music article is likely too broad to be really helpful for readers in this context. Aoba47 (talk) 03:00, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not think the robotic link is necessary is it is a pretty universally understood concept.
  • For this sentence, Sounds reported, "If you wanted David, you also got the band.", I would also include the article writer's name since it is known.
  • This might not be necessary, but given how big of a role David Bowie had on this album, would it be worthwhile to include an image of in this article? I do understand your concern about not making this article too Bowie-centric though, but I still wanted to get your opinion on this.
  • I would love to but WP has literally zero images of Bowie from this period (being '76–77). Imo it would not be appropriate to have an image of him from any other year, due to his ever-changing appearance over the years. It's really annoying considering this was arguably his greatest period as a musician, but also considering how he went completely dark for two years it makes sense why there wouldn't be any free images of him. So that's why there's no image of him here. – zmbro (talk) 00:28, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for explanation. It is a shame that free-use pictures of Bowie are not available from this time period, but I completely agree with you that pictures of him from other time periods would be inappropriate and misleading. Aoba47 (talk) 03:00, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I have never heard of this album or really any of Iggy Pop's music prior to this review. For that reason, I have focused my comments entirely on the prose and I cannot provide any real commentary outside of that. With that being said, I think this article is very well-written and engaging. My comments are relatively nitpick-y and once they are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this FAC for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 20:20, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47 Much thanks for the comments! I have a few replies above and will add more background on the Stooges when I can (all my sources are currently away from me). – zmbro (talk) 00:28, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the quick responses. I have replied to everything above. Once the background information on the Stooges is added (and it does not have to be another lengthy as just a brief part on clarifying Pop's role in the Stooge is what I am after), I will support this FAC for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 03:00, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aoba47 Added Stooges background. How's that look? – zmbro (talk) 23:56, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks great to me. Thank you for adding this to the article. Aoba47 (talk) 01:36, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for addressing everything in my review. I support this FAC for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 01:40, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Tkbrett edit

Addressed comments

I didn't know you put this up. I'll likely be too busy this weekend but I'll provide comments starting on either Monday or Wednesday. Tkbrett (✉) 19:16, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • After the break-up, Pop recorded with James Williamson ...: Specify that Williamson was in the Stooges.
  • Santangeli was dismissed at the end of the second day ...: fix passive voicing. Who dismissed him? Bowie?
  • Yeah Bowie; specified. – zmbro (talk) 14:38, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Don't you think we could make a song wit that? ...: This quotation within a quotation has an opening mark but doesn't having a closing one.
  • Added. It was the next sentence that was the full quote. – zmbro (talk) 14:38, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Erich Heckel's painting Roquairol inspired the album's cover photo—which is a flopped image.: It being a flopped image fits better in the next sentence since it doesn't seem relevant to the painting.
  • It also spent three weeks on the UK Albums Chart, reaching number 30,[68] marking Pop's first top 40 album.: It was his debut album, so the fact that it was his first top 40 album is a given. Or does this mean that none of the Stooges' albums made it into the top 40?
  • The latter. None of the Stooges' releases were commercially successful. – zmbro (talk) 14:38, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the first paragraph of the Critical reception section, you summarize and paraphrase the different reviewers well. The first three reviews in the second paragraph however are simply quoted in-full. I would recommend paraphrasing them as well.
  • Paraphrased the first two reviews. – zmbro (talk) 16:28, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although it is now generally regarded as one of Pop's best works ...: by whom?
  • Hmm. According to the lead his fans, but I realize now that somewhat contradicts itself here. I'll see what I can do. – zmbro (talk) 14:46, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • So upon further investigation, I cannot find anything calling this album one of Pop's "best works". Instead, I changed the sentence to "Although reviewers consider The Idiot good in its own right," with Pegg & Seabrook as sources, since the common thing I'm seeing is "it's a good album, but doesn't represent who Pop is". – zmbro (talk) 16:19, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a well-prepared article and I don't see anything besides the above. I made several copy edits and smaller fixes on my way through, so make sure you check that those are agreeable.

My experience with Iggy is limited to enjoying Lust for Life and Fun House, so I can't comment on this article's comprehensiveness. I wouldn't worry that the article is too focused on Bowie; it makes me think of my fiancé picking out, buying and then wrapping a Christmas gift before asking me to sign the card. Tkbrett (✉) 00:18, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey zmbro, I haven’t forgotten about this. I’m away for the weekend and only have my phone available, so I plan on addressing things above tomorrow or Monday. Tkbrett (✉) 13:44, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're good! I still have to take care of the last two points. – zmbro (talk) 14:04, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tkbrett All your concerns should now be taken care of. Thanks for the input! – zmbro (talk) 16:28, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Lee Vilenski edit

I'll begin a review of this article very soon! My reviews tend to focus on prose and MOS issues, especially on the lede, but I will also comment on anything that could be improved. I'll post up some comments below over the next couple days, which you should either respond to, or ask me questions on issues you are unsure of. I'll be claiming points towards the wikicup once this review is over.

Lede
  • Unless I'm misreading, the lede doesn't cover any of the notable songs, or much about the album itself. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:43, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think that's necessarily true, but I can understand where you're coming from. From my experience, the one thing that keeps this album in the "public" conscious is it has the original version of "China Girl", but that's about it. Bowie's own version of "China Girl" is mentioned in the lead but what would you like to see more of? Like the musical and lyrical content specifically? – zmbro (talk) 18:28, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like more specifics? – zmbro (talk) 15:41, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Prose
  • Combined into the prior sentence. – zmbro (talk) 18:34, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He'll never make it to the recording studios in time. Iggy's doomed." - in time for what? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:43, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Doesn't specify. Since studio time was actually booked, I imagine he meant in time being before their studio time was up. Seabrook states that they had one day in the studio but after Pop failed to show up on the second Bowie scrapped the project, so that's my best guess regarding in time. What do you think the best course of action here is?; because in my opinion it's a really good quote. – zmbro (talk) 16:49, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Correctly attributed. – zmbro (talk) 16:49, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He never showed bad form. All the shit I know, that's let me take care of myself, basically I learned traveling with Bowie on the Station to Station tour." - I'm not sure we gleam much here we couldn't put into our own words. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:43, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed to "later stating that he learned all of his self-help techniques through Bowie on the tour." That better? – zmbro (talk) 18:16, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There were further talks of Pop recording a solo album with Bowie as producer; Bowie and guitarist Carlos Alomar had written a new song, titled "Sister Midnight", and offered it to Pop; Bowie occasionally performed it live on the tour - I'm not sure semi-colons are right here. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:43, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Poor Jim, in a way, became a guinea pig - am I assuming Pop's real name is Jim? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:43, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • His real name is James Osterberg and Jim is a nickname of that so yes. – zmbro (talk) 15:41, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very valid point. Fixed. – zmbro (talk) 22:59, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not really. Typically its customary for these charts to have the source next to the chart itself; that's also how the templates do it automatically. – zmbro (talk) 15:41, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comments

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:06, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's a few things above that probably need looking into, but it's in fine shape. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:43, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lee Vilenski Responded to all queries. Thanks for the comments! – zmbro (talk) 23:41, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by Z1720 edit

Addressed comments

Non-expert prose review.

  • "he was ready to break free of his addiction." Break free might be WP:IDIOM. Suggest changing to "he was ready to end his addiction"
  • "Pop accepted an invitation to join his friend David Bowie on his Isolar Tour. At the end of the tour, Pop agreed to join Bowie," repetition of join. Change one to "accompany"?
  • Done (the first one). – zmbro (talk) 16:41, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The two settled into the Château d'Hérouville in Hérouville, where Bowie agreed to produce an album." -> "where Bowie agreed to produce an album for Pop"
  • "Upon its release, the album received divided," What was opinion divided about?
  • Primarily on the difference in styles between this album and Pop's prior work (rock/punk). I think Doggett states it best: "listeners' perceptions of Pop generally influenced their views on the record." – zmbro (talk) 16:41, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This should be outlined in the lede. Z1720 (talk) 17:06, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Z1720 Forgot about this. I was thinking, wouldn't ", with many drawing comparisons to Pop's earlier work." take care of this issue, or would you like to see more/what exactly are you looking for? – zmbro (talk) 22:17, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this needs to be more specific. Maybe "with many noting a change in musical tone from his earlier work, which received mixed responses." This outlines that the divided opinion was about the change in musical tone/genre from earlier work. Z1720 (talk) 15:16, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Z1720 Yep that works. I think that should take care of everything now. – zmbro (talk) 15:29, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It is considered to have influenced post-punk, industrial, and gothic acts, including Joy Division." -> It has influenced
  • "and the two quickly became friends." Delete quickly
  • "causing Pop and Bowie to go their separate ways." Go their separate ways might be WP:IDIOM. Maybe "causing Bowie to stop collaborating with Pop."
  • Changed to "causing Pop and Bowie to stop collaborating." – zmbro (talk) 16:41, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Pop tried to establish himself as a solo artist on numerous occasions, but ultimately failed." -> What did Pop do to try to become a solo artist?
  • I don't have the book with me at the moment so I'll have to follow up on this later. – zmbro (talk) 16:41, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • So according to Seabrook, after the Stooges broke up, Iggy was living in LA. There, he formed a short-lived band with Ray Manzarek of the Doors but this failed (Iggy was apparently at one point being considered as a replacement for Jim Morrison but that didn't happen after the Doors decided to break up). Pop also attempted to audition for Kiss as well (imagine that timeline). By September 1974, he attempted to join Bowie on his Diamond Dogs tour, but couldn't get access to the show and hotel Bowie was staying at (in LA). He was then arrested a month later for charges related to heroin, after which he went to rehab. I figured all of this info would be too much for this article so that's why I condensed the sentence. – zmbro (talk) 15:59, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • All of this information would be off-topic for this article, but I think we can add a little more detail. Maybe something like, "Pop tried to establish himself as a solo artist and auditioned to join other bands such as The Doors and Kiss, but these ventures were unsuccessful." Z1720 (talk) 20:13, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exactly what I thought. Yeah that works, fixed. – zmbro (talk) 22:15, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is note [a] important for this article?
  • You're technically right it isn't. Removed. – zmbro (talk) 16:41, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Pop's stints in rehab were unsuccessful," So far you have only mentioned one time that Pop checked into rehab. Are there others? His constant attempts to get sober should be mentioned.
  • Good point. Again, I'll have to follow up on this later. – zmbro (talk) 16:41, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • His first stint in rehab was in later 1974 as mentioned above. At UCLA, one of his only visitors was Bowie. After a while he checked out but his addiction still continued. This is where Bowie and Pop tried to record an album but Iggy sunk deeper and deeper (hence the "Iggy's doomed" quote). They went their separate ways, Pop sunk deeper and checked into rehab again. At this point it's 1976. Rehab isn't working so he decides enough is enough, so he then joins Bowie on tour and the rest is history. – zmbro (talk) 15:59, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • So it looks like he was in rehab twice, once in 1974 and a second time in 1976. Maybe, "Pop's stints in rehab in 1974 and 1976 were unsuccessful," Z1720 (talk) 20:13, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Pop's stints in rehab were unsuccessful, and according to biographer Thomas Jerome Seabrook, by 1976, he was reaching his "lowest point". -> "Pop's stints in rehab were unsuccessful and his biographer, Thomas Jerome Seabrook, described Pop as reaching his "lowest point" in 1976." To reduce the commas
  • Seabrook is actually Bowie's biographer, not Pop's. He just goes into great depth on The Idiot and Lust for Life because Bowie was heavily involved in the making of both; so saying "his" in that instance wouldn't technically be accurate. – zmbro (talk) 16:41, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • With this wording, I thought Seabrook was Pop's biographer. Maybe, "Pop's stints in rehab were unsuccessful and Bowie's biographer, Thomas Jerome Seabrook, described Pop as reaching his "lowest point" in 1976." Z1720 (talk) 17:06, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yep that's good. Fixed. – zmbro (talk) 17:49, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to clean up his act," Another idiom. Replace with "to become sober"
  • "in support of Bowie's album Station to Station (1976)" Is this detail necessary?
  • I guess not THAT necessary. Removed. – zmbro (talk) 16:41, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "they wanted to escape the drug culture of Los Angeles" -> "wanted to avoid" While on tour they were probably not part of the LA drug culture because they weren't there, so I think avoid is a better word.
  • Done. I believe "escape" was used in the Low article. – zmbro (talk) 16:41, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "then returned to his new home in Switzerland." Is this detail important for this article?
  • Not really (I've noticed I sometimes tend to go overboard in the detailing). – zmbro (talk) 16:41, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's hard to know when it's too much or too little detail, which is why I like FAC reviewers. Z1720 (talk) 17:06, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the former bassist of the French band Magma," I don't know if this is important, and maybe can be removed
  • I actually think it helps give some musical background, so it doesn't appear as though they told a studio owner "hey, play bass for us." At least that's how I see it. – zmbro (talk) 16:41, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm OK with keeping it then. Z1720 (talk) 17:06, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "("Vampiric would be the perfect word", he said later)." The perfect word for what? Expand.
  • I believe in this instance it would be what's being said in the sentence before it. Perhaps I could change the sentence to: "Palmer found the creative collaboration with Pop and Bowie "Vampiric", meaning stimulating but disquieting, never seeing them around during the daytime." What do you think? – zmbro (talk) 16:41, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What about "Palmer described the creative collaboration with Pop and Bowie as "vampiric" because he never saw the artists during the daytime and the collaboration was stimulating but disquieting." Z1720 (talk) 17:06, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yep that works. Fixed. – zmbro (talk) 17:48, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The last track recorded for The Idiot was "Nightclubbing", after the other musicians had left, with Bowie playing the melody on piano using an old drum machine for backing." Either remove "after the other musicians had left" or put "recorded after the other musicians had left"
  • "The success of "Sound and Vision" in the UK confused RCA executives." I think this is off-topic for this article.
  • Changed the sentence to "The success of "Sound and Vision" allowed Bowie to persuade RCA to release The Idiot," – zmbro (talk) 16:41, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Bowie intimidated the label and persuaded them to release The Idiot," Did he intimidate or persuade the label? Pick one.
  • Fixed by the above comment. – zmbro (talk) 16:41, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The lead singer of Joy Division Ian Curtis committed suicide in 1980 with The Idiot still playing on his turntable." This feels random in this paragraph, as the rest of the prose talks about the album's influence on different music genres. I would delete.
  • I do think it's a really interesting detail but I see your point. – zmbro (talk) 16:41, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ISBNs in the Sources either need to be 10-digit or 12-digit
  • "Christgau, Robert (1981)." and "Coleman, Mark; Kemp, Rob (2004)." are missing the city they were published in.

Those are my comments. Please ping when the above are all responded to. Z1720 (talk) 15:09, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Z1720 Thanks for the comments. I have replied to all queries, although I have noted there are a few things I won't be able to look into until later because I don't have the books on hand currently. – zmbro (talk) 16:41, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Responded above. Please ping when you find more information about the things you are looking into. Z1720 (talk) 17:06, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Z1720 Replies related to the book items are above. Let me know what you think I should add. – zmbro (talk) 16:00, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Zmbro: replies to solo artist and stints in rehab comments are above. Z1720 (talk) 20:13, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concerns have been addressed. I support. Z1720 (talk) 15:31, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note edit

zmbro, while this is your second FAC it seems that the first didn't get the usual first-timer's spot check - do correct me if I am wrong about this. So I would like to see one for this article and have added this to requests. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:37, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild If I recall correctly, source reviewing for Hunky Dory was done via the numerous editors that voiced their support in promoting (it wasn't in its own section). But yes that sounds perfectly fine with me. Like you said I'm still pretty new to FAC so if I ever do anything wrong please do not hesitate to say so. – zmbro (talk) 18:54, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi guys, FWIW I reviewed Hunky Dory at GAN and treated it as a potential FAC so conducted a spotcheck of several sources. From memory there were some instances of close paraphrasing but little or no inaccurate usage, and ultimately I was satisfied with the spotcheck. If I'd had the time to complete a review of the article at FAC I'd have probably mentioned this then... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:37, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ian, that covers it then. I'll remove the note from Requests. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:42, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild Unless I'm missing something it looks like all queries have been resolved. – zmbro (talk) 16:55, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

  • Quotes should be cited in the lead even if repeated later
  • "Krautrock, a genre Bowie would fully experiment with on Low" - source?
  • Added. Changed "fully" to "further" – zmbro (talk) 22:44, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As per WP:ALLMUSIC, this source is of questionable reliability for biographical details
  • Hmm. Per WP:RSMUSIC both biographies and reviews are reliable, but also gives the genres as unreliable. I'll see what I can find. – zmbro (talk) 15:49, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes Vinyl District a high-quality reliable source? Totally Stockholm? Creem? Blender? Stereogum? Repeater? Jawbone?
  • I asked about Vinyl District here, but the two editors that responded said yes and no. So since we're unsure I'll remove it – zmbro (talk) 22:44, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking at it now, Totally Stockholm looks like a website guide to the city of Stockholm, which to me doesn't scream as reliable for something like this. Removed that – zmbro (talk) 22:44, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • A discussion here calls Creem reliable, and based on my research, it had a ton of editorial oversight, lots of different writers, and was one of the most popular music magazines in the US during its run. – zmbro (talk) 22:59, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blender is listed as reliable under WP:RSMUSIC – zmbro (talk) 22:44, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That table links to a 2009 discussion that is not about Blender. Why is it listed as being reliable? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:14, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm, that's strange. I primarily used it here because I saw it was in the table, meaning somewhere down the line it was considered reliable. – zmbro (talk) 03:37, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per the discussions here and here, it appears other editors have identified Stereogum as reliable. – zmbro (talk) 22:59, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see strong rationales for reliability in those discussions. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:15, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I started a new discussion at WPAlbums; hopefully we can get a definitive answer. – zmbro (talk) 03:37, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The publisher of a book shouldn't determine whether a book or reliable or not (in this instance). In The Complete David Bowie, Nicholas Pegg praises Chris O'Leary's Rebel Rebel (Ashes to Ashes had yet to be published), but he cites O'Leary as "a significant contributor to the field of Bowieology" and recognizes him as a reliable biographer, so I have no doubt what he states is reliable. Pegg furthermore cites Seabrook's book Bowie in Berlin as "packed with insight, offering a thorough, perceptive and well written account of Bowie's 1976–1979 period." With this being said I also fully trust Seabrook as a source. – zmbro (talk) 22:59, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a reason to cite two different editions of Buckley? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:02, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I own the 2005 edition. I believe when I was expanding I was able to find most of the same info (+ more) in the 2005 edition but couldn't find other bits of info sourced in the 1999 edition. I can do a run-through of the 2005 edition later but I agree with you I don't like using two different versions either. – zmbro (talk) 22:44, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I probably wrote the material cited to the 1999 edition because that was the one I owned. I'd have thought anything there would be in later editions but you never know. If we're desperate I could double-check stuff in the 1999... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:52, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Ian and zmbro, has the 1999/2005 thing been resolved? If so, assuming there are no other unaddressed comments, could you ping Nikkimaria? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:11, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gog the Mild Yep it is taken care of. I was able to find everything in the 2005 edition. I also replaced AllMusic bio with Rolling Stone and The New Yorker and, based on my findings, Stereogum is reliable. Nikkimaria Re-pinging. – zmbro (talk) 00:16, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nikkimaria Got confirmation for Blender here. The Chicago Tribune also named it one of the top ten English-language magazines in 2006, which gives it more credibility. The Stereogum findings are here. Their about us page lists multiple writers and editors so the site has editorial oversight. It has also been around for quite a few years at this point, which earns it more credibility when it comes to reliability. – zmbro (talk) 15:10, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neither being print nor being around for a while ensure that a source is high-quality (the National Enquirer has been in print since 1926). What is Stereogum's editorial policy? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:13, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nikkimaria According to their about us page, they have three primary writers, a senior news editor, a senior editor, and the editor-in-chief (who's also the founder). The page doesn't give much more info than that. – zmbro (talk) 15:16, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not convinced on the quality of these two still. What about the authors? Anything to suggest reliability on that basis? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:03, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nikkimaria If we're being honest I can just go ahead and remove them. Blender right now is only in the review table and Stereogum is being used for a review. Losing those won't really change much for the article so if you're cool with that then that's what I'll do, just so we don't have to drag this out any longer. – zmbro (talk) 14:47, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 29 August 2021 [23].

Manganese, Minnesota edit

Nominator(s): DrGregMN (talk) 00:47, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Manganese, Minnesota, one of a handful of small mining communities on the Cuyuna Iron Range of north-central Minnesota, and the only one to be abandoned. Manganese was an incorporated community, platted and quickly settled in what was a new iron rush to Minnesota's Cuyuna Range. Manganese boomed quickly, then suffered a slow demise after World War I, existing just over 48 years before it was completely abandoned. A lot of time and resources went into amassing information about the veracity of the community. Despite the fact that Manganese was an incorporated community, very few photographs are know to exist or survive. No resource was left untouched in the preparation of this article and it provides the most comprehensive information about the community in one source. The article is loosely modeled after the featured article Pithole, Pennsylvania. Comments from both Peer Review and the GA Review procees seem to indicate it meets FAC criteria now that it has been suitably sourced. The article both reads and flows well thanks to multiple revisions by the Wikipedia Guild of Copy Editors. DrGregMN (talk) 00:47, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

Moved to talk page

Source review edit

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed.

  • "The Minnesota Territorial Legislature enacted the creation of Crow Wing County on May 23, 1857" - don't see this claim at the cited link
    • You are correct! I swear it was there before. The Wikipedia page Crow Wing County, Minnesota also cites this as a source. As I navigate to it today, the page has changed and now has a disclaimer. This has now been sourced with a different reference.
  • What makes LakesnWoods a high-quality reliable source? Jim Forte? American-Rails? Dan West? Ghost Town USA? Wikimapia? Porter GeoConsultancy? Map Developers? Minnesota Brown? Sutherland?
    • The history of the communities on the LakesnWoods website is accurate, but I have deleted this source and replaced it with a different reference.
    • Jim Forte was a secondary source for the post office at Manganese and has been deleted (the source information is already cited in his photo).
    • The American-Rails website contains accurate information, but this source has been deleted and replaced with a different reference.
    • Dan West actually cites two articles from the Brainerd Dispatch regarding the Manganese Depot: I contacted the Crow Wing County Historical Society to track them down; one of these articles is now cited in place of Dan West.
    • Ghost Towns USA was a corroborating source and was eliminated.
    • Wikimapia was a corroborating source and was eliminated.
    • The information in the Porter GeoConsultancy summary was accurate and like Dan West, cited several sources: I tracked down the relevant source to this article and cited it in place of Porter GeoConsultancy.
    • Map Developers is a Google Maps distance calculator and does not need to be sourced. Removed.
    • Minnesota Brown was a corroborating source and was eliminated.
    • Sutherland is a published doctoral dissertation and absolutely can be cited. The abstract, recommended citation and PDF link to the entire dissertation can be found here: https://digitalcommons.mtu.edu/etdr/110/.
  • Fn15: what kind of source is this, and how would it be accessed?
    • Not everything that is sourced has an online access. This is especially true of historical information. The information cited is archival in nature held by the Cuyuna Iron Range Heritage Network, in Crosby, Minnesota. One would have to travel to Crosby in order to examine the archival material for themselves. A good example can be found here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Manganese,_Minnesota#/media/File:Manganese_Lots.jpg. This is a newspaper clipping that is a part of the archival material related to Manganese at the Cuyuna Iron Range Heritage Network: I have no idea what paper it is from, what the date for this advertisement is, or what page it was on, but that does not mean it's not sourceable. Wikipedia has a citation template "Cite Archive" specifically for this purpose which may be found here, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Cite_archive, and the acceptable citation where the author of a work cannot be identified to use "Anon" in place of the authors name. Even the links cited to the Minnesota Historical Society only show that the archives exist, but the archives cannot be accessed directly online: you would still need to make a trip to the Minnesota Historical Society to access the material.
      • I'm not objecting to the use of an offline source, but am trying to get a better understanding of the nature of this one in particular: are these unpublished records? All newspaper clippings? Some other kind of documents? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:53, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Glad you asked. Many documents, and not just newpaper clippings. They have a record of the deeds for the lots of the original homeowners, the original bond that was issued for the waterworks project, a letter of welcome from the village officers to new residents of Manganese, election results, four (and only four) photos of the community, letters from former residents, as well as newspaper clippings and journal articles which were able to be sourced and cited separately for this article.
          • Okay. Can we get a little more clarity on what is being cited for what? A newspaper clipping versus a personal letter are very different kinds of sources. Also, how has Wp:PSTS been taken into account? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:07, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • Everything cited would be considered a secondary source. Cited materials are descriptive in nature from information contained in the files of the archive, and can be independently verified by anyone who wishes to view the same. Nothing is subject to my own interpretation. Any information in the archive which contained publisher information, author, dates and page numbers was individually cited for this article. The only interpretation I may have made from what would be considered a primary source was a letter from a former resident which stated, "the street lights remained on until the 1970's". Since it did not specify a specific year, I paraphrased in the article "for at least a decade" since Manganese was abandonded in 1960. DrGregMN (talk) 03:14, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              • Is it possible to provide a bit more specificity in the actual citations? For example something like <ref>Letter from A. Resident, in {{cite archive|...</ref>. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:04, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                • Yes, but I believe these would create a lot of separate references instead of the single existing "Cite Archive" reference. I will work on it today. DrGregMN (talk) 12:45, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Completed. You will probably ask what is a "historical handbook"? Someone at the Cuyuna Iron Range Historical Network collated information on all of the Cuyuna Range communites in typewritten format and placed them in a book. A page from that book appears here; you will see "Historical Hanbook" in the upper left hand corner: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Historical_Handbook.jpg. You might also ask what do the village elections have to do with the immigrant population? The elections instructions were written in all of the cited languages, including English. Thank you, Nikkimaria! Thank you, Nikkimaria! DrGregMN (talk) 23:56, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Just for clarity: you're basing the list of immigrant groups solely on the languages in which the instructions were provided, or do these actually list the groups? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:23, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                      • It is a corrborating citation. Call it a leap of faith, but if the election instructions are written in multiple languages, then there must be an immigrant population that speaks these languages. Citations from both Sutherland and the Brainerd Dispatch back this up. I understand how this might be considered a primary source since I am the one making what I consider to be a logical connection. I have removed the citation, but bear in mind any other scholar would be able to cite the material if they are willing to make the trip to Crosby and view it for themselves. Thank you, Nikkimaria. DrGregMN (talk) 13:12, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                        • Right, but there is not a one-to-one correspondence between language and immigrant group - just for example, the instructions could have been translated into French for the benefit of immigrants from France, but also from Quebec, Mali, Haiti, etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:02, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                          • Understood. I didn't even think about the possiblity of a Canadian province or French-controlled territory. I've modified the sentence to reflect only those immigrants specifically cited and not the languages. DrGregMN (talk) 14:36, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Newspaper names should be italicized
    • Fixed
      • Location names though should not be italicized - eg Brainerd Dispatch (MN). Also still some missing italics, eg City Pages.
        • Fixed
          • Nope, still issues here - eg Brainerd Dispatch (MN). Nikkimaria (talk) 21:07, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN28: page?
    • Page 5. Fixed
  • See MOS:POSTABBR
    • Done and fixed
  • Be consistent in whether you include publisher for periodicals
    • Fixed
  • Be consistent in when you include publication location
    • Fixed
  • FN36: date doesn't match source
    • Fixed
  • Be consistent in how citations to reports are formatted
    • Fixed
      • Still some inconsistencies here - compare for example FNs 49 and 68. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:53, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fixed
  • Don't repeat publisher in author field
    • Fixed

Oppose due to concerns about sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:00, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you Nikkimaria. Your criticims make me a better editor. Hopefully I have satisfactorily addressed all of the citation issues! DrGregMN (talk) 00:23, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Make sure page ranges consistently use endashes. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:53, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Nikkimaria, just checking that your striking your oppose means that the source review has passed. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:53, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It appears that my points from 14 August are still outstanding. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:17, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello, Nikkimaria. Have I satisfactorially addressed all of the outstanding citation issues? I mangaed to source one of the uncited newspaper clippings, and I can certainly add future page numbers to the references from the Historical Handbook at the Cuyuna Iron Range Heritage Network, but I would have to make a trip to Crosby to do so. I hope that would not be a reason to hold up promotion of this article if you feel it is ready. DrGregMN (talk) 22:01, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jens edit

  • Manganese was one of the last of the Cuyuna Range communities to be established, and named after the mineral located in abundance near the town – link to the mineral?
    • Done, although the community etymology is already linked in the infobox.
  • Trommald formation – has to be upper case, since these formations are formal names: Trommald Formation.
    • Done
  • the main ore-producing unit – link to geological formation?
    • Done
  • The Trommald formation and adjacent Emily district – hmm, a formation is not a region, it is a rock unit, and the lateral extent of such units is often much larger than the part that is cropping out at the surface. Maybe name the other formation in that district instead?
  • No need for citations in the lead generally, since everything stated in the lead should appear in the main text in any case.
    • There is nothing specific with regard to citations in the lead section of an article. I tend to cite things as they are first mentioned, but if you would prefer they be moved to the body of the article, that can be done.
      • Per convention, we only give the citations in the main text, with few exceptions. This makes sense, since abstracts of scientific papers also don't have citations. But more importantly, we need to repeat the citation each time we repeat the cited info. This is important since verification may be difficult otherwise. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:19, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Done, except for one small citation. Compromise? DrGregMN (talk) 22:58, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • all of which collapsed at some point due to the heavy clay soils – but "heavy" is not a reason why a well collapses? I guess it is because the clay flows over time?
    • Possibly, but I am not a geologist and subject to conjecture. I can only cite (without copyvio) what is in the reference material I have available.
      • OK, thinking about it, there is more than one way to interpret it anyways. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:15, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • World War I – link in main text at first mention
    • Done
  • As mining operations began to shut down, residents gradually started moving their homes out of town for relocation to other communities in the region.[43] – This was already stated.
    • Sentences combined.
  • Very few photos of Manganese are known to exist. Never a wealthy community, residents had no money for cameras, a luxury item during the Depression.[33] – Would expect this at the end of the paragraph, because it does not seem to belong within the chronology.
    • Actually, I prefer to leave this sentence where it is because it does make chronological sense. The Great Depression began with the stock market crash of 1929 and recovery didn't occur until the advent of World War II, when Germany invaded Poland in 1939 (although some economists believe recovery started as early as 1937). The Methodist church at Manganese was founded in 1938, so this sentence fits neatly in between dates.
  • site was consumed by the steady growth of natural vegetation – sounds repetitive; you already stated that plants overgrew the site.
    • Sentences combined.
  • which opened in June 2011[70] and have been a tourism asset since the last manganiferous ore was shipped from the Cuyuna Range in 1984. – How can they be a tourism asset since 1984 when they only opened in 2011? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:13, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've reworded this sentence so they are more appropriately linked.

Coordinator note edit

Nearly three weeks in and this nomination has only picked up one general review. Unless there is a little further interest oby the three week mark I am afraid that it is likely to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:42, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley edit

  • "The community was composed of many immigrants who had fled the various natural disasters, and the social and political upheavals in Europe during the late 19th and early 20th centuries before the onset of World War I." This sentence reads a bit oddly to me. Maybe "The community was composed of immigrants who had fled natural disasters and social and political upheavals in Europe during the decades before World War I."
    • It does read a bit oddly. I like your suggestion better. Changed.
  • You say there was a steady decline after WWI, but also 600 around 1919 and 183 in 1920. This does not seem right.
    • It may not seem right, but it is true. Manganese peaked around 600 in 1919, and in the 1920 census dropped to 183 showing steady decline in each census thereafter.
  • I think you need to clarify that it was a sharp drop followed by a steady decline. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:25, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarified. First sentence modified in last paragraph of Establishment and community to read After the World War I armistice was signed, the demand for manganiferous ore decreased, and Manganese experienced a sharp drop in population from its peak of nearly 600 in 1919 to 183 in 1920. The last sentence of this paragraph already explains how the remaining population gradually started moving out of town. DrGregMN (talk) 13:53, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "while surveyor and mining engineer Cuyler Adams was exploring the area". When? You say that there was test drilling 15 years later, but you should still give the year of exploration.
    • Done
  • "the new town was touted as the "Hibbing of the Cuyuna Range"". Hibbing should be explained.
    • Done, with references
  • "two hotels, a bank, two grocery stores, two butcher shops, a lumber yard, a bakery, a livery stable, a barbershop, a pool room, a show hall, a dog pound, and a two-room school" No bars?
    • You would think, right? The only bar mentioned in any of the cited sources was the one at the Fitger hotel. It could be because prohibition took effect in the United States in 1920 and was not repealed until 1933 during the Great Depression, the worst economic downturn in history hitting a community already in decline.
  • "Children attended school in Manganese through the eighth grade" For the benefit of non-US readers, it would be helpful to give the age of eighth graders.
    • Done
  • "Notices sent to the last known village officers were refused." What does this mean?
    • Clarified
  • "There is a local push to "scram" the stockpiles of ore found in the old waste rock of the Cuyuna Iron Range." What does scram mean?
    • Probably better cited than to try and explain this in the article. I have done this.
  • It still needs explanation as the term is so obscure. Citing is for providing evidence that a statement is correct, not explaining what it means. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:25, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. New sentence now reads This mining process is significantly less invasive than traditional blasting and crushing, producing iron ore and iron ore concentrates from previously developed waste rock stockpiles, tailings basins, open pit or underground mines on land not previously affected by mining. DrGregMN (talk) 13:53, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Dudley Miles! Does that mean you Support on prose? DrGregMN (talk) 22:59, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Edwininlondon edit

Looks interesting. I'll do a prose review tomorrow. Edwininlondon (talk) 21:15, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • The area around Manganese, and modern-day Crow Wing County --> Crow Wing County should be linked. Doesn't matter that you already linked it in the lead. Same for others like Cuyuna Range
    • Done
  • was initially inhabited --> when was this?
    • Done
  • In 1855, a treaty between the Ojibwe and the U.S. Government, signed by chief Hole in the Day in what was then Minnesota Territory, secured Ojibwe hunting and fishing rights while ceding land which would become the Cuyuna Range to European-Americans looking to build new settlements in the region. --> I found this long sentence difficult to parse.
    • Broke into two separate sentences. Better?
Yes
  • The discovery of the Cuyuna Iron Range was an accident, --> when was this?
  • was touted as the "Hibbing of the Cuyuna Range" --> a bit of an explanation here would be good
Not sure about this. I guess the core message is "this town is growing fast because of iron just like Hibbing over in the Mesabi Range". It seems to me that the high school reference is a bit of a distraction, mostly because the Manganese wealth is not yet mentioned, that's in the next paragraph. Unless that was key to the analogy of course. Then the current size of Hibbing's population is brought up as well ("remains"), another distraction I think because we are explaining why the nickname was created 100 years ago. Lastly, the "was once" should be made more specific, ideally dating back to the time of Manganese's foundation. So I'd favour something along the lines of "Hibbing, founded in xxx and by 1915 the biggest mining town of the Mesabi Range with a population of 20,000, was at the time called the "Iron Ore Capital of the World." (provided my assumptions are correct + there are sources to back this up of course)
  • Your assumptions are correct, and the cited sources back this up. Sentence changed. DrGregMN (talk) 22:13, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry to be a pain about this but "at one time" is not quite as good as "at the time". Do you know when Hibbing was declared "Iron Ore Capital of the World."?
  • You're not a pain. I'm totally okay with "at the time" (and I have changed the wording). However, the sources do not specifically state that Hibbing was being called the "Iron Ore Capital of the World" in 1915, so I struggled with this wanting to be factually accurate. Was it sooner than 1915? Later? I know it was being called the "Iron Ore Capital of the World" in 1955. I have emailed the Hibbing Historical Society; hopefully they can provide me with a better answer. I do find the fact that Manganese was initially touted as the "Hibbing of the Cuyuna Range" to be a little bit of an oxymoron, given the disparities in wealth and population DrGregMN (talk) 01:04, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hopefully the Hibbing Historical Society comes back with an answer. But I don't want to hold my support until they reply, so perhaps better to temporarily change it back to what you do know to be true ("one time") and then when they have a reliable source for the claim dating back to around 1915, you can change it again to "at the time".
  • Reverted the edit. Still awaiting a reply from the Hibbing Historical Society (I know it will be forthcoming eventually), and change the text as needed. Thank you for your support, Edwininlondon! DrGregMN (talk) 18:38, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have received email correspondence from the Hibbing Historical Society. While they cannot say when the phrase was first used, the earliest citable record they have is from a promotional brochure which dates back to 1924. Would you like me to use that date, or leave the text as is? Thank you Edwininlondon! DrGregMN (talk) 18:19, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • If 1924 is the earliest I would say we have to stick with "one time". "At the time" may be true but without evidence we can't use it.
  • [28][9][29] --> usually the references are given in ascending order
    • Fixed

More to come, hopefully soon. Edwininlondon (talk) 19:24, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, here is a bit more:

  • The Milford accident feels a bit out of place. It takes place in 1924. By 1920 the population is already way down. I don't think that the Harry Hosford connection warrants moving the Milford description up. Better to stay in proper chronological order I think.
    • I would prefer to leave this sentence where it is because it does make chronologic sense. This section specifically talks about the community, which should include notable persons. World War I ended with the armistice in 1918. The citation for the combined payrolls of the mines are from 1920. The citizens from Manganese that served (past tense) in World War I include Harry Hosford (the cited military records date 1918-1920), who was one of the few survivors of the Milford Mine disaster of 1924, where many Manganese citizens were empolyed.
  • OK
  • It is not possible to determine the mineral content in the iron formation from top to bottom in any one location due to the great diversity of ore textures and the shape of the ore bodies. --> I struggle with this. I know nothing about geology, but I guess quite a few readers will be like me. Why is it not possible? Can I not just drill a hole to the bottom and examine the mineral content in what I dig up?
    • I'm not a geologist either, and I know how difficult it can be to wrap your head around all of the information. Reading all of the literature regarding Cuyuna Range geology has been an education for me. I've added another sentence with citations which I hope is a sufficient explanation.
  • Page 20 says "it has not been possible to determine the original mineral content .." That I can understand. Past tense + original. But without original and in present tense it still is puzzling to me.
  • Ah-ha! Now I understand. I was trying to apply this sentence to the current mineral characteristics of the Trommald formation and not the original mineral content, prior to the oxidation of the facies, as was the author's intent. Good catch! My error. I have removed this sentence and reworded the paragraph. DrGregMN (talk) 02:06, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK.
  • 0.5 to 15 percent manganese, with local areas of manganese as high as 50 percent. --> So really it varies from 0.5 to 50?
    • I am paraphrasing the cited literature here, but your criticism is a good one. Local areas of manganese are as high as 50% (or ferruginous manganese ore where the concentration of manganese is higher than the iron, as in the case of the Algoma mine). It really does vary from 0.5% to 50 %. Sentence changed.
  • The ores contained on average about 43% iron and 10% manganese --> why is this not closer to the sentence about the variation?
    • Sentence moved.
  • Is boon a good word choice for WP? I'm not a native speaker, so just checking
    • Wording changed.
  • which opened in June 2011[68] and have been an economic boon to the region since the last manganiferous ore was shipped from the Cuyuna Range in 1984 --> that ending is bit odd. It opened in 2011 so why mention 1984? Is it because it is the first positive thing economic-wise since 1984?
    • Yes. Sentence changed with added reference.

That's it from me. Edwininlondon (talk) 10:51, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • You're welcome. Just two open issues to address and then we're there. Edwininlondon (talk) 21:50, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I Support this nomination on prose. Interesting article. Nice work. Edwininlondon (talk) 21:09, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 29 August 2021 [24].

2020 FA Cup Final edit

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 13:58, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

World's oldest association football cup competition, the 2020 edition, notable for 0 fans (thanks COVID), a red card, a penalty, and one side ending with nine players. Classic stuff. As ever, I'll be working my socks off to address any and all actionable concerns raised here and thanks in advance for your time and energy. Also, thanks to Anarchyte who gave the article a good going-over at GAN, always appreciated. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 13:58, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

  • Image licensing looks OK (t · c) buidhe 15:06, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed.

Nikkimaria thanks. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:59, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Lee Vilenski edit

I'll begin a review of this article very soon! My reviews tend to focus on prose and MOS issues, especially on the lede, but I will also comment on anything that could be improved. I'll post up some comments below over the next couple days, which you should either respond to, or ask me questions on issues you are unsure of. I'll be claiming points towards the wikicup once this review is over.

Lede
  • Heads Up FA Cup Final - now, maybe pedantic, but surely it's still the 2020 Heads Up FA Cup Final
    No, according to official sources, the year wasn't part of the formal retitling. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 08:56, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Football Association Challenge Cup - our article is at FA Cup, so probably no need to state the full name. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:34, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    We've gone round this buoy a few times, and it was the only solution which spelt out Football Association before using the FA initialism, so I'm okay with it, because after all, it is factually correct. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 08:56, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel the second para is small enough it could be merged into the first. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:34, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Horses for courses, but no problem. The idea was one para for "pre-match" one for "match" and one for "post-match". But merged, as it's no skin off my nose. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 08:56, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think even a small background as to how the teams reached the final is suitable, even if it's just who they beat in the semi-finals. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:34, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Added semi-final oppos into lead. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 08:56, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Christian Pulisic gave Chelsea the lead after five minutes from close range - I feel like we could say "Christian Pulisic gave Chelsea the lead after five minutes, after he scored from close range" and then have the second goal as a new sentence. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:34, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't like your suggested prose as it quickly repeats the use of "after". The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 08:56, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    How about ""Christian Pulisic gave Chelsea the lead in the sith minute, after he scored from close range"? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:19, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, some minor adjustments there. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 14:58, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know Man of the match is often down to the broadcasters, and can change. The only source I can see for this is the BBC one - is there an official FA source to confirm they also see him as the MOTM? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:34, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Man of the match used to be that way but no longer. I can't see any official sources with it, perhaps you can help? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 08:56, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The match was broadcast live on both BT Sport and BBC; - just in the UK, right? I'm sure DAZN have rights somewhere. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:34, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Clarified. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 08:56, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Prose
Additional comments

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:26, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Vilenski thanks for the comments, sorry for the delay in getting onto them, let me know if there's anything else to address. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 14:58, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Amakuru edit

I will to a full review on this once Lee is done with his, I think, to avoid overlap. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 15:37, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lead
  • It says "the Football Association" here, but down in the Background section it's "The Football Association". Make consistent.
  • "it was the 139th final of the Football Association Challenge Cup (FA Cup) and the showpiece match of English football's primary cup competition" - not much of that seems to be in the body, and is hence uncited.
  • "representing the Cheshire Football Association" - not sure this detail is really needed in the lead?
  • "The match was officially named the Heads Up FA Cup Final" - you said this already in the opening sentence; I'm not entirely sure how to reword it though while still incorporating the detail that the FA gave it that name in conjunction with William, so maybe it's OK! A link to The Royal Foundation#Heads Together might be useful here too.
  • "Arsenal had qualified for the final after beating" - not sure this needs to be in the past perfect continuous tense... could just say "Arsenal qualified for the final by beating..."
  • "after he scored from close range" - would prefer "when he scored from close range", as I tend to think scoring a goal and taking the lead happen simultaneously rather than one following the other.
  • "and received the trophy on the pitch and not..." - two ands in close proximity to each other sound a little jarring. Maybe reword slightly.
  • Possible improvement: "on both BT Sport and BBC" -> "by both BT Sport and the BBC" and then change "the coverage by the latter" to "the latter's coverage"
  • "making it the season's most watched football match in the UK" - does this mean for a football match in the UK, or does it mean by UK viewers?
  • "winning the match after a penalty shootout" - same as above, maybe "through a penalty shootout" or "with a penalty shootout"
  • "penalty shootout" - there is inconsistency here, as some places in the article say "shootout" while others say "shoot-out"
    All addressed. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:59, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Route to the final
  • General point: we know that the final was delayed by three months due to the Covid pandemic, but it's not clear which, if any, of the route-to-the-final matches were delayed. (I also can't recall this detail myself, presumably some were played as scheduled, while others were deferred when the season was postponed in March)
    Yes, but I'm not sure that's particularly relevant to this article. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:00, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "against EFL Championship side Leeds United at their home ground, the Emirates Stadium" - this seems slightly confusing, as the "their" could refer to either Arsenal or Leeds.
  • "Arsenal took the lead in the 55th minute after Reiss Nelson scored" - the "after" thing again. Look for similar cases in the rest of the article too.
  • crossbar / bar - maybe use one term throughout. And is there a link? I suppose not.
  • "In the next round Arsenal were drawn" - generally there are commas after opening phrases like this one.
  • "In the quarter-finals" ... "In the semi-final". Consistency of singular/plural.
  • "hooking the ball into Arsenal's net" - slightly unusual terminology there. Glossary of association football terms doesn't mention anything about "hooking", and those unfamiliar with football might not understand what's meant.
  • "before Ross Barkley struck from close range after another Hudson-Odoi shot was saved" - I'm not made keen on these before ... after constructs. It raises the question of whether the last-mentioned event was earlier or later than the first-mentioned event. I know that's obvious, but still...
  • "Hull City ... Hull City ... Hull" either use Hull on all but the first mention, or Hull City throughout.
  • Link Header (association football)
  • "Willian put the home side ahead after 13 minutes, when Liverpool goalkeeper Adrián failed to gather Willian's 20 yards (18 m) shot" - slightly odd wording here. Did Willian follow up on his own shot?
    All addressed bar the "general point" The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:49, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Background
  • "one another" - [25] suggests that "each other" might be preferred by some grammarians when there are just two entities under discussion. It is not a hard-and-fast rule though, so up to you whether to change this or not.
  • "Before the 2020s final" - presumably "the 2020 final"?
  • "London's Wembley Stadium" - perhaps give the location of the stadium on the first mention rather than here?
  • "he became the first man..." - "the first person" would probably be better, assuming there haven't been any women who refereed two finals in the intervening period.
  • "Wolverhampton Wanderers" - not mentioned before, so link. And if we're naming Chelsea's last opponent here, then also name Arsenal's.
    All done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:53, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
First half
  • "at Wembley Stadium" - we already know from the previous paragraph that it was at Wembley.
  • "front post" - terminology which could be tweaked, clarified or linked for the uninitiated
  • "Azpilicueta brought Aubameyang down as Aubameyang ran in on Chelsea's goal" - a tad repetitive, with two Aubameyangs
    All done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:56, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Second half
Post-match
  • "who played for both Arsenal and Chelsea" - unlike earlier, I think a "had" would be useful here, to indicate that he wasn't playing for both clubs at the time of the match.
    Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:56, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's about it. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 16:10, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amakuru thanks as ever for your review. I've addressed (where suitable) them and commented otherwise above. Let me know if there's 'owt else. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:56, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nice one, thanks TRM. I was curious about the timings of the quarters and semis relative to the covid break, so perhaps our readers would be too, but no biggy. Happy to Support. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 19:09, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Girth Summit edit

Not much from me. Please consider the following:

  • General comment: Both teams seem to have started in the '3rd round', which is a bit confusing for the football illiterate like me - is it because they're in the Premiership? Would it be worth spelling that out?
    Done with a nice FA rules reference. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:35, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Route to the final: "Arsenal took an early lead when Bukayo Saka struck the ball past Bournemouth goalkeeper Mark Travers after five minutes." There are two prepositional phrases there, both using prepositions of time (...when Bukayo..., ...after five minutes.) I find that slightly jarring - could it be changed to something like "Arsenal took an early lead when Bukayo Saka struck the ball past Bournemouth goalkeeper Mark Travers in the sixth minute."? (That might require a slight change to the next sentence, which could have 'after 25 minutes')
    Reworded. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:35, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • First half: "Mount passed square to Giroud;" what does 'passed square' mean?
    Jargony, yes, removed. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:35, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • First half: "...before the match was paused for a drinks interval." Drinks interval - is that normal? Was it exceptionally hot weather or something, I didn't know drinks intervals were a thing. If unusual, should it be explained?
    They were commonplace during Covid but not so much now. Interestingly not enshrined in the rules I found above from the FA and only tabloid refs talking about it. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:35, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Shane there isn't decent sourcing - I'd have thought a change like that would have been talked about. Oh well.
  • Second half: "...but James' shot was off-target." Shouldn't this be James's, per MOS:'S?
    Indeed. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:35, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-match: "Aubameyang dropped the cup and the base." Can we specify whether there was any damage?
    I found no references to damage. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:35, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh well.

That's about it - I expect I'll support once these have been addressed. Girth Summit (blether) 15:13, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Girth Summit thanks for your review, much appreciated, I believe I've addressed and/or responded to all your points. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:35, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support. Girth Summit (blether) 23:00, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]


@FAC coordinators: with the customary three supports/image/source review in place, can I nominate another candidate please? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 07:45, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure TRM, go ahead. Cheers, 10:48, 21 August 2021 (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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 29 August 2021 [26].

Uturuncu edit

Nominator(s): Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:10, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a volcano in Bolivia which was glaciated in the past and is the highest summit in the region. It'd be unremarkable - except that satellite images show that since 1992 it has been inflating due to the ascent of magma at depth. Because it's in an area with numerous supervolcanoes, some folks think this inflation may be the prelude to a giant eruption although a regular eruption is certainly possible too. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:10, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Images appear to be freely licensed. However, I would suggest that you label the infobox image with the angle at which it was taken (north face, from the southwest, etc.) rather than the date, unless the volcano changed drastically since 2006. (t · c) buidhe 09:27, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That's done. AFAIK the apparel of the volcano has not drastically changed during the past 15 years. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:30, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Moisejp edit

Hi Jo-Jo. I've done one read-through so far and the article seems in pretty good shape. Now I'm working my way through the second read-through and I will add points as I notice them. By the way, I don't know much about volcanoes, so this is a layman's review.

  • (Minor comment) Geography and geomorphology: "since then scientific interest has increased, including a reconnaissance mission carried out by scientists in 2003". Would something like "scientific interest and activity" possibly work better? For me "reconnaissance mission" doesn't quite seem to mesh with "scientific interest" ("interest included a reconnaissance mission" doesn't seem precise).
    Seems OK to me; done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:37, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Structure: Halfway through the first paragraph the subject changes to be about lava flows. Would it be better to break off into a new paragraph, either as a new second paragraph or possibly join it with the existing second paragraph about lava flows? Moisejp (talk) 04:38, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:37, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regional: "and includes Uturuncu.[1] Aside from Uturuncu, it includes about 69 Holocene volcanoes in a high elevation region,[40] including the potentially active volcanoes..." Three instances of "include" in a short space. One idea is if you reword the second one that would also serve to break up the other two. Moisejp (talk) 04:50, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Replaced one mention. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:00, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Minor comment) Composition and magma genesis: "within a rhyolite groundmass[j],[68]". Should both [j] and [68] be after the comma? I'm not used to seeing them split up like this, but if you have logic for doing it this way, that's fine. :-) Moisejp (talk) 05:06, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I prefer to put the note right after the word it's about, while the source applies to the sentence so it goes after punctuation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:00, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Glaciation: "Modern Uturuncu features no glaciers;[4] however, perennial ice was reported in 1956,[37] remnants of snow in 1971,[79] the existence of sporadic snow fields in 1994,[3] and the summit area is occasionally ice-covered." The last part ("and the summit area is occasionally ice-covered") stands out because "was reported" is the stated or implied verb for the other three parts. If it was me I would make sure all four parts followed a parallel structure or else break the fourth part off to be truly separate (maybe with a semi-colon). Moisejp (talk) 05:11, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I honestly don't like that sentence much but it's all about the ice and snow cover, so I am not sure that splitting it makes sense. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:00, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have finished my second read-through and am happy to support. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 06:26, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Volcanoguy edit

  • Lead: "emplaced about 10,000 cubic kilometres (2,400 cu mi) in sometimes very large eruptions". What was emplaced? Tephra? Lava? Both?
    Explained. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:50, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Structure: "separated by a saddle that is 5,700 metres (18,700 ft) high". Saddle should probably be linked to saddle (landform) for those who don't know what a saddle is.
    Linked. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:50, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Structure: "85 cubic kilometres (20 cu mi)[14]–50 cubic kilometres (12 cu mi)" → 85–50 cubic kilometres (20–12 cu mi).
    Not sure if that works, as it's one source for each value. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:50, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Local: "The Vilama (8.41 million years old) and Guacha (5.65 million years old) ignimbrites". Link ignimbrites here first since this is where the term is first used.
    There is now a link in the lead. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:50, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Geologic history and Altiplano-Puna volcanic complex: "including several so-called "supereruptions" with volcanic explosivity indexes of 8 at Cerro Guacha, La Pacana, Pastos Grandes and Vilama". Volcanic Explosivity Index is capitalized.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:50, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Composition and magma genesis: "the first two appear to be derived from country rocks". Link "country rocks" to Country rock (geology).
    Linked. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:50, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All this from my first pass. Support. Volcanoguy 22:23, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

  • FN2 has a location but no publisher; most other refs are the opposite. Ditto Schäbitz. Check throughout for consistency
  • FNs 2 and 3 and 61 are entries in the same source; why are they so differently formatted?
    Corrected this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:15, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN10: link returns error - is there an available version?
    Yes, it's added. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:15, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in when you include retrieval date
    I think that I've applied them all to non-book, non-journal sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:15, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Why for example does FN20 not have one? It is neither a book nor a journal. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:18, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It's added now. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:28, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some Springer refs specify which branch is being cited, but others don't - why?
    That's the vagaries of the citation tools. Standardized to use only Springer. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:15, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why include page ranges for single-page refs?
    Hmm, not sure I understand what you are referring to. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:15, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    For example, FN72 has "pp. 661–661" - why not just "p. 661"? There are several refs that do this. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:18, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like this was another citation tool vagary, resolved it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:28, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fn81 has a formatting error in the title
    Fixed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:15, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN92 includes (Full text via ResearchGate.), but none of the links go to that site?
    One does now. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:15, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN95 returns error
    Removed it and the content that relied on that source. I am oh so tired of website operators who cannot do proper link maintenance. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:15, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fn145 doesn't match formatting of similar refs
    Removed that too, it wasn't adding anything. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:15, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • How are you ordering Sources?
    Alphabetic after the last name of the author. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:15, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Please double-check - Schäbitz is currently listed before Kern. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:18, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Corrected that one. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:28, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ahlfeld: is there an OCLC number for this? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:14, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Not as far as I can tell. Note, by the way, that I've taken an opportunity to attach some additional sources that I couldn't process earlier. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:15, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from TRM edit

  • "lies in the San Pablo de Lipez municipality" Lipez is missing a diacritic.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:18, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know now how this works but it would be remiss of me not to mention the severely awkward positioning of a lot of the references.
    Aye, but as mentioned before the win of readability comes at the expense of verifiability. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:18, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Well as long as they're moved after the review, that's fine. The readers don't need this jarring and awkward reference placement, they are capable of waiting to the end of the sentence or nearby punctuation to find what's verifying each claim. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 13:47, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "is almost uninhabited" people/animals/both?
    I think most people would interpret it as people, which is correct. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:18, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a tourism target" I don't think we need to link common terms link "tourism".
    Delinked. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:18, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Uturuncu,[13] a" why is that being referenced there?
  • "a former sulfur mine is " comma after mine?
    Rewritten. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:18, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Non-breaking space between 50 and million. Check all others.
    I think I got them. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:18, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "among tephra deposits" what are those?
    Added explainer. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:18, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "With 6,008 metres (19,711 ft) elevation" maybe horses for courses but I would say "At an elevation of..."
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:18, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "terrain[23][15] and" ref order.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:18, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link levees.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:18, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The broad edifice..." which broad edifice?
    Clarified. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:18, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and colluvium[d].[27]" grim pre/post-punctuation placement.
    Shifted it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:18, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Rio Grande de Lipez flows" Rio is missing a diacritic.
    Not sure that it is needed on Rio, but added it to Lipez. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:18, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the South America Plate has" isn't that normally called the South American Plate?
    Yes, so fixed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:18, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't we normally abbreviate million years old to myo in these kinds of articles?
    Maybe? Spelling out doesn't hurt. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:18, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The first time perhaps, but the subsequent dozen just bloat the prose. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:05, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Did this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:46, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " (0.62–12.43 mi);[52][47]" order. Check others.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:18, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "groundmass[j],[75] " again, just horrible.
  • "associated with Heinrich event 1" what was that?
  • No need to link words like "moisture".
    Changed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:18, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bølling–Allerød warming uses an en-dash.
    Corrected? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:18, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "climate records" is linked but red. Is this useful?
    Once someone makes the page, yes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:18, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "0.00006 cubic kilometres per year (1.4×10−5 cu mi/a)[109]-0.00027 cubic kilometres per year (" en-dash needed here but can we not switch to cubic metres for such minuscule amounts (in cubic km terms).
    Thing is that in this kind of system kilometres are a more useful frame of reference. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:18, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't agree I'm afraid, no-one can imagine what a cubic km looks like, let alone 0.00006 cubic km, or worse 1.4x10-5 cu mi/a..... The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:03, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That's done as well. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:46, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "hydrothermal system is" no better target for this than a red link?
    Not yet. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:18, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "InSAR imaging" explain this before using the abbreviation.
    Spelled it out. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:18, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Altiplano-Puna" should use en-dash, this appears many times.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:18, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you explain what ML is instead of just using it?
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:18, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I have on a quick read. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:41, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi TRM, how's it looking? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:46, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey. Horrendous reference placement continues to be a problem. It's not something I expect to see in professional or academic papers, so I don't expect to see it here. There's no reason that references can't wait until the end of the sentence or next punctuation unless they're being used for direct quotes etc. It diminishes what is a very good article to be continually interrupted with clunky references placement. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:03, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've done the other things. On the ref format, I still think the price to pay in terms of verifiability is too high. Also, since we only have 3 comments so far, someone could still come with issues that require a source checking, and as I've seen at Laguna del Maule shuffling references around can drastically increase the amount of work needed to verify content. Moving mid-sentence references (i.e these not preceded by punctuation) might work as a compromise, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:46, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
TRM? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:55, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the price to pay of verifiability is too high at all. Claims made in a single sentence can be verified by citations at the end of the sentence or after the next appropriate punctuation. Right now, this doesn't feel professional at all, it looks and reads like a disruptive mess. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:01, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be changing the format a bit, but I'd like to see a content review or two from anyone before that. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:37, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with TRM regarding the reference placements. Having them placed inside sentences doesn't look very professional. It also makes the article more difficult to read. Volcanoguy 21:38, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
TRMI've done some reference format changes. Unrelated, but I am wondering if this is a source acceptable for a FAC. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:32, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi TRM, how are we doing with this one? Gog the Mild (talk) 23:57, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    In all honesty, I still find reading it a challenge, with still awkward positioning of footnotes, but I don't suppose that's a sufficient reason not to support as I know the nominator has gone some way to trying to deal with my concern, for which I am grateful. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 07:56, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sub-discussion about elevation data edit

As the pre-eminent FAC source reviewers, can I ask @Nikkimaria and Ealdgyth: for a second opinion on this source? It's apparently published by Maximo Kausch per here but I am not sure that this is enough to make it a "high-quality source". To wit, the question is about whether this edit can be kept or not, since it's the only source. Copyvio concerns were discussed here Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:49, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, @Ealdgyth and Nikkimaria: Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:51, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Of the things in that edit, we're talking about the Elevation section? Do we know what sources that site is using for its information? Any details on how posts are fact-checked? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:09, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's the elevation section. I'll ask MAXIMOKAUSCH about these. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:09, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Jo-Jo Eumerus and Nikkimaria. The elevation sources are cited in each elevation mentioned. Please note these are not written as they are Geo TIFF images (One has to open them using any suitable app, then search the for the highest point). Please note, for example, currently Wikipedia has hundreds of articles citing sources like PeakBagger. Note they use a single DEM to calculate the peak's prominence. I'm using 4 or 5.MAXIMOKAUSCH (talk) 13:51, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think PeakBagger is considered a reliable source. Volcanoguy 05:46, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
While that may be a valid point, it can be nearly impossible to get reliable elevation and topographic prominence from gov't websites. For example, neither of these values are provided by the Canadian Geographical Names Database (to my disappointment). RedWolf (talk) 09:02, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I still think that whether http://www.andes-specialists.com/uturunco-uturuku-6015/ is a reliable source is more important. I think the issue is that prominence and the like are really mountaineering concepts, not something that governments would routinely record. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:33, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi guys, is this resolved? If not pls ping the FAC coords when it is... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:41, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria, Ealdgyth, Volcanoguy, and RedWolf: Just checking that you saw Ian's message above. Unless there is further comment I am inclined to accept this element of the article as it stands. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:38, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a reason not to cite that site's sources directly, rather than via this intermediary? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:16, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria:The only reason I can think of is that I can't verify these sources for the most part. And given that they are primary sources, it wouldn't be clear why they'd be selected for inclusion if they were used directly. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:54, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's not much I can say regarding the source in question as I'm also uncertain about it's reliability. True, RedWolf, but reliable sources are a must in FAs per 1c of the featured article criteria. Volcanoguy 16:11, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As much as I don't want to simply delete MAXIMOKAUSCH's addition, if folks can't vouch on its reliability I'll back it out. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:54, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Removed it to here for further discussion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:41, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support and minor comments from chidgk1 edit

Do even Americans think in cubic miles? I find the brackets in the lead a little distracting.

Replaced the mentions. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:54, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How about rewording "Volcanic activity took place during the Pleistocene age and the last eruption was 250,000 years ago; since then Uturuncu has not erupted but active fumaroles occur in the summit region, between the two summits." to something like "Uturuncu last erupted a quarter of a million years ago at the beginning of the Pleistocene; (but/and) (even) now(adays) fumaroles between the two summits hiss/emit gases and steam."

@Chidgk1:I think that's a little too informal. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:54, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Additional comment)

Additionally, if you liked this comment, or are looking for an article to review I have one at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates#Greenhouse_gas_emissions_by_Turkey Chidgk1 (talk) 12:55, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The former sentence seems better than the latter one in my opinion. In fact, the Pleistocene began 2.5 million years ago, not 250,000 years ago. Volcanoguy 16:03, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 17 August 2021 [27].

Operation Grapple edit

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:55, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the British nuclear tests in the Pacific, where the first British thermonuclear devices were detonated. It is part of the Good Topic on British nuclear weapons. If successful, it will be the twelfth article in the topic to achieve featured status, and the whole topic will become featured. It wasn't my first choice for a FAC nomination, but I do think it is a worthy and interesting article in its own right. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:55, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Image licensing looks OK. (t · c) buidhe 04:05, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are some sections such as Grapple Z series, Grapple Series, and especially Preparations that are very long, harming readability. I would advise splitting into smaller subsections. (t · c) buidhe 04:05, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Tkbrett edit

I'm generally not a contributor to military history articles, but I'm a big fan of your work, so I'll give this one a go. Tkbrett (✉) 14:38, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This would be much appreciated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:46, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've gone as far as the end of the Preparations section and will carry on tomorrow. Thoughts so far: the prose is fantastic; there's nothing unnecessarily ostentatious and it is exceedingly readable. That said, I think that adding subsections to the Preparations section would greatly improve readability given its length.
    I'm dubious of the claim that subsections improve readability in any way, and they cause problems with the layout. Anyhow, I have divided the section into subsections. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:32, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In July 1954, the Cabinet decided to develop the hydrogen bomb. It is somewhat implied by the last sentence of the previous paragraph, but I think it would be helpful to add why the Cabinet felt it necessary to proceed with an H bomb.
    Yes, that is the argument. Tightened the text. The point is that Cabinet officially made the decision; in the UK decisions are more often taken by Cabinet subcommittees. There wasn't much discussion though. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:32, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I should have specified, I was referring to the sentence in the lead.
    I'm not sure how to handle this. had a go at it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:26, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks good to me.
  • I think tamper can be piped to neutron reflector.
    I should have a go at rewriting those articles. Last time I got only as far as revising the section on the Discovery of nuclear fission, which I made into a separate article. The tamper is not a neutron reflector. Its main role is to hold the core together for a shake or two longer thereby increasing the yield. By using a depleted uranium tamper which fissions from fast neutrons, the tamper also increases the yield that way too. About 30% of the yield of the Fat Man bomb used at Nagasaki came from fission of the natural uranium tamper. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:32, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I see. The tamper disambiguation page led me to this misconception.
    I think there was some confusion when the neutron reflector article was written. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:26, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Created a new article tamper (nuclear weapons) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:53, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Truman, Attlee and Eden aren't introduced or linked to.
  • The bombs would be detonated with a clockwork timer rather than a barometric switch. This meant that they had to be dropped from 45,000 feet (14,000 m).: I'm not clear on the connection here. Why does the use of a clockwork timer mean they had to be dropped from 45,000'?
    A timer means that it will explode after a certain amount of time. If you want it to explode at a certain height, you have to drop it from a corresponding height. An alternative would be to use a barometric fuze, which uses an pressure altimeter to guess the altitude. Better still would be to use a radar proximity fuze. The over-engineered Fat Man used all three. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:26, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Using out high school physics, if the timer is set for 20 seconds, and want the bomb to explode at 12,000 m:
    g ≈ 10 m/s2, so we have
    Ah, understood.
  • Can Taylor instability be piped to Rayleigh–Taylor instability?
    Already linked to it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:26, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked through this article quite carefully again but I haven't found any obvious areas for improvement. This is a very well written and well researched article. Despite its technical nature it manages to convey information to the non-expert without any dumbing-down of content. For these reasons I'm happy to offer my support. Tkbrett (✉) 11:58, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Valereee edit

  • The lead sentence reads Operation Grapple was a set of four British nuclear weapons test series...the combination of set and series stopped me. It's a set of a series rather than a series of tests or a set of four series of tests? —valereee (talk) 19:14, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    A set of four series of tests. A nuclear test series is a group of sequential nuclear tests. Each test involves a separate detonation, but the tests in a series are usually related in purpose. As the lead says, there were four series: the first consisted of Grapple 1, 2 and 3 in May and June 1957; the second of just Grapple X in November 1957; the third of Grapple Y in April 1958; and the fourth of Grapple Z1, Z2, Z3 and Z4 in August and September 1958. Changed to "Operation Grapple was a set of four series of British nuclear weapons tests". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:47, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Valereee: Would you like to take another look at the article? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:05, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the lead, second para: "The designs had to be tested to demonstrate that they worked." This is the sentence in the lead that actually tells us: here's what this whole article is about. Should we use the term Operation Grapple in this sentence? Like, "Operation Grapple was the program to test these designs to demonstrate that they worked" or something?
      Added a bit as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:47, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe links on first TJ and PJ?
      Added a link. MOS:UNITNAMES: Units unfamiliar to general readers should be presented as a name–symbol pair on first use, linking the unit name. I had assumed that the units were familiar since joules are on your gas bill. Mine tells me that I use 7,500 MJ per year. So a hydrogen bomb produces enough energy to heat my house for a million years. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:47, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      You look at your gas bill? :D I recognize joule, and assumed these were multiples of that, but I didn't recognize TJ and PJ as abbreviations. —valereee (talk) 10:56, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know what a "blind radar test drop" is/means. Is there something it could be linked to?
      Alas not. It just means using the radar bomb sight instead of the optical one. The closest we have is H2S (radar), but the Mark 7 was used in Operation Grapple. Blind bombing links to Oboe, which is not what we want. Maybe Maury Markowitz has a suggestion. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:47, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Back from vaykay. This normally refers to H2S. "blind bombing" is a generic term for all sorts of technologies, and using H2S is one example among many. But blind radar really limits you to H2S for the UK. That said, "blind bombing" should absolutely not link to Oboe! Now I call attention to "Once in the air, a fault developed in the ground radar transmitter. Grandy then authorised a visual drop." This may be referring to Oboe, or a similar technology. Not worth holding up for, but seems to deserve further research in the future. Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:53, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, new here...am I supposed to change from 'comments' to 'support' generally, or is that indicating I've personally checked everything? Because really all I tried to check for was readability of the lead from the standpoint of someone who doesn't know the subject area. —valereee (talk) 12:57, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Valereee, don't feel pressured to support (or oppose) outright if you've only focussed on a particular aspect of the article. The coords read reviewer comments, not just the bolded declarations of support or opposition, so what you've contributed is useful no matter what. Thanks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:27, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt edit

  • "and the restoration of the nuclear Special Relationship with the United States with the 1958 US-UK Mutual Defence Agreement." with/with. Can this be rephrased to avoid?
    Re-phrased. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:04, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Temperatures are high, averaging 88 °F (31 °C) during the day and 78 °F (26 °C) at night, and humidity is very high, usually around 98 per cent." Why the present tense given that the rest of the passage is in the past tense and you're relying on a 1960 source?
    No reason I can recall; switched to past tense. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:04, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Air Commodore Wilfrid Oulton was appointed task force commander on 6 February 1956,[41][20]" refs out of order. Is this intended?
    No, adjusted order. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:04, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " the Panama Canal, passing through the narrowest locks with just inches to spare." All the locks of the original Panama Canal were and are, as far as I can tell from a google search (and my own knowledge, having passed through on cruise ships several times) the same size. Does your source say otherwise?
    It says: "She had just a few inches clearance on each side as she passed through the narrowest part of the locks." Having never transited the Panama Canal, I had misunderstood the source. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:04, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " It was ultimately joined by four more RFAs, Fort Constantine, Gold Ranger, Fort Rosalie, Wave Prince and Salvictor.[52]" But you list five ships.
    That was interesting. I have corrected it. Added an extra paragraph. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:04, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " the Republic of Fiji Military Forces." Fiji was not independent until 1970 nor a republic until 1987. Were these forces called that then?
    Fiji Defence Force. Changed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:04, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the tests were denounced as a hoax intended to deceive the Americans into resuming nuclear cooperation;" This is a bit unclear. Denounced when? And by whom?
    In the 1990s. Added some names, but they don't have articles. The London Review of Books article is in the sources. One thing I've discovered over the years is that by adding retrospect, it is often possible to reconstruct events in a form that makes more sense than what actually happened. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:04, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fijian Navy our article on same says that it was not formed until 1975.
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:04, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "nightly radio programs" Should this be "programmes" if this is British English?
    Yes. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:04, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Because of the possibility of a moratorium on testing, plans for the test, codenamed Grapple Y, were restricted to the Prime Minister, who gave verbal approval, and a handful of officials.[120]" This would be Macmillan, but you do not say so (the last UK PM referred to is Eden) and when you finally refer to Macmillan, you do not link or say who he is.
    Well spotted. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:04, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:41, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Looks good.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:22, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dumelow edit

Hi Hawkeye7, It's been a long time since I studied any nuclear physics but I've taken a non-technical read through and make the following comments on the prose. I've only got down to "Grapple series" so far but will complete the review later - Dumelow (talk) 12:56, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Read through and comments now complete - Dumelow (talk) 08:08, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Background
  • "In November 1952, the United States conducted Ivy Mike, the first successful test of a true thermonuclear device or hydrogen bomb. Britain was therefore still several years behind in nuclear weapons technology", this suggests to the reader that thermonuclear devices were more modern or desirable but not why. Maybe "more powerful" or something would help here?
    Changed as suggested, but the reason is in the next sentence: the maintenance of great power status required that Britain also develop the thermonuclear weapons. I didn't want to get too deeply into this here because it is covered in the main article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:08, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A Cabinet meeting 27 July accepted this argument, and directed the Lord President to proceed with the development of thermonuclear weapons." missing "on" before date
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:08, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority Atomic Weapons Establishment at Aldermaston in Berkshire was directed by William Penney, with William Cook as his deputy." The article for the AWE states it was known as the "Atomic Weapons Research Establishment" until 1987
    Changed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:08, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Location
  • "Testing of the boosted designs was carried out in the Operation Mosaic tests in the Montebello Islands in May and June 1956" the only British weapon you've previously described as boosted is Orange Herald, but presumably this wasn't tested this early. What weapon was tested? Or was it non-detonation testing?
    The tests involved detonations. Orange Herald was a boosted weapon, but the important point was that it had an oraalloy tamper. Re-worded to clarify this.
  • Also: "This was a sensitive matter; there was an agreement with Australia that no thermonuclear testing would be carried out there" You've previously only described Green Bamboo and Green Granite as thermonuclear and neither of these were tested until much later.
    Correct. The weapons tested in Mosaic were boosted, not thermonuclear. But this sort of detail was secret back in 1955. Added: the devices tested in Mosaic were not thermonuclear to make this more explicit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:08, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which was larger than the 50 kilotonnes of TNT (210 TJ) limit on tests in Australia" this is presumably a different limit to the 2.5x Hurricane limit you mention in the previous sentence, as this would be 62.5 kilotonnes?
    Correct. The two PMs had agreed (perhaps unknowingly) to lift the limit slightly. Made this more explicit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:08, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Preparations
  • "HMS Narvik would reprise the role of control ship it had in Hurricane; but it was also required for Mosaic, and had very little time to return to the Chatham Dockyard for a refit before heading out to Christmas Island for Grapple" Would "it had also been required for Mosaic" be better, as this was a past event?
    Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:08, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • RFA Fort Constantine, HMS Messina seem to be plausible redlinks. Potentially J. E. S. Stone also (he only reached brigadier but was a CBE)
    Red linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:08, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Narvik would have to spend long periods of time at Malden," I don't think we've said Malden was to be the site of the bomb test yet, last time it was mentioned it was still a toss up between it and McKean.
    Moved the bit about Malden up higher. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:08, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "By the end of April, 31 of the men, and all the women and children had been taken to Fanning Island by RAF Hastings" you've only mentioned the full name of the aircraft in a caption previously so I missed it and was momentarily confused, perhaps expand to Handley Page Hastings and link?
    I see its named in full and linked in Grapple series, so this just needs moving up the article
    Moved up. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:08, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Grapple series
  • "The yield was a very disappointing 300 kilotonnes of TNT (1,300 TJ), even less than Short Granite." We've previously stated that the Short Granite test was also 300 kilotonnes so either there's a rounding issue or it should be "about the same as Short Granite"?
    Whoops. Should be 200 kt of TNT. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:22, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "chalked up" strikes me as a bit colloquial
    Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:22, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "sports such as soccer" football in British English, never soccer. If absolutely necessary (I don't think so in this case as a misunderstanding is not going to change anything important) "association football".
    Changed to "football" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:22, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Grapple X
  • "Rear Admiral Patrick from the US Navy, and Brigadier General John W. White from the USAF" Do we know Patrick's first name? Also probably both redlinkable
    Goldsborough Serpell Patrick. He already has an article. Red-linked White. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:22, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Created a new article on White at John W. White (general) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:13, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Grapple Z Series
  • I don't think the location of the Pendant and Burgee tests are not explicitly stated, were they above Christmas Island itself? Likewise locations of Flagpole and Halliard, which were presumably somewhere off the coast?
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:56, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This was the first live drop of a British nuclear weapon using blind radar technique" I am not sure I understand this bit. Does it mean it was aimed by radar alone?
    Yes. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:56, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Aftermath
  • "The British decided to adapt the Mark 28 as a British weapon as a cheaper alternative to doing their own development, which became Red Snow." Link Mark 28 to B28 nuclear bomb
    Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:56, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Other weapons were supplied through Project E, under which weapons in American custody were supplied for the use of the RAF and British Army." Repetition of "supplied" maybe replace the second one with "provided" or similar?
    Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:56, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Under the Mutual Defence Agreement 5.4 tonnes of UK produced plutonium was sent to the US in return for 6.7 kilograms (15 lb) of tritium and 7.5 tonnes of highly enriched uranium between 1960 and 1979, replacing production of the British uranium enrichment facility at Capenhurst in Cheshire, although much of the highly enriched uranium was used not for weapons, but as fuel for the growing UK fleet of nuclear submarines." Feels like a very long sentence
    Split sentence. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:56, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose. One follow up question: you say the 1960-79 supply of American enriched Uranium "replaced production from the British uranium enrichment facility at Capenhurst in Cheshire". Capenhurst is still producing to this day (I think), for power station use, was it not producing anything in this period or just not for nuclear weapons? - Dumelow (talk) 13:04, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It produces enriched uranium for power stations but no longer the highly enriched uranium used for weapons and nuclear submarine propulsion. (Hill, An Atomic Empire, p. 99) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:13, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review edit

All paras have at least one citation at the end, and the article is closely cited throughout, there are no formatting issues, with one exception (see below) all necessary ref fields are there to enable verification, the sources all look reliable to me except fn 62 and 63 (given what they are citing is very mundane orbat information, I think they can be given a pass), and the MA dissertation mentioned below. The only outstanding queries are:

  • The London Review of Books cite (Dombey and Grove) uses page numbers, but the linked online version doesn't have page numbers, thus there should probably be an issn for the hard copy referred to.
    Added ISSN. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:32, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:SCHOLARSHIP, McIntyre's MA dissertation is questionable. Has it been shown to have had significant scholarly influence? If not, it is probably not reliable.
    What a shame. Moved to the Further reading section Replaced with references to Arnold & Pyne. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:32, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pringle's Guardian article is used as a ref, so should be dropped from the EL list.
    Dropped. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:32, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:29, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All good then. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:18, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Z1720 edit

I love history, though not well read in military history. Consider me a non-expert.

There's a lot of fascinating reading to be had in reviewing Wikipedia articles. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:19, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They were part of New Zealand" -> "The islands were" or "The Kermadec Islands were" Since it's the beginning of a paragraph, it is better to specify what is being talked about.
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:19, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Cook would be the Scientific Director." I think per MOS:JOBTITLE this would be scientific director (no capitals.)
    De-capped. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:19, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This time the yield of 1.8 megatonnes of TNT (7.5 PJ) exceeded expectations; the predicted yield had only been 1 megatonne of TNT (4.2 PJ). But it was still below the 2 megatonnes of TNT (8.4 PJ) safety limit." The second sentence is awkward for me. Perhaps, "This time the yield of 1.8 megatonnes of TNT (7.5 PJ) exceeded expectations; the predicted yield had only been 1 megatonne of TNT (4.2 PJ), but it was still below the 2 megatonnes of TNT (8.4 PJ) safety limit." (change the period before "but" to a comma)
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:19, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The physicists at Aldermaston had plenty of ideas about how to follow up Grapple X. Possibilities were discussed in September 1957." I would merge these sentences by saying "about how to follow up Grapple X and possibilities were discussed"
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:19, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "of a three-layer Dick that used lithium deuteride that was less enriched in lithium-6 (and therefore had more lithium-7), but more of it, " -> "of a three-layer Dick that used a greater amount of lithium deuteride that was less enriched in lithium-6 (and therefore had more lithium-7)," ?
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:19, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Because of the possibility of a moratorium on testing, plans for the test, codenamed Grapple Y, were restricted to the Prime Minister, Harold Macmillan, who gave informal approval, and a handful of officials." Too many commas that ruin the flow of this sentence. Perhaps, "The possibility of a moratorium of testing caused the plans for the test, codenamed Grapple Y, to be restricted to Prime Minister Harold Macmillan, who gave informal approval, and a handful of officials." I'm still not thrilled with the amount of commas in my suggestion, but it's better imo.
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:19, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Once in the air, though, a fault developed in the ground radar transmitter." remove though to increase sentence flow?
    Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:19, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "British timing was good." This feels like editorialising. Who was it good for? Also, it's a weird way to start this paragraph. I would delete and explain why the timing was good later in the paragraph.
    Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:19, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Now, suddenly, there was incontrovertible proof that, in some areas at least, the Soviet Union was actually ahead." -> "This gave incontrovertible proof that, in some areas at least, the Soviet Union was actually ahead in..." This gets rid of some commas. Also, what were the Soviet Union ahead in?
    Deleted "Now". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:19, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "officials in the United States and Britain seized an opportunity to mend the relationship with Britain that had been damaged by the 1956 Suez Crisis." -> "officials in the United States and Britain seized an opportunity to mend their relationship, which had been damaged by the 1956 Suez Crisis."
    That wording would sound like it was the relationship between the officials. Reworded slightly differently. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:19, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Malden Island is uninhabited. Penrhyn Island is part of the Cook Islands, a self-governing dependency of New Zealand." These are awkward because the paragraph starts in past-tense, then switches to present-tense without a lead-in. Perhaps, ""Penrhyn Island remained part of the Cook Islands, a self-governing dependency of New Zealand. Malden Island remains uninhabited."
    Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:19, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and paid for by a veterans' organisation[160] in New Zealand" Can the citation go after New Zealand?
    Moved to end of sentence. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:19, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However, in another test done by the same Massey University team, for chromosome translocations within peripheral blood lymphocytes, the author of the study, R. E. Rowland, suggested that a statistically higher rate of this, non-germline abnormality, was found." -> "The same Massey University team did another test for chromosome translocations within peripheral blood lymphocytes and the author of the study, R. E. Rowland, suggested that a statistically higher rate of this non-germline abnormality was found." Again, trying to delete some commas for flow.
    Changed along the libnes suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:19, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In ref 164, since you have places academic journals in the "References" section, this ref should also be a sfn with the longer text placed in references.
    Moved to the references. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:19, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ISBN for "Macmillan, Harold (1971)" needs dashes to be consistent with the other sources.
    Reformatted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:19, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is the pdf in "Further reading" not used as a source in the article?
    WP:SCHOLARSHIP: Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:19, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In my opinion, if something cannot be used as a source Wikipedia should not recommend the source in "Further reading". However, this will not prevent my support of the article.
    WP:Further reading: Editors most frequently choose high-quality reliable sources. However, other sources may be appropriate Fortunately my own Masters thesis is considered reliable. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:51, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please ping when the above are responded to. Z1720 (talk) 17:02, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: All points addressed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:19, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My concerns were addressed. I support this nomination. Made a comment above about Further reading. Z1720 (talk) 05:30, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from TRM edit

Lead

  • "of thermonuclear weapons," hydrogen bomb already links to this.
    Unlinked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:44, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a nuclear weapons project" atomic bomb already links to this.
    Unlinked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:44, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "scientists participated in the British contribution to the Manhattan Project" -> "scientists contributed to the Manhattan Project" to avoid repeat of British.
    Re-ordered link. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:44, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The successful test ... in the meantime" mega-sentence needs split.
    Trimmed sentence. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:44, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Cabinet agreed" may not be understandable and we call it "the Cabinet".
    That's the sort of thing only a British reviewer would pick up. Added "the". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:44, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The first test in the Operation Grapple series" The first test ... you've literally only just mentioned Op Grapple so don't do it again.
    Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:44, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Despite its failure" well it only failed one aspect, the yield, so perhaps just "Despite this..."
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:44, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a disappointing 300 kilotonnes" keep "disappointing" out of the lead, it's POV.
    Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:44, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "series was required. This series consisted" merge.
    Merges. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:44, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "300 kilotonnes of TNT (1,300 TJ)" yet "1.8 megatonnes" is equivalent to 7.5 PJ? Why not 7.8 PJ?
    Rounding. 300 kTNT ~ 1,260 TJ. Tweaked the rounding. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:44, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "single test, Grapple Y, in April 1958, another design was tested" test tested... repetitive.
    Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:52, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's a "tamper"?

Background

  • General question: You use Britain (not Great Britain) and United Kingdom interchangeably. Is that correct? They're not the same thing.
    I discussed this with members of Team GB at the Paralympics in Rio in 2016. They said: "Great Britain excludes Northern Ireland". I then said: "So you don't have any athletes from Northern Ireland?" And they said: "Uh, well, actually, quite a few." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:44, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "September 1944 Hyde Park Agreement" no link/article?
    It has no article, being too small. Instead we have Quebec Agreement#Hyde Park Aide-Mémoire but the Quebec Agreement is already linked. Let me know if you think the Hyde Park Aide-Mémoire should also be linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:44, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Britain's top scientists participated in the British" see comment about this in the lead.
    Changed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:44, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The United States Atomic Energy Act of 1946 " United States doesn't appear to be part of the formal title of the act.
    Moved "United States" outside the link. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:44, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "extraordinary scientific and technological achievement" in what sense and according to whom?
    Margaret Gowing, who spends five pages on the subject. How many words do you think it is worth here? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:44, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "lithium-6 deuteride" no link?
    Linked in the next paragraph. Linked on first occurrence. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:44, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "thermonuclear design in which the thermonuclear fuel was separate and the majority of the yield came from thermonuclear burning" do we need three thermonuclear in one sentence?
    Trimmed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:44, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fission isn't linked here.
    Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:44, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More to come. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:50, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Location

  • I found MOS:NUMERO, so changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:53, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Christmas Island" - you called it Kiritimati in the lead.
    I called it Christmas Island in the lead too. Add the alternative spelling. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:38, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " A USAF special " it's not until much later in the article that you expand this and link it.
    Moved to first occurrence. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:38, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "based here" there.
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:38, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Preparations

  • "bomber squadrons" you've used bomber before this without linking.
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:38, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "nos." needs full stop for abbreviation.
    Full stop is not used when it ends with the correct letter. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:38, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Similarly No 49 should be No. 49.
  • Fix all those throughout, won't mention it again.
  • "four Whirlwind helicopters, along with two RAF Whirlwinds " were the first four not RAF ones?
    No, they belonged to the Royal Navy. Added this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:38, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Damage caused by a storm" to what?
    Warrior. Added "to the ship". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:38, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Narvik would reprise the" Narvik reprised the"
    Sure. Changed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:38, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Fort Beauharnois" what sort of ship was that? RFA is just a fleet of ships.
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:38, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with special radio equipment" what made it "special"?
    Good question. Source doesn't say. I have no idea how it would have been done. Today you would use a satellite but they didn't have them then. My guess is some technique involving bouncing a signal off the ionosphere so it could reach Hawaii. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:38, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "there because of the steep grade of the ocean floor there" there there
    Deleted second "there". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:38, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to Chatham Dockyard, where" overlinked.
    Corrected already. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:38, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a DUKW.[59]" needs explanation.
    Seriously? Added a bit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:38, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "facilities would be improved" were
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:38, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "1 December 1956" non-breaking spaces for dates, this one breaks between 1 and December for me.
    Done. I don't like doing that unless I have to, because it makes it very hard to edit the article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:38, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "48, 59 and 61 Field Squadrons, and 63 Field Park Squadron, and 12 and 73" none of these have articles/links/are notable enough?
    None have articles, and units of this size are not presumed notable, although plenty of them do. See Category:Squadrons of the Royal Engineers
  • Isn't 25 Engineer Regiment the same as 25 (Close Support) Engineer Group?
    No. The 25th Engineer Regiment was disbanded in 2012. Oddly, it has an article on Wikia [28]
  • " to Fanning island in" even though that redirects, shouldn't it still be Fanning Island?
    Yes. Capitalised. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:38, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Royal Engineers construct the airfield runway" that's a complete sentence so full stop.
    Uh, okay. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:38, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a United States Air Force (USAF) base in the " see above about usage/linking/explanation first time round.
    Already done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:38, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "also operated DUKWs, amphibious" overlinked and explained too late...
    Explanation moved up. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:38, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "tinkering" feels colloquial.
    Changed to "minor adjustments". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:38, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any decent link for "frozen" in the context of product design lifecycle?
    The closest I can find is Freeze (software engineering). It describes the process in question very well, but looks odd in the context. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:38, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More to come. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:07, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Grapple series

  • "of three shots. " shots sounds odd when we're talking about dropping bombs.
    Changed to "tests" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:52, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This meant that they had to be dropped" why? to avoid destroying the aircraft?
    That could not happen with a timer. Added "in order to detonate at the correct altitude"
  • "minor modification to its Dick" no action, but great sentence.
  • "Despite its failure, the test was..." is this with reference to the first test, it's somewhat got lost. And note comment above, this wasn't a failure, it just failed to meet the expected yield, the rest of the test went successfully.
    Dud. It failed to initiate a fusion reaction. Sure, it exploded with a couple of hundred kilotons, but that's just the Tom. You have to get something out of the Dick. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:52, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "John Bayliss" who?
    Added "the British nuclear weapons historian" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:52, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "by Roberts. XD823, piloted" could merge, these are both very short.
    Joined. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:52, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This made it technically a megaton-range weapon" is there an explanation for this?
    Rounding. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:52, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "flabbergasted" emotive, POV.
    Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:52, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Grapple X

  • "This required another major construction effort..." this sentence repeats Christmas Island and construct...
    Trimmed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:52, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still lots of No without a full stop. I don't know why they're being piped out, No. 49 Squadron RAF for example.
    See the explanation above. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:52, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "14 layers in Short Granite, it would have just three" MOSNUM, fourteen/three or 14/3.
    Changed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:52, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A third Round, Round C, was produced, which was a diagnostic round." -> "A third, diagnostic round, Round C, was also produced"?
    Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:52, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Grapple Y

  • "One was to tinker with" tinker is too colloquial.
    Tweak? Twiddle? Frobnicate? Changed to "adjust" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:52, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Taylor instability" this is the second time poor old "Rayleigh–Taylor instability," Rayleigh got dropped...
    Yes. The sources all use "Taylor instability". When the Americans asked Chadwick for an expert on the subject, he sent Taylor. So he was familiar to the nuclear scientists from Tube Alloys and the Manhattan Project. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:52, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was the one adopted" no need for "the one"
    Uh, okay. Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:52, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2 = 8.4, 3 = 13? Again, some inconsistent roundings.
    Quite consistent, but I've twiddled the significant figures to reduce the surprise factor. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:52, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Grapple Z series

  • "using tritium gas" link?
    Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:52, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the RI effect. " no article?
  • No. Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:52, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a primary immune" primary what?
    Primary. It's defined earlier. I could switch to "Tom". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:52, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "approved two shots" again, sounds weird, these aren't "shot", they're dropped.
    Not all were dropped. Changed to "tests" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:52, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "lithium hydride" link.
    Already linked as lithium deuteride. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:52, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "using blind radar technique" what is that?
    Dropping using radar. Added a bit of explanation. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:52, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath

  • "This came as a tremendous shock" what, the British test or Sputnik? It's unclear.
    Sputnik. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:52, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy" perhaps clarify this was an American committee.
    Clarified. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:52, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as a British weapon" do we need British again?
    Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:52, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "5.4 tonnes" convert as you have with all other such values.
    In the old measurements, these are used for fissile metals. Hence, no conversion. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:52, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "7.5 tonnes" ditto.
    Ditto. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:52, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "two British veterans of.." veteran is used three times in one sentence here.
    Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:52, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "for £100,000 damages" convert to US$ as you have with the Fiji $ later.
    deleted the Fiji $ conversion. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:53, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the UK Ministry of Defence by" drop UK.
    Dropped. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:52, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Summary

  • What are blanks in the "device" column?
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:52, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I may be being dense but what is the 3m+ in every single elevation + height box? Wouldn't it be neater to just have a note to say all were dropped over an elevation of 3m and stick to the height of the drop here?
    Done. Another editor generated the table with a script. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:52, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The names like Z3 and Z4 are mentioned in this table for the first time, they're nowhere to be seen in the prose.
    Corrected misspelling of halliard Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:52, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Short Granite device" why italics?
    Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:52, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Refs

External links

  • Are ten external links necessary? I get some link out to photos but surely if the others have relevant material, they should be incorporated directly into the article with inline refs?
    Cut them back. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:52, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's it, a really interesting read, nice work. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 08:32, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi TRM. In passing, that is a really good review above. I will be looking to close this in a couple of days, so if there is any follow up to come, or a support or oppose, it would be good to chip it in sooner rather than later. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:21, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 17 August 2021 [29].

Cimoliopterus edit

Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 20:01, 9 July 2021 (UTC); JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 21:34, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a pterosaur only definitely known from jaw fragments, but which has been historically important for the understanding of the group. It was one of the largest pterosaurs known when it was named in 1851, and one of the first members of the group to be depicted in sculpture, but its appearance was unclear until more complete relatives were discovered in the 1980s. We have summarised the historical literature about the animal here, which also means the article gets into some complicated, 19th century taxonomy, so parts of it may be difficult to understand, so we are open for any suggestions that would make it more approachable. FunkMonk (talk) 20:01, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Image review: licensing looks OK, but many of the images are too small to see easily. For example, "Holotype snout tips of P. fittoni, O. brachyrhinus, and O. enchorhynchus" should be scaled up so it is more accessible. You might consider cropping the right half (diagram part) of the images so that the fossil image can be displayed larger. (t · c) buidhe 20:38, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if there's much more to see on them, though, but I've scaled it up a bit. But I disagree with cropping the diagrams out, they're exactly what's needed for people to notice that they're anything but just brown rocks. FunkMonk (talk) 23:57, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Jim edit

Very comprehensive, some nitpicks though Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:02, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Your geographical unit for the European finds seems to be England, whereas two London-born people are referred to as British, rather than English. Is this consistent?
Forgot this one, I kept it "British" for the people mentioned because I couldn't be sure which were specifically English and who not. I think it would look strange if I only write English for some of them. FunkMonk (talk) 18:59, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure I’d bother with the country in Kent, England or Texas, US.
All the sources make a point out of this, so I think it's important to include, also because the same formations can stretch across state boundaries, counties, etc (which was also demonstrated with the map-issue below). Or do you mean only in the intro specifically? FunkMonk (talk) 15:48, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ’’premaxillary ‘’— link in lead
Linked to premaxilla. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 15:27, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Removed the older link, as it was now duplinked in he intro. FunkMonk (talk) 16:58, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • with proportionally large skulls, with long jaws and tooth-rows, often with large, rounded crests at the front of the jaws. ‘’ —the multiple “withs” make this harder to follow
I think this has already been fixed? It's currently like this if I'm not wrong: "with proportionally large skulls, long jaws and tooth-rows, and often with large, rounded crests at the front of the jaws." JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 15:27, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Seems it refers to the similar sentence in the intro... FunkMonk (talk) 15:50, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Removed in intro. FunkMonk (talk) 16:58, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The teeth at the front ... . Their necks ‘’ —subject of “their “seems to have been lost
Changed to "the" instead of "their" to avoid adding more words. FunkMonk (talk) 17:12, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ’’made of dark stone ‘’ —namely?
Specified to "iron-framed concrete". FunkMonk (talk) 17:12, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ’’wastebin ‘’ bit of an easter egg, write in full I think
Well, the problem is the source only says "wastebin", which the familiar reader would know is equivalent to the linked term wastebasket taxon. I'm not sure how free I am to change the terminology of the source here? FunkMonk (talk) 17:12, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is your criterion for red-linking names?
In this case I think it's because David Unwin is notable enough to get an article, no one has just come down to it yet... FunkMonk (talk) 16:58, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kimolia (Κιμωλία), which means "chalk", and pteron (πτερόν) which means "wing". —Second “which means” seems redundant
Changed the second one to "meaning" so it varies a bit. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 15:27, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ’’the front of the jaw in C. dunni, while in C. cuvieri ‘’— Italics needed
Italicized. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 15:27, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ‘’and less than 180°)’’ —is this needed?
Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 16:58, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Palaeoenvironment, you say ‘’The holotype of C. cuvieri was found in Kent, England ‘’, but the stratigraphic map says it was found in the area depicted, which is Cambridgeshire, nowhere near Kent. Am I missing something?
Ah, nice to get an actual English person to look over this then, I'll see if we can find an alternate map. This here map was from an article that actually covered C. cuvieri, though... FunkMonk (talk) 15:48, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've just removed the map and moved the worldmap down in its place. It did show the same formation, just in a different area of England. FunkMonk (talk) 16:58, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All looks good, I'm happy to leave the wastebin, see if anyone else picks it up. Changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:59, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, yeah, the wastebin issue can possibly be handled more elegantly... FunkMonk (talk) 18:08, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Dunkleosteus77 edit

  • Par 2 sent 1 in the lead, just for brevity you should just say "Cimoliopterus is estimated to have had..." if both species are estimated to have had about the same wingspan   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:32, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's a bit more complicated than that, which is why the wording is somewhat convoluted. It is elaborated on under description. The problem is that one writer stated they were similar in size, but then proceeded to give a smaller estimate for C. dunni than had been given for C. cuvieri before... FunkMonk (talk) 12:29, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Cimoliopterus is distinct from related pterosaurs in features..." this sounds weird because it's a pretty obvious statement. Maybe something like "Cimoliopterus is most notably distinguished by..."   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:32, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Said "can be distinguished from related pterosaurs" instead. FunkMonk (talk) 12:29, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Others can weigh in, but I feel like the 2nd par is too descriptive and technical for the lead, and the lead is overall pretty big for an article this size. I feel like we can just leave it at a long, crested beak (bill? snout? whatever) with recurved and protrusive teeth, size, wingspan, and hair and membrane. Palatal ridges, tooth sockets, and comparisons with other taxa seem too much   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:32, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, we need to know what distinguishes it from similar pterosaurs, and what distinguishes the two species from each other. Otherwise every intro description about most pterosaurs could just be the same, which is pointless. As for length, there are MOS guides for that at WP:lead length. But I have removed the following text, which was probably too general for the intro: "The necks were proportionally long, the torsos relatively small, and the forelimbs were proportionally enormous compared to the legs." FunkMonk (talk) 13:53, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Par 3 sent 1 and 2 really belong in Par 1 with the rest of the taxonomy discussion. Also, you say it was classified into Ornithocheirus twice   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:32, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is higher level taxonomy, which is covered in the classification section, so the intro follows the order of the article itself in this regard. I don't see where it says it was classified as Ornithocheirus twice, it says ornithocheiran the second time around, which is a higher level taxon. FunkMonk (talk) 13:39, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It was only classified as an ornithocherian when it was placed in Anhanguera and Ornithocheirus. Therefore, mentioning ornithocheiran is redundant   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  13:55, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is still considered an ornithocheiran. You may be confusing it with ornithocheirid, which is a narrower group which it is not considered part of today (by Brazilian researchers at least, British researchers still largely follow the ornithocheirid scheme, but see also the cladogram based on Jacobs 2019). There is generally still a deep division between the pterosaur classification schemes used by Brazilian versus British palaeontologists, and it will probably not be resolved any time soon. FunkMonk (talk) 01:27, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Par 3 sent 3 and 4 are the longest-winded way of saying they were adapted for trans-oceanic travel and dispersed across the North Atlantic   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:32, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Shortened to "This kind of pterosaur was probably adapted for long-distance oceanic soaring". But that these two species evolved in this particular way needs to be spelled out, I think. "Adapted for trans-oceanic travel and dispersed across the North Atlantic" probably isn't understandable to most readers, though it works well as condensed for more familiar readers. FunkMonk (talk) 13:39, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "While some have suggested the premaxillary crests were used to stabilise the jaws while submerged in water during feeding, they may have been used as display structures instead" the way this is worded, it implies the former were probably wrong   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:32, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It probably is, as elaborated in the palaeobiology section. But this is a less strong way of saying it, which is more neutral. FunkMonk (talk) 12:29, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "is considered confusing" this is like when journalists have to write "allegedly" in the titles to avoid lawsuits   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:32, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to "has been described as confusing", as multiple sources state this. FunkMonk (talk) 12:29, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Said "foot flat on the ground", as it is only one foot. FunkMonk (talk) 12:56, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Preparation in palaeontology is used this way. See for example these Google Scholar results:[30] FunkMonk (talk) 01:27, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi User:Dunkleosteus77, do you have any further comments on FunkMonk's responses, or are you in a position to either support or oppose? Obviously it is not obligatory to do either. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:42, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and such fish may also have altered their flight capability, as is the case for bats" this implies you're talking about bats eating fish, when the source seems to only be talking about bats eating mosquitos   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:39, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The source doesn't imply what the bats in this context have been eating, all it says is "Furthermore, possibly their stomachs might not have been able to contain a large fish without substantially altering flight capabilities, as in modern bats (Altringham 1996)". So we can't be more specific than the source, but note that some bats do eat fish[31], so we can't rule out that's what the source refers to either. FunkMonk (talk) 15:55, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "were probably for minimising water attrition" I assume you didn't understand the physics and just read the caption. Basically it's saying Coloborhynchus approached the water with its head parallel to the surface, then sunk its lower jaw into the water, and then turned its entire head down towards the fish (perpendicular to the surface). It also had to extend its neck forward as it flew in order to have enough to time grasp the fish because the fish would be swimming at a slower speed than the pterosaur. The crest acted like a rudder to keep the head stationary, counteracting the force of the surface ocean current moving perpendicular to the direction of the pterosaur up to 5 m/s, aided by the rigidity of the neck in lateral directions. Beyond that speed, the pterosaur would only be able to maintain stability in the water if it's moving in the same direction as the current. Birds are small enough to use their wings to exert a balancing force, but the larger pterosaurs' wings would plunge into the water if it attempted that strategy. You don't have to include all of this, but certainly "water attrition" with no context is unintelligible   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:39, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I simply didn't think the theoretical details were important or interesting enough for the reader to explain in depth, as it wasn't this genus that was used for the experiment anyway, but a relative, so the current wording seemed sufficient. But I'm not against adding more detail, it just needs to be concise enough. I have paraphrased some of what you wrote above, but any further suggestions are of course welcome. FunkMonk (talk) 15:55, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Added "(Young’s modulus, tensile elasticity)" after the mention. Not sure how else to do this concisely without the sentence becoming unwieldy. FunkMonk (talk) 15:55, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Said "(the main structural element)". FunkMonk (talk) 15:55, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to infer the likely tension of the wing membrane, the tensions needed to suppress aeroelastic flutter, and minimising ballooning of the membrane under flight loads" I don't believe most people would understand this level of fluid mechanics. You can just say something like "to infer the minimum surface tension necessary to withstand drag/air resistance/the wind/etc. at high flight speeds, thus preventing structural failure. This can be counteracted by thickening the wing membrane, but this would cumbersomely increase its weight. So, the required tension is only feasibly minimized if the material of the wing par has a high elastic modulus (a measure of a material's resistance to temporary deformation), such as keratin." You can also include their estimated Young's modulus value of 1–2 GPa assuming the keratin (5 GPa) makes up 20–40% of the wing membrane.   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:39, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise, I'm not sure that ths level of methodological details of an experimental paper would be particularly interesting in an article about an animal genus, it is mainly the conclusions that concern us. I think most of what you wrote there would actually be less understandable to the reader than the current wording, but I think the first part was concise enough, so I've added the folliwing hybrid "to infer the likely tension of the wing membrane needed to suppress aeroelastic flutter (instability caused by air resistance) at high flight speeds, and minimising ballooning, thus preventing structural failure of the membrane under flight loads". FunkMonk (talk) 15:55, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HF edit

Will review over this coming week. Hog Farm Talk 01:49, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Probably shouldn't stay up late on a work night, but I drank three glasses of sweet tea earlier, so here I am still awake.

Hope you didn't begin seeing pink pterosaurs in your exhaustion! FunkMonk (talk) 23:41, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The species was since assigned to various other genera, including Ornithocheirus and Anhanguera." - maybe it's just me, but "was since" doesn't seem well for some reason
Tried with "subsequently", any better? FunkMonk (talk) 23:41, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That works
  • "has been described as confusing" - by whom?
Added "by modern pterosaur researchers", or do you mean more specific? FunkMonk (talk) 21:36, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
that works
  • "C. cuvieri has a low snout compared to Ornithocheirus and also possesses a forward-facing first pair of tooth sockets, unlike that genus." - maybe I'm misunderstanding something, but since Ornithocheirus is a wastebasket taxon, can you really compare it to that?
Good point, it refers to the type species of Ornithocheirus, which is the only definite member of the genus. I've now stated in the history section that the genus is now restricted to that species, should make it clearer what is referred to in later mentions. Added "which they restricted to its type species, O. simus". FunkMonk (talk) 21:36, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does it add anything to the article to have two very similar depictions of the holotype when it still had teeth?
The first one is interesting because it was the first published depiction, and the second is unique in showing further views (back, front), and close ups of the teeth. They're also very far from each other, so are used to illustrate different aspects (history for the first one, anatomy for the other). FunkMonk (talk) 21:36, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At less than 1 millimetre (0.039 in) " - this feels like false precision on the inches conversion to me, since inches are generally only rarely measured down to the .001 precision, and it's not an exact number anyway
Think I got rid of it by adding sigfig=1. FunkMonk (talk) 01:39, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ready for the Classification section. Will try to finish this off tomorrow. Hog Farm Talk 05:14, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "in addition to the species O. sedgwicki (now considered the type species of Aerodraco or alternatively a species of Camposipterus" - Aerodraco sedgwicki is mentioned later but spelled sedgwickii, is the single-i spelling a typo or how it was originally spelled? It's also spelled sedgwickii later when referring to C. sedgwickii, so that same query applies there
It depends on the sources, but originally and today, it was sedgwickii. I think the problem is because 19th century writers like Owen thought they could simply "correct" names they thought were wrong, which is not accepted today. Hence it was referred to as O. sedgwicki during its time under Ornithocheirus... FunkMonk (talk) 01:39, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there nothing to say about classification between Hooley 1914 and Unwin 2001?
Not really for higher level classification, hence the sentence "O. cuvieri and many other English pterosaurs were kept in the genus Ornithocheirus for most of the 20th century" under history. What else happened in between with the various species is covered under history, but it was mainly changes of names. FunkMonk (talk) 21:36, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Cimoliopterus is unlikely to be paraphyletic (an unnatural group)" - is this consensus? Or does it need attribution, as it looks like almost everything for classification about this genus is open to discussion
Added "according to Myers". FunkMonk (talk) 21:36, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • When you cite Witton's blog, recommend author-linking Mark P. Witton to make it clear that he qualifies as a subject-matter expert.
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 23:41, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Aussiedraco (of Albian age) " - link Albian
Done, an earlier mention with link must have been snipped. FunkMonk (talk) 23:41, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's in a category about Albian age life, but the only mentions of the Albian period is to compare it to some life that happened to be in the Albian (along with a varmint from a different period)
Removed, not sure how that was added. FunkMonk (talk) 21:36, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Rodrigues, T.; Kellner, A. (2013). "Taxonomic review of the Ornithocheirus complex (Pterosauria) from the Cretaceous of England"." - citing a range of over 100 pages is pretty long. This may need specific page number citations
I've broken it up like some of the book sources, with individual page ranges. FunkMonk (talk) 03:06, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since all it is used for is to list other fossils from the same formation, and not to cite novel hypotheses, I think it should be fine. It is most likely just a summary of other papers anyway. But I can try to find the cited articles instead if necessary. FunkMonk (talk) 23:41, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, probably okay for non-controversial information like that, given that it's from a respected research university. Hog Farm Talk 21:48, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Csiki-Sava, Z.; Buffetaut, E.; Ősi, A.; Pereda-Suberbiola, X.; Brusatte, S. L. (2015). "Island life in the Cretaceous - faunal composition, biogeography, evolution, and extinction of land-living vertebrates on the Late Cretaceous European archipelago"" - page range of over 150 pages; probably needs specific page numbers
Fixed, the online version is not divided into pages, so I had a look at the PDF version. FunkMonk (talk) 01:39, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's it from me. While I looked at the sources some, this is not a full source review. Hog Farm Talk 02:18, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There should be answers to everything now, Hog Farm. FunkMonk (talk) 03:06, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support on WP:FACR 1a, 1d, 1e, 2a, 2b, 2c, 4, and source reliability. Not an expert enough to strongly assess 1b and 1c, but I saw nothing that stood out as a possible issue. Did not check image licensing. Hog Farm Talk 06:44, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, articles like this surely need to be checked by non-experts for accessibility too! FunkMonk (talk) 13:18, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Z1720 edit

Non-expert prose review. I made some edits to the article to put references in numerical order. Please review and revert if I messed something up.

  • Regarding the images with this caption, "Two sculptures from the 1850s in Crystal Palace Park based on C. cuvieri...": The front-facing image is difficult to see because there are obstructions in the image and the resolution is too small. I recommend removing it and just showing the side image at a larger resolution.
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 01:33, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They were depicted with scales, though pterosaurs are now known to have had a hair-like covering (a feature already realised by some scientists at the time)," I would put "though pterosaurs are now known to have had a hair-like covering" inside the brackets as it is different from the description of the statue's depiction, and it makes it more clear that the bird-like proportions are describing the statues, not what scientists now know about the species. I also suggest some phrasing changes, outlined in this rewording: "They were depicted with scales (though pterosaurs are now known to have had a hair-like covering a feature already realised by some scientists at the time) and bird-like proportions such as small heads and large torsos, as was customary at the time."
Took your wording (with a comma after "covering"). FunkMonk (talk) 02:02, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the foot flat on the ground" -> "one foot flat on the ground".
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 01:33, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "showing that the English species too had premaxillary crests at the end of large, long skulls, though this had not been previously recognised." I think "though this had not been previously recognised" can be removed as the preceding sentences are describing how the Brazillian specimens brought new information about the English specimens, so it's assumed that this information was not recognised before this period.
Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 02:02, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and cited him for the name, without further explanation." Remove comma?
Removed. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 20:59, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "placed hindward on the snout, by the seventh socket pair," Remove comma?
Removed. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 17:47, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Bowerbank and Owen described and figured the now lost teeth found with the C. cuvieri holotype in 1851." Is figured the right word to use there, or is there a word missing? Not sure what this phrasing is trying to say.
"Figured" as a verb is pretty standard in scientific papers, as a shorter way of saying "showed an illustration of". Other examples on Google Scholar:[32] FunkMonk (talk) 02:02, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which protruded about one-third of an inch, downwards and forwards at an oblique angle." Remove comma
Removed. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 17:47, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "But it still remained a mystery why no close" Delete But?
Changed "but" to "however". JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 17:47, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They concluded the recognition of the clade Targaryendraconia" -> "They concluded that the recognition"
Changed. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 17:47, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "(96–90 million years ago)." It's unusual for me that the date furthest away is placed first. Should the two numbers be flipped?
It's usually like that with paleontological articles, from older to younger. I'm not really sure why this is, perhaps since it's million years BC, but I'm not completely sure. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 17:47, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
By analogy, I think, nobody will say World War II (1945-1939). Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:27, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think the analogy would work with comparing to 96-90 mya vs 1939-1945. In both cases, the most recent number is written later, which my guess is why the date furthest away is written first, because that's how date ranges are normally done. Hog Farm Talk 02:04, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above makes sense. I think I was thrown off that the higher number was first. If other paleontological articles follow the same style, then it shouldn't be changed here. Z1720 (talk) 02:21, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Currently, the references are not consistent with books; sometimes they are given an sfn template and placed in Works Cited, othertimes they are given ref tags. This should be consistent.
Same as below, only those books where multiple page ranges have been needed are split up like that. Not sure if there are really standards for this here, as I've used such a mixed style in multiple FACs without issues. FunkMonk (talk) 02:02, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ISBNs for books should be consistent with which version is used (10-digit or 12-digit) and the use of dashes.
I think this is now fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 02:02, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Rodrigues, T.; Kellner, A. (2013)." is the only journal source placed in Works Cited. Why is that? As with the books, journal citations should be consistent on if they are using sfn templates or ref tags.
It's because it's the only journal source long enough to have to be broken up into multiple page ranges. Any suggestions for alternatives? FunkMonk (talk) 17:19, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My preference is to put all journal entries in sfn templates citing the specific page numbers, then have the journal listed in Works Cited and include the page numbers of the total article. Since this is a lot of extra work and probably not preferable, I won't let this affect a future support for me. However, page numbers for "Rodrigues, T.; Kellner, A. (2013)" should be included in the Works Cited. Z1720 (talk) 17:30, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the full page range for Rodrigues & Kellner, if that's what you meant. FunkMonk (talk) 02:02, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are there page numbers for "Myers, T. S. (2015)", "Longrich, N. R.; Martill, D. M.; Andres, B.; Penny, D. (2018)" and "Holgado, B.; Pêgas, R. V.; Canudo, J. I.; Fortuny, J.; Rodrigues, T.; Company, J.; Kellner, A. W. A. (2019)"?
Fixed per below, they didn't have page numbers in their html versions, so they had to be taken from the pdfs. FunkMonk (talk) 02:02, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Those are my thoughts. Please ping when these are resolved. Z1720 (talk) 16:46, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and for the citation edits too, I'll have a look at these issues soon. FunkMonk (talk) 17:18, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All should now be addressed, Z1720. FunkMonk (talk) 02:02, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My concerns have been addressed. I support based on this prose review. Z1720 (talk) 04:31, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again! FunkMonk (talk) 07:23, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

Seeing as this needs one yet, I'll put this on my to-do list. Hog Farm Talk 17:20, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • the page range for the article "Holgado, B.; Pêgas, R. V. (2020). "A taxonomic and phylogenetic review of the anhanguerid pterosaur group Coloborhynchinae and the new clade Tropeognathinae". Acta Palaeontologica Polonica. 65. doi:10.4202/app.00751.2020" would be nice
Oh yeah, we've apparently missed that one somehow. Added. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 20:59, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ditto with " Longrich, N. R.; Martill, D. M.; Andres, B.; Penny, D. (2018). "Late Maastrichtian pterosaurs from North Africa and mass extinction of Pterosauria at the Cretaceous-Paleogene boundary". PLOS Biology. 16 (3): e2001663. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.2001663. PMC 5849296. PMID 29534059.", if possible, unless the e2001663 is already a way of indicating location within the publication
Added from pdf. FunkMonk (talk) 01:33, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • and " Myers, T. S. (2015). "First North American occurrence of the toothed pteranodontoid pterosaur Cimoliopterus". Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 35 (6): e1014904. doi:10.1080/02724634.2015.1014904. S2CID 86099117."
This doesn't even have page numbers in the pdf, it only says "Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology e1014904 (9 pages)". So I just gave the 1–9 range. FunkMonk (talk) 01:33, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The three above are really just to indicate the location within the publication. If it's not possible to get page numbers, I don't think that's a big deal.

A problem with some of these (such as Plos 1) is that they're online publications not divided into pages, you just scroll down and down on the article's page. But one way to get around it would be to download the pdf version and give the page ranges from there, if that sounds good, but we most likely didn't ever look at the pdfs while writing the articles. FunkMonk (talk) 13:12, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • A blog is cited (Witton), but the author meets WP:SPS
  • page ranges/numbers provided for the book/article length sources are satisfactory, IMO.
  • Sources are all reliable
  • Spot checks I did turned up no issues with source-text integrity or close paraphrasing
  • source formatting is okay in all points that seem to be major

The sole comments are things that fall into the "nice, but don't seem to be strictly necessary" range in my opinion, so this can be considered a pass on sourcing. Hog Farm Talk 05:33, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, missing page numbers now added. FunkMonk (talk) 01:33, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 16 August 2021 [33].

John McGraw edit

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 22:50, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... John McGraw, who not only spent thirty years as manager of the New York Giants baseball team, but before that was one of the legendary Baltimore Orioles of the 1890s, who originated many plays and weren't shy about abusing the umpire to get their way, a characteristic McGraw, despite great success with the Giants, kept through much of his career.

Image review
  • File:John McGraw 1891 Cedar Rapids Canaries.jpg what's the pub date? It's not clear if the scanned document was published or if it was some sort of unpublished document.
Swapped for an image from 1890, provably pre-1925.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:13, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:1896 Baltimore Orioles.jpg How do you know that the first publication was 1956, or is it possible there was an earlier publication?
I've added evidence of pre-1923 publication, justifying the PD tag.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:38, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:1899 Baltimore Orioles.jpg , File:1912 John McGraw by Conlon.jpeg When was the first publication?
Cut the 1899 photo.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:38, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:John McGraw 1924.jpg Why is it PD?
I've changed the license tag.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:57, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(t · c) buidhe 00:21, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please break up the longer sections. "Baltimore years", "Early years (1902–1908)", "Middle years (1909–1920)", "Later years (1921–1931)", "Retirement, death, and posthumous honors" are all way too long especially when browsing on a mobile device. I would also try to break up "Minor leagues" and "Managerial techniques" as too long to comfortably browse on mobile. (t · c) buidhe 03:45, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've split the ones in the first sentence above. I don't think it's practical to split the other two.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:57, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

At 11442 words the article probably needs some cutting. (t · c) buidhe 08:10, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure about that. There is a baseball career of over forty years, each year of which needs coverage and can't be lumped together with others.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:15, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You could split off sub articles Managerial career of John McGraw and/or Playing career of John McGraw, while retaining just the most important information in this overview. (t · c) buidhe 10:44, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I really think most of this needs to be in the main article. Sub-articles get little traffic. Casey Stengel, another FA about a manager with a similarly long career, is also on the long side.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:01, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've cut some.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:44, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Some articles such as Huey Long were broken up and improved as a result. I think this one also would be improved with a spinoff and application of summary style. (t · c) buidhe 17:50, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would think you need to have some information on each year of his career, and the end product would not be too much shorter than what is there now. Sub-articles get minimal readership. Thanks for your review and comments. I'll wait and see what other reviewers have to say.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:58, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Buidhe the article has been reduced by about 20 percent.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:11, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Jim edit

I'm afraid that a baseball article is pretty much English as a foreign language to me, but here goes

  • who was, for almost thirty years, manager of the New York Giants. —I'd omit the commas, but perhaps that's a BE thing?
  • won three pennants — clearly some sort of championship, but perhapa link?
  • Baltimore chop — defined later, but perhaps indicate that it's a batting technique
  • The instability in Major League Baseball at the turn of the 20th century made McGraw manager of the Orioles at age 26 in 1899 — *Facilitated, rather than made, perhaps.
  • link Union Army, curveball, shortstop and ptomaine poisoning
  • cheaper baseball models, which he used to practice his pitching — I don't understand what this is a model of, and therefore can't see how it helps his pitching
  • the Orioles had planned an exhibition tour of Europe, but it was cancelled over concerns poor weather would preclude too many games — this reads a little oddly to me, applying "preclude" to multiple events. Perhaps lead to the cancellation of...
  • Charles Faust, whom McGraw, who like many of his players was superstitious, allowed to travel with the team — why was this gentleman considered to bring good luck?
I've tried to clarify. It was not unusual at that time for baseball teams to have someone as good-luck charm sit in the dugout. Sometimes they rubbed the person's head, or he might have a disability or other physical challenge (such as a "hunchback") and they would rub it.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:47, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:47, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support now, sorry about delay, I forgot to watchlist and then... forgot Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:00, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Tim riley edit

I've just spotted this nomination and will look in tomorrow with comments. Tim riley talk 22:42, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not much from me:

  • "John McGraw, Sr.'s first wife died, and he began moving around looking for work" – there is no connection, presumably, but it reads as though the one led to the other.
  • "Olean was located 200 miles from Truxton" – "located" seems superfluous
  • "One strategem used by McGraw" – the OED spells the word "stratagem", but perhaps it is otherwise in AmE.
  • "his preference for players that fit his system" – is "fit" (rather than "fitted") the past tense of "fit" in AmE? Fine if so. Looks odd to an English eye, but what of that!
It's correct as written, not certain about the grammatical point. No doubt you are right, it's ENGVAR.
  • One general point, raised tentatively because I'm not sure I have fully grasped Wikipedia's rules. It looks to me as though your practice for punctuating quotations is not in line with the MoS. For instance I think the full stop should be to the right of the closing quotation marks in McGraw described his new home upon his arrival as "a dirty, dreary, ramshackle sort of place." and Barnie was unimpressed by the short stature of the player he had recruited unseen, but McGraw assured him, "I'm bigger than I look." but I may be wrong.
The MoS states that terminal punctuation may go within the quotation marks if it is present in the original. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:50, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I'm doing. If it's a full sentence, it goes inside.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:44, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's my lot. – Tim riley talk 09:08, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review. It is good to see you back.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:44, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to drag a kipper across the trail over punctuation. Ignore me. Happy not to have met McGraw (whose character you have objectively laid bare) but also happy to support promotion of the article, which seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. Tim riley talk 07:42, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Sportsfan77777 edit

The article is way too long. There have been a bunch of long biography vital articles at FAC in the past year that have all been sharply criticized for being well over the recommended prose size limit of 60kb. This biography isn't even officially a vital article, and it's currently at 66.4kb. If Willie Mays, for instance, isn't permitted to have a 60kb article, then John McGraw – a less important figure in the same sport – doesn't warrant an article far above that size either.

In particular, the coverage of McGraw's managerial career seems to be too balanced between the more important and less important years of his career. McGraw managed for about 30 years and only won three World Series. The years where he won something should have more coverage to make it clear that they are more important. Because McGraw had such a long career, there isn't enough space to cover all of the other years where he didn't win the World Series in the amount of detail presently in the article. Some exceptions are okay, such as the year he was hired or some of the pennant years where the Giants didn't win the World Series. But sections like the post-1924 part of his career where he never won a pennant and the paragraph and a half on Merkle's Boner, which the Giants didn't benefit from and is covered in a separate article (that should be linked in this article), are overly drawn out. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 21:48, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sportsfan77777, the article is down to 54.3K, and I've summarized the lean years at the end. Does this address your concerns? (I've also shortened the discussion of 1908 and added the link you suggest).--Wehwalt (talk) 15:27, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Sportsfan77777, just checking that your Oppose still stands? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:44, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • In light of the changes, I struck the oppose. Depending on how quickly this is closed, I don't know if I'll have time to leave more detailed comments. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 19:22, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review — Pass edit

Sources

  • Up to you, although I'm used to the bibliography coming after the citations.
  • Publisher location is missing from most of the sources.
  • My intent was not to use them, but I see I imported two of them. They have been removed. I doubt the utility of publisher locations in an internet age.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:47, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Books with subtitles inconsistently have either a space before the colon (e.g., "Genius :") or no space before the colon (e.g., "Games:"). I'd recommend the latter approach.
  • Some publishers are linked, but most aren't. I'd recommend linking all that can be, though consistency is most important.
Fixed, I think.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:22, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a difference between "eBook ed." and "Kindle ed."?
There isn't. I've standardized.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:20, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What's the point of noting that one is a paperback edition? --Usernameunique (talk) 19:50, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I physically have that book, and it is the paperback edition.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:05, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Murphy 2007: Should this be "eBook ed." also?

References

  • 24: Page range should have an en dash, not em dash.
  • 46: Ditto.
  • 85: First name is Don, not Dan. Any reason the link links to the notes?
  • 97: Is statmuse reliable? Should it be styled as "statmuse.com", or as just "statmuse"?
Per this, they seem to be significant enough to be considered reliable. It's their business to publish sports information.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:44, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 101, 144: Inconsistency in whether "Sports Reference" is given as the publisher.
Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:20, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Now #101 doesn't mention Baseball Reference. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:51, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Added.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:05, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 154: Retrieval date not needed for printed matter. Page number missing. You could probably get volume/issue numbers from the front page, if you're so inclined.
  • Fixed. The New York Times has an issue number, but it's not greatly relevant.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:01, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 158: Retrieval date is the same as the archive date. It also isn't needed, since the archive date is the important part.
  • Linked. I'm not using publisher locations.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:47, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 167: Publisher location missing. Link links to a search, not to an individual page. ISBN not hyphenated. Retrieval date not needed for printed matter. "McFarland & Company" is above (in "Sources") given as "McFarland & Co."—although this could be correct if the front matter of the respective books styles the name inconsistently.
Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:20, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 168–178: Most of these have numbers after the name/year, such as "Jaffe 2010, 1971" and "James 1997, 868–876". What are the numbers?
I've noted they are Kindle locations.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:47, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This version looked at. --Usernameunique (talk) 03:37, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I completed what Usernameunique wanted, I think. I'm hopeful Jimfbleak will complete their review.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:34, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:50, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments edit

Having promised a review on Wehwalt's talk page, I had to go and re-read the whole article, as previous reviews touched on a few of the things I was going to mention. Here's the few items I found:

  • Minor leagues: "He caught on with a team in Wellsville, New York, a team that played in the Western New York League." There are duplicate "a team"s here which could stand to be trimmed to one usage. Maybe "which played" would work?
  • 1891–1894: "During the offseason, McGraw narrowly avoided being dealt to the woeful Washington Senators when a trade for Duke Farrell." Needs an ending.
  • 1905–1908: "The Giants won, four game to one." "game" → "games". Giants2008 (Talk) 15:42, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Those things are done, Giants2008 Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:15, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – My issues have been addressed, both here and in the other reviews in some cases, and I'm now confident that the article meets FA standards. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:17, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Much obliged, many thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:25, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from TRM edit

Alert: I am not a baseball expert so I will be looking for a lot of explanation of jargon here, minimum links, better still some explanation inline/footnotes as to what many such terms actually mean...

Lead

  • Major League Baseball is overlinked in the lead.
Fixed.
  • And once you explain it and put (MLB) after, just use MLB going forward.
Done, other than one instant where having the initials reads oddly, but I've removed the link there.
  • "third baseman" what's that?
Linked.
  • "the minor leagues" is there a link for this?
Linked.
  • "won three pennants" what's the context here? What "league" or "competition" were these "pennants" for?
Explained in second paragraph.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:36, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link umpire.
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:36, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "National League" is overlinked in the lead. Isn't that normally abbreviated to NL (like MLB)?
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:36, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "of the new, American League Orioles" odd comma placement.
  • "American League Orioles." for a non-expert, this seaofblue linking is confusing, I thought that was the name of the team, the "American League Orioles".
I've played around with this. The fact that there were "Baltimore Orioles" in four different leagues in about 15 years requires some disambiguation.
  • "by his disciple" that feels a little strong/POV for an encyclopedia.
Rephrased.
  • Link World Series.
Done.
  • "in that capacity" in what capacity?
Done.
  • "holds the National League record with 31 seasons managed" do you mean a different record here then, longevity rather than victories?
Yes. Clarified.
  • "All-Star Game." link.
Done.

Early years

  • Link pitching.
I'm dubious that elementary baseball terms need to be linked in what is not a beginners-level baseball article, but done.
Not at all. I link elementary association football terms in what are not beginners-level soccer articles (I don't think FA has such a distinction, but whatever). The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:41, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "disease took the lives" avoid such euphemisms in an encyclopedia.
FIne.
  • "for broken windows" resulting from?
Done, though I think anyone seeking information on a baseball manager will understand how baseball might break windows.
  • "after another such," another such what?
Rephrased.
It seems unlikely to me that people would often follow such a link.
I don't agree, I would be interested to know what the rules are and why they changed. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:41, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Linked.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:32, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link pitcher.
As we've linked pitching, what need to link pitcher? They go to the same article.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:36, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More to come. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:56, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, no problem. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:41, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

  • "Election Method" no need to capitalise Method, We Are Not Germans.
To change this would require making a change to the fully-protected template infobox baseball biography, here.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:11, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, no reason why not. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:16, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:12, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Playing career - Minor leagues

  • "New York–Pennsylvania League" our article is at "Penn", which name is formally correct?
I've changed the pipe to point to the earlier league. We don't have a specific article on the original New York-Pennsylvania League but the new target at least discusses it.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:12, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "boy's curveball would" overlinked.
Fine.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:12, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "200 miles" convert for our metric pals.
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:12, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "on the bench" is there a link/explanation for this?
Linked to the glossary.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:12, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "first baseman" what is that?
  • "him $70 and" inflate so we know what really means.
Fine.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:12, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He caught on with" colloquial phrasing.
Changed.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:12, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Wehwalt (talk)
  • "referring" in reference to (to avoid so many verb verb verbs)
Done somewhat differently.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:12, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "fell in love with Cuba and" feels highly colloquial to "fall in love" with a place.
It's just reflecting the source. What would you suggest? He liked Cuba very much and returned there many times.
  • "to Gainesville, Florida" comma after Fl.
OK.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:12, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "three doubles in five times at bat" absolutely no idea what that means.
Linked.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:12, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "shortstop" what's that?
I believe that is linked on first use.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:12, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which must have been favorable" is this speculation?
I'm basically repeating what the source says.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:12, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Then perhaps attribute that claim rather than suggest that Wikipedia is making that claim. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:38, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "could get McGraw" instead of get, is there a more encyclopedic term, like "sign" or "acquire"?
The original 1891 quote says "get". I suppose "acquire" would do.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:12, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a major league baseball player" is that different from "a Major League Baseball player"?
I've hyphenated major league. This may help. --Wehwalt (talk) 18:12, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:49, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Playing career - Baltimore years - 1891–1894

  • "short 1891 season" why was it short?
  • "poor fielding percentage" wouldn't that link be better in the previous sentence where you describe how many errors and chances he had?
I think the raw stats are of more use to the reader.
I didn't say remove the raw stats, just put "fielding percentage" description alongside them. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:37, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Can you suggest how it would read?--Wehwalt (talk) 22:10, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "outfielder" what's that? Need to reword once linked to avoid a sea of blue too.
I've moved the word outfielder.
  • "easily finishing last" in the league.
I've rephrased slightly
  • "17 ... three" should be "17 ... 3" or "seventeen ... three"
Fine.--Wehwalt (talk)
  • Link catcher.
Done.
  • "stolen bases" what are they?
Done.
  • "runs scored" link.
Done.
  • I typically hyphenate off-season and link it.
Linked and standardized "offseason"
  • And you then say "During the offseason" so at least be consistent.
  • Link "infielder".
Infielder linked.
  • "five-time batting champion" in what sense? Runs? Home runs? Something else?
Linked.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:04, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "outfielder Willie Keeler" in the lead you called him "Wee Willie Keeler" (all linked), so I would go back there and remove "Wee".
He is best known, especially today, as "Wee Willie". I can't find specifically when he came to be called that in a hasty glance at Solomon's book but it wasn't before he was traded to Baltimore.
Just be consistent then. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:39, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is I don't want to call him "Wee Willie" until he is known as such, which seems to be after the trade to Baltimore, thus, the initial reference to him is without the Wee. He is "Keeler" later, I believe.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:10, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relink Baltimore chop.
  • Similarly "hit and run".
  • Caption has "Hugh Jennings" but you seem to call him Hughie throughout the prose.
Standardized.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:04, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was a sparkplug for the team" this is whimsical and non-encyclopedic.
I"m dubious about that but I think the point is made by the prose elsewhere
But I know what sparkplug is and I still don't really know what that means in this context. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:40, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think that he drove the other players to perform better than they would have, as suggested in the nearby block quote.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:27, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "foul off" link.
FIne.
  • Link "strikes"
Fine.
  • And "bunted".
FIne.

The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:04, 19 July 2021 (UTC) Playing career - Baltimore years - 1895–1899[reply]

  • "held out to start 1895" what does that mean?
  • "to the Cleveland Spiders.[38] " overlinked.
  • You linked diphtheria but not malaria?
  • I'm no expert, but isn't "cancelled" BritEng, isn't it "canceled" in USEng?
  • "cancelled over concerns poor weather would cancel" cancelled/cancel repetitive.
  • What happened on their tour of Europe?
  • "a half interest" what's that? And is it hyphenated or not, be consistent.
  • "player-manager" I think before you've said player/manager a couple of times, be consistent.
All these things redone.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:27, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Playing career - St. Louis and American League Orioles

  • "National League, and before the 1900 season, four NL teams" you've said "National League" a few times, find the first one, pop in a (NL), and then consistently use NL thereafter.
In this case, I think National League works better as a matter of prose.
  • Link free agent.
  • "on talented African-American ballplayer" ballplayers?
Both of those done.
  • Statistics table needs to comply with MOS:DTT, part of WP:ACCESS.
  • Any reason that table isn't sortable, it could be useful to our readers.
  • What do all the headings in that table mean? Needs a key/use {{abbr}} or similar.
  • Statistics like that should be right-aligned, not left-aligned, they look very strange the way they currently display.
I will work on the table and see what I can do with it. Tables are not my specialty and there's only so much I'm prepared to do with it.

More to come. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:15, 19 July 2021 (UTC) Manager of the New York Giants (1902—1932) - Hiring[reply]

  • The title appears to have an em-dash in the year range, it should be an en-dash.
  • "injured, and between recovering from a knee injury" repetitive.
  • What are "suspensions" in the context of baseball? What does one have to do to be suspended?
  • "when he refused to go, forfeiting the game " shouldn't that be "forfeited"?
No, it is the action of the umpire, not McGraw.
  • "His salary of $11,000 was" again, consider inflating these figures as they are mysterious being more than 100 years ago.
I think occasional figures might benefit from inflation techniques, not all of them, which clutter the text. I also believe they aren't truly accurate. After all, such a salary would have allowed the McGraws to have multiple servants whereas the equivalent salary today would not.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:32, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:21, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Manager of the New York Giants (1902—1932) - 1902–1904

  • "record of 22–50" what does that mean?
  • "four of them by telegraph to Cincinnati" -> "four of them to Cincinnati by telegraph"
  • "part of the summer appearing" avoid using seasons.
  • Is "discomfiture" the same as "discomfort"
  • For sign language, do you actually mean American Sign Language?
  • "champion Pittsburgh Pirates at the" overlinked.
  • "a hot start" not encyclopedic in tone.
Piped to the baseball term.
  • "15 game lead" should be "15-game lead"
Fine.
  • "the AL champs" colloquial.
FIne.

The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:29, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll wait until you're caught up now. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:24, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Other than the table, that I have to consider more, I'm up to date. If it's too much of an issue, I might just export them to another page and supply links.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:11, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I made the col/row scope adjustments to the table in your sandbox and added an example of the {{abbr}} template too, if you do the other headings then I think that'll be nearly there. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 08:36, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the pinch hitter" any chance of a single sentence description of this innovation for those of us who have to navigate away from the article to find out what it means right now?
I think the overwhelming majority of readers who make it this far will know; for others, there is a link.
It will do no harm to provide a brief explanation here and that's actually a requirement of MOS. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 14:41, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fine.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:24, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "105 games, finishing nine games" repetitive use of "games" and 105/9 or words, per MOS.
I've separated them a bit. What in MOS are you referring to? Single-word numbers can be expressed in words.
Comparable items should be either all words or all numbers. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 14:41, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think they're comparable, one is the number of victories in a season, usually a large number, the other is games ahead or behind, usually small. We elsewhere refer to the latter with the figure expressed in words.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:24, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would consider linking "ejection" to the baseball sub-section of the Ejection (sports) article.
  • "in a shutout" what's that?
  • "Mathewson getting diphtheria, and" overlinked.
  • "twenty games behind" whom?
  • ".466 career on-base percentage" what's that?
  • "slip, Always I have" should that be a period or a small a?
  • "Marlin, Texas to" comma after Texas.
  • "lined a ball " is that different from hitting a ball?
  • "baseman Johnny Evers recovered" overlinked.
  • "In the makeup game... lost the game" doesn't read well. And is a "makeup game" like a "decider"?
No it is not. The game was the replayed September 23 game. I believe the two uses of "game" are both necessary and far enough apart not to matter.
So was it a Replay (sports)? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 14:41, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And no, it's not about the distance between the use of "game", it's the fouled up grammar. You're basically saying "In the game they lost the game" which is horrible. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 00:58, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Both points addressed.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:24, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
1909–1914 onwards edit
  • "while the older ones continued to slip" -> "and the older ones continuing to slip"
I believe it is correct as written.
No, it's awkwardly written and needs work. Too many conditionals. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 00:44, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Played with.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:24, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "That winter, content..." avoid seasons.
  • "on a hot streak" not encyclopedic in tone, perhaps "winning streak".
They are not the same. I've previously linked to hot as a baseball term.
  • Our article on Faust calls him Charlie, any reason he's Charles here?
It's his name. Sources refer to him either name.
Just wondered why we'd not use his common name. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 00:45, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
He seemed to go by either. When in doubt, I think going by the formal name is better.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:00, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "21 counting two wins" 2
I do not believe it necessary to render single-word numerals of low magnitude in words in that manner.
Comparable numbers, per MOS. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 14:41, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is where the common sense and exceptions spoken of in the guideline apply. It would look odd in AmEng to go with a numeral there.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:00, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is exactly the scenario the MOS is covering, and as most of our MOS is written by AmEng contributors, I'd be surprised if it wasn't what we should be doing. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:27, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "by the Boston Red Sox, four" overlinked.
No. They are referred to as "Boston" earlier and linked, but I avoided calling them the Red Sox then because they were more usually called the Pilgrims then.
  • "notorious "muff" by" that needs explanation. Muff in BritEng is very different...
  • "Olympian Jim Thorpe to" what Olympic events did he compete in?
I think the interested reader can follow his link. We don't have the space to talk about McGraw as much as I would like; I can't spare the space for others.
You just have to add his event, like two words! The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 14:41, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Event alluded to.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:00, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "into a competent major leaguer" did he?
  • "1907–09" -> "1907–1909"
  • "players that fit his" fitted.
It may be an ENGVAR thing, but "fit" seems proper.
But it should be past tense, no? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 00:45, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's fine as is. Offsite grammar sites seem to say so as well.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:00, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They say that "fit" is the past tense of "fit"? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:27, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I note this was highlighted above. For the avoidance of doubt, can you confirm that in USEng, the past tense of "fit" is "fit" and not "fitted"? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:00, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and Chicago White Sox owner Charles Comiskey led" both overlinked.
  • "on the world tour" no need to repeat "world".
  • Any details of that tour?
Given the limited space I'm allowed for this article, it seems more productive to use it to discuss games that counted, rather than exhibitions.
  • "to jump to the" you mean "move"?
"jump" is the correct baseball term. A breach of contract is implied. See our article, Federal League
Is there a link to the glossary then? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 00:43, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken the liberty of adding one.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:00, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "league on the Fourth of July" is this notable?
They are famous in baseball history for that.
Who are famous? How? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 00:43, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The 1914 "Miracle" Braves, who went from last place on the Fourth of July to winning the World Series. It is not unusual to discuss the Braves of 1914 in that manner, and in fact the source does.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:00, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "on Labor Day" similarly. And when is that? The rest of the world won't necessarily know.

1915–1919

  • "1911–13" -> "1911–1913"
  • "widely-praised" no need to hyphenate.
  • "but may resented the Mathewson" I don't understand this.
  • "as "basically mediocre". " don't we normally reference quotations directly afterward?
  • "in Cincinnati a suspension doubled when" I can't parse this.
  • "something to which " no need for "something"
  • "wanted out " perhaps this is dandy in USEng, but it reads colloquially to me.
  • "He actually bought" no need for "actually".
  • " by Stoneham.[111][112] Stoneham " repetitive.
  • "open his checkbook" again, reads colloquial, you mean "provide funds" or similar.
  • "got out to their usual hot start" again, not encyclopedic tone.
See my comment. It's a valid baseball term.
Is there a glossary of baseball terms which explains this colloquial term? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 14:43, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Glossary of baseball#H.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:45, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "helped to throw key games" what does this mean?
  • "absence, Johnny Evers ran" overlinked.
  • "seeking to enforce the Prohibition era Volstead Act" what did that have to do with baseball?

The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:17, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Where I haven't made a specific response, I've linked or rephrased. Up to date but for the table, which I haven't had time to consider.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:21, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wehwalt some quick responses above and please note I've done most of the ACCESS work for you at your sandbox, you just need to fill in the rest of the mysterious abbreviations and then copy the table back into the main article. I'll try to get to the rest of the article tomorrow, a way to go I know, but just for the avoidance of doubt, I'm actually going easy on requests for jargon explanation within the article etc, per MOS. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 00:36, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I found it: MOS:LINKSTYLE, e.g. "Do not unnecessarily make a reader chase links: if a highly technical term can be simply explained with very few words, do so." and "Do use a link wherever appropriate, but as far as possible do not force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence. The text needs to make sense to readers who cannot follow links." The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 00:41, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
1921–1924 onwards edit
  • "to platoon his" this needs explanation per MOS.
Per MOS:LINKSTYLE, your point above, I do not believe platooning can be explained in a "very few words". Accordingly, a link is appropriate.
A footnote would also suffice. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:11, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "swept them" what does that mean?
  • "Babe Ruth" overlinked.
  • Is "slugger" in the glossary?
  • "the American League team" I don't see the point in abbreviating these terms and then not using the abbreviation.
  • "the master of inside baseball" don't understand what that means, and according to whom was he the "master"?
Hynd is referring more to the capabilities of the upcoming 1921 and 1922 teams, so I've toned it down to "practitioner".
  • "hit a home run" link.
  • "In 1921, in winning... " In in repetitive.
  • "again outdrew" what does this mean, you've said it a couple of times in this para.
It is a common English word. Wiktionary defines it as "to attract a larger crowd than".
Who knew. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:12, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "were shut out" link, is this like a clean sheet?
The term shutout was used in connection with the 1905 World Series.
  • Is there a suitable link for "Commissioner"?
  • "not stand pat with" I don't understand what this means.
  • "vanquished the Yankees, but they banished" not enecyclopedic in tone, they defeated and evicted them.
  • "1923 Fall Classic" what's that?
  • "In 1924, the Giants were..." this sentence is trying to convey a lot of material, it's hard to follow so I'd split it.
  • "player Jimmy O'Connell and" overlinked.
  • "would willing" be
  • "Series, they" this should either be a semi-colon or a period.
  • "1936–1939, 1949–1953 and 1960–1964 " the first is a three year span while the others are four, were two series played in one year in the first range?

1925–1931

  • "good teams, but none proved good" good good repetitive prose.
  • "lost a crucial series" what made it "crucial"?
  • "1926 saw the..." avoid starting sentences with numerals.
  • "1926 was a..." ditto.
  • "sent Frankie Frisch and" overlinked.
  • "manager for Frisch" comma after manager.
  • "likely the most sensational in baseball" needs attribution.
  • You've linked other ailments, but not sinusitis?
  • "The team was buoyed by the signing of pitcher Carl Hubbell, the team stayed..." this doesn't parse well and in any case is repetitive. Could probably replace ", the team" with "and".
  • It seems odd to me to have his managerial record in between 1930 and his retirement from management. It would make more sense to finish his career up, then have the table, then do the post-career bit.
OK. I'll take care of the tables after the text is done.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:03, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Managerial record

  • Table needs to be made MOS:DTT compliant, row/col scopes, caption, key etc.
  • "player-manager" has been "player/manager" up to this point.

Retirement and death

  • "subsequent homestead" I don't understand what that means.
  • "of the winter in" avoid seasons.
  • "the National League team" again, you've abbreviated this previously so use the abbreviation.
  • "the National League meetings" likewise.
  • "Blanche McGraw remained" just "His wife" would suffice.
  • "a month and a half short of his 61st birthday" this isn't notable.
  • "in the spring" avoid seasons.
I think in this case, it simply denotes that McGraw could not be buried due to frozen ground.

Posthumous honors

  • "season, for example when" reads very awkwardly.
  • This whole first para is barely about posthumous honors and more about what Blanche did after McGraw was dead.
I've broadened it a bit.
  • "erect a monument to McGraw there. The John McGraw Monument was erected" repetitive.

Managerial techniques

  • "30 with the Giants and one" 30/1, or thirty/one.
  • "He is third among major league managers" I may not be reading it right, but the source seems to suggest McGraw is second?
  • Oh hang on there are two sources, which conflict with each other... That doesn't seem right to me.
  • La Russa, according to our article, currently has a winning % of .537, which also conflicts with that CBS source and thus the 0.050 you mention (which presumably should be 0.049.
La Russa passed McGraw recently. I've said "about" since La Russa's percentage is variable since he is an active manager.
  • "athlete Jim Thorpe in 1913" overlinked.
  • Non-breaking space before pm.
  • "team led by Ross Youngs" overlinked.

General

  • Lots of horribly coloured templates at the bottom, can they be collapsed into a single "McGraw achievements" box?
Do you have an example you can show me of a situation where this has been done?
Check out Usain Bolt. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:11, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's in for the first pass. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:35, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done except for the templates, which I will get at presently.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:03, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've now implemented the further comments and done the tables.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:39, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Second table still needs row scopes and a caption, per MOS:DTT. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:59, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a row scope for the final column. Does that resolve it?--Wehwalt (talk) 22:34, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, each row needs a row scope, it's not for the column, it's for each row. And the table needs a caption too... The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:43, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the tables entirely. There is no requirement that they appear.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:05, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Rambling Man, are you in a position to indicate whether you support the article's promotion?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:20, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not yet, as you can see from the comments I've made, there needs to be a considerable amount of checking. I'll try to get a second pass done tomorrow. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:27, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Morning TRM, how is this one doing? Gog the Mild (talk) 08:36, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi TRM, given the age of the this nom and Wehwalt having addressed comments I think we'll need to look at closing unless you want to add anything. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:14, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 15 August 2021 [34].

Types Riot edit

Nominator(s): Z1720 (talk) 13:43, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My first FA was just promoted. To celebrate, I figured I'd nominate another one! This article is about a riot that occurred in York, Upper Canada, (now Toronto) that destroyed William Lyon Mackenzie's printing press. The event started the downfall of the Family Compact, the ruling clique of Upper Canada, and its civil trial was described by a modern historian as "the most important debate in Upper Canadian legal history". Thanks to all who reviewed and offered advice on the article. Z1720 (talk) 13:43, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Image licensing looks good (t · c) buidhe 23:10, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Wingedserif edit

Lead

  • Can the sentence beginning with "During the riot" be broken up into 2 or 3 sentences? I'm worried about the complexity of the nested clauses.
    • Done
  • "negative personal stories" feels awkward to me. Could it be changed to a shorter term or a more specific one like "libel"?
    • Libel refers to the story being untrue or made-up. However, we know some of the articles in the Swift editorials described true events. I agree that this is awkward but I don't know how to fix it. Z1720 (talk) 22:49, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • What about something like "criticism", so "described negative personal stories about them and their families" —> "criticised them and their families"? —WS
        • Done, with some minor copyediting. Z1720 (talk) 17:28, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should "Conservative" near end of lead be changed to "Tory" (& maybe wikilined), per the implied preferred usage near beginning of Background section?
    • Done.

Background

  • "He published articles under the pseudonym "Patrick Swift" that questioned the Family Compact's ability to run the colony." —> "Under the pseudonym "Patrick Swift", he published articles that questioned the Family Compact's ability to run the colony." For less ambiguous order of clauses.
    • Done
  • Delete comma after "with syphilis", so "wrote" isn't separated from the subject of the sentence (ie, "He")
    • I deleted an "and" so that it reads more like a list. Z1720 (talk) 22:49, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah, but "wrote negative comments" doesn't have the same subject as "being sexually active, infected with syphilis". I also think I didn't realize my suggested solution would also create some ambiguity. What about this?: "He accused female ancestors of the Family Compact of being sexually active and infected with syphilis, and he criticised their personal appearance." —WS
        • Done
  • "Many rioters testified they were" —> "Many rioters testified that they were"
  • The Colonial Advocate's printing press was located at the northwest corner of Palace Street and Frederick Street. – Is there a source for this?
    • Raible 8-9, cited later in the paragraph, verifies this. Z1720 (talk) 22:49, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Riot

  • Attorney General's – The 's should be outside the wikilink
    • Done, fixed it in another place, too. Z1720 (talk) 22:49, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • walking in single file, – Delete comma after "file" to not separate the two dependent clauses
    • Done
  • Is everything in the 3rd paragraph after "Upset by the situation" citeable to ref 17?
    • Yes, and I verified it today again, just to be sure. Z1720 (talk) 22:49, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Insert comma after "arrived at the printing office"
    • Done
  • "He reported Elizabeth" —> "He reported that Elizabeth"
    • Done

Civil trial

  • Are all the details about the jury selection process WP:DUE? They don't seem necessary to me and could be abbreviated.
    • I think so too. I removed the jury selection process. Z1720 (talk) 23:30, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are all the sentences of the first paragraph of the "Arguments and jury deliberations" section citeable to ref 38?
    • Yes
  • newspapers at the time did not think the instructions were noteworthy. – Could we get a quote from a contemporary article or a secondary citation to support this?
    • The source says, "Before the jurors retired, they were charged by Chief Justice William Campbell...but the press thought it 'unnecessary to report'" The quote is sourced to a letter from 1830.
  • "during the deliberations, and Jacob Boyer" —> ""during the deliberations. Jacob Boyer". To avoid run-on sentence.
    • Done
  • Should the "Civil trial aftermath" section just be an "Aftermath" subsection? Feels odd to break it off from the rest of this section.
    • Agreed, done

General comments

(Full source check not done)

  • There are a couple places where more variation in sentence structure would help readability. For example, the first paragraph of "Arguments" with "Bidwell argued", "Bidwell stated". Similarly, the verb "showed" is used many times near the end of the "Legacy" section.
    • Done
  • Since so much of the article is cited to the 1992 Raible book, I tried to find out more about its publisher Curiosity House but couldn't find much. Is the book a trade nonfiction or was it peer reviewed?
    • This book might be a trade nonfiction book. However, I still think it's a high-quality source. Chris Raible has published numerous articles on William Lyon Mackenzie in academic, peer-reviewed journals, including in Ontario History [35], Canadian Bulletin of Medical History published by University of Toronto Press [36], and the Canadian Historical Review, also published by U of T Press [37]. This book was reviewed in academic journals, including The Bibliographical Society of Canada, published by McGill University and Urban History Review published by U of T Press [38]. It was cited in peer-reviewed journals like "“Lawless Law”: Conservative Political Violence in Upper Canada, 1818–41" (cited in this wiki-article), "‘In Search of the Phantom Misnamed Honour’: Duelling in Upper Canada" published by the Canadian Historical Review [39], and "The Role of the Agent in Partisan Communication Networks of Upper Canadian Newspapers" in the Journal of Canadian Studies [40]. Z1720 (talk) 22:49, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hi, thanks for doing all the digging on this. Looking at the two academic reviews, they do praise Raibel but it's a bit qualified: Urban History Review says the book has a narrow focus on the historical events and doesn't provide much social context [41], a concern that's mirrored in the BSC review [42]. I just checked and the current article's Background and Legacy sections don't use the Raibel source much, which I think is a good idea. —Wingedserif (talk) 23:14, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • As I was writing this article, I was aware that it was referencing Raible a lot, so whenever another source verified similar information I used the other source as the reference. Raible's book is the most detailed description of this event which is why he is referenced a lot. I will replace Raible with other sources as they are discovered or published, both during and after this FAC has concluded. Z1720 (talk) 12:55, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All said, this is an interesting, well-written article; thank you so much for your work to get it this far. —Wingedserif (talk) 20:44, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think I addressed everything. Z1720 (talk) 23:30, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Wingedserif, how is this looking? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:37, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I still have two unanswered concerns about wording/grammar (one for the lead and one for "background"; count me as a weak support until then), but otherwise everything else has been resolved. —Wingedserif (talk) 01:38, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, Wingedserif, I must have missed those because of my busy schedule at the moment. When I response to those concerns I will ping you. Z1720 (talk) 01:43, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry it has taken me so long to address your follow-up comments Wingedserif. Let me know if there are other concerns. Z1720 (talk) 17:28, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • No worries, Z1720, thanks for doing all those! I did notice one thing while reviewing them, however—the article seems to combine spellings from different dialects of English (eg, there is "sympathise", "emphasised" but also "organized", "criticized"). Would you mind switching all those spellings to be consistent, and then marking the Talk page with the variant of English you wrote the article in (eg, Template:Canadian English / Template:British English)? —Wingedserif (talk) 13:40, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • @Wingedserif: Sorry it took so long to respond to this. The RL thing taking up all my time has ended, so I will be able to respond more quickly now. I searched and fixed up Canadian spelling variants I could find and place Template:Canadian English on the talk page. Z1720 (talk) 20:10, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              • No worries about the delay—with those changes, I'm happy to say that I support this article for FAC. —Wingedserif (talk) 01:36, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HF edit

Will look at this, although it'll probably be later in the week because I'll be traveling for work some. Hog Farm Talk 01:22, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry it's taking so long to get to this. Been having to travel a lot for work this week. Hog Farm Talk 02:23, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • The background section could include a little as to who Mackenzie was - his full name isn't even given in this first section of the body
    • I didn't give his first name because it was in the lede, but I have now added his full name to the background section. Do you think it's important to outline that Mackenzie was a reformer, and thus his political alignment was opposite of the Tories? Z1720 (talk) 17:48, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think a short (can this be condensed into a shorter paragraph) introduction to this would provide some needed background as to why Mackenzie and the Family Compact were opposed 23:24, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
        • I added some lines in the first paragraph about Reformers, to introduce that they were political opponents. Z1720 (talk) 21:13, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • This works for me.
  • "The modest amount awarded to Mackenzie surprised Mary Jarvis." and "Robert Stanton of the Upper Canada Gazette decried the large settlement Mackenzie received, believing the damage to his printing press was exaggerated" - recommend considering attributing the views of the size of the settlement to the individual people more directly, as currently it's in Wikipedia's voice saying that it was both modest and large, when it looks like the implication is that Mary Jarvis thought it was small and Stanton thought it was large.
    • For Mary Jarvis, I specified that the amount was in her opinion, for Stanton I removed large because the rest of the sentence implies that he thought the amount was too large. Z1720 (talk) 17:48, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " William Botsford Jarvis, the sheriff of York, was ordered to arrest the men immediately and hold them for bail" - worth noting that he was Samuel Jarvis's cousin?
    • I don't think so. William's relation to Samuel did not influence the arrest. Z1720 (talk) 17:48, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I notice the article cites Raible pretty heavily - the Google books preview of Schrauwers refers to Romney as "now-classic".
    • Romney gave the first modern-day account of this event. Unfortunately, the academic article is behind a paywall and my local library would not get a copy of the article for me because of COVID. Restrictions are being relaxed recently, so I hope that going to the library in person will get me a copy, but there's no guarentees. Z1720 (talk) 17:48, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's unfortunate. It looks like I can probably access volumes III and IV of the series from a local library, but not the volume that the Romney article is in. Hog Farm Talk 23:24, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • We are in luck: a reduction in COVID restrictions (and an increase in my free time in August) will let me physically access the article later this week. Hopefully the addition of Romney's article will lesson the reliance on Raible. Z1720 (talk) 21:13, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mackenzie stayed away from York immediately after the riot because friends advised him his life might be in danger" - According to Schrauwers, Macauly said Mackenzie left to avoid arrest for debt - do other sources give this weight, or can it be dismissed as smear tactics by Macauly?
    • Historians and scholars are unsure and disagree about why Mackenzie left York in the days before the riot and where Mackenzie went. Mackenzie claimed he was trying to get more business for his paper, the Family Compact said it was because Mackenzie was trying to avoid some debts he owed, and other scholars think he might have just been on vacation. It's too much speculation to include, imo. Z1720 (talk) 17:48, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Schrauwers discusses some economic factors related to the Bank of Upper Canada and Henry John Boulton being associated with the Types Riot. Is this due weight to add?
    • I'll take a look later today. Z1720 (talk) 17:48, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Schrawers's economic argument for the Types Riots relies upon a long discussion of the Patrick Swift editorials and how the financial/legal transactions of a Family Compact member were included in the editorials. I think this is too far removed from the event, and in the interest of WP:SUMMARY it does not need to be included. I did, however, add in the Background section that Mackenzie also critisized the Family Compact's use of the legal system to enrich themselves. Z1720 (talk) 21:35, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and he remained popular for several decades" - body says years, not decades, which has a somewhat different implication
    • Changed to years in the lede to align with what sources say. Z1720 (talk) 17:48, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I found this very interesting to read. Hog Farm Talk 04:24, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. I am also very busy in real life, so I will get to these comments next week. Z1720 (talk) 01:24, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Hog Farm that it's taken me so long to get to this. Comments above. Z1720 (talk) 17:48, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've honestly taken longer to get to stuff in the past. A couple replies above. Hog Farm Talk 23:24, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Added comments. The thing taking up all my time in RL is done, so I can devote more time to this FAC. Expect quicker responses! Z1720 (talk) 21:13, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ping me once Romney can be worked in, and I'll be ready to support once that gets worked out. Hog Farm Talk 04:57, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: Romney has been worked in. I thought it would have more information on the actual riots, but it turned out to be mostly analysis of the causes and effects. In any case, it has been added in. If I missed anything above, please let me know Z1720 (talk) 19:46, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support on WP:FACR #1a, 1b, source reliability, 1d, 1e, 2a, 2b, 2c, and 4; weaker support on 1c (reliance on Raible is on the heavy side but okay); did not check others. Hog Farm Talk 20:21, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment edit

Well over three weeks in and only one weak support. Unless there is further movement towards a consensus to support over the next few days I am afraid that this is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:53, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk edit

  • I'll try to be the third reviewer before long. FunkMonk (talk) 16:09, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link names in image captions?
    • I checked MOS:CAPTION and I am unsure if they should be linked or not, especially because they are wikilinked in the article text. I decided to do so because it gives more information to the reader, instead of having to look for the link in the article text. If I am wrong, please post below with the link to the policy/guideline where this is stated. Thanks! Z1720 (talk) 16:19, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me, I don't see any recommendations against links in captions, and I always add them and recommend others to do so. FunkMonk (talk) 16:25, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Anglican church in article.
    • Done
  • Link William Lyon Mackenzie at first mention outside intro.
    • Done
  • "Many rioters testified that they were retaliating against the Swift columns.[8] Raymond Baby, one of the rioters, claimed some were present to attack Bartemas Ferguson, one of Mackenzie's employees, because they believed Ferguson was Patrick Swift.[9]" Since the article body should be able to stand alone without the intro, this comes out of the left field in "background" where it is now, since the riot hasn't been presented yet, and the text appears to be out of chronological order. Could this info perhaps be moved to later in the article or something?
    • I removed it, as there is no place to put it and I think it's off-topic now. Z1720 (talk) 21:57, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think it was pretty relevant, but I'd expect later, for example under "Immediate aftermath" or somewhere under "Civil trial"? FunkMonk (talk) 16:16, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I went back to the source to figure out the best place to put it. "Testify" was probably the wrong word, as Raibe didn't state when the rioters explained that they were going to attack Ferguson. Instead, I moved it to the beginning of the third paragraph of the "Riot" section. Z1720 (talk) 19:45, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "corner of Palace Street and Frederick Street." Any articles to link?
    • Palace Street is wikilinked. I don't think Frederick is a major street. Z1720 (talk) 21:57, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • A lot of people are named without introduction/context. Could their occupations perhaps be given? Otherwise it is difficult to figure out what and why their roles were as they were.
    • I added some of their roles or their relation to other members of the Family Compact. Not much is said about the lesser figures of the riot. Z1720 (talk) 19:45, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The men may have been dressed as indigenous people" This claim needs to be attributed in text, then. Who stated it and where?
    • This claim is more like an urban legend, where several sources in the past 200 years either claim that they were dressed in indigenous clothing, or speculate about its accuracy. The Davis-Fisch reference at the end of the sentence verifies this. Z1720 (talk) 21:57, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Could this be stated then, for context? FunkMonk (talk) 16:16, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I added the following sentence: "Heather Davis-Fisch, a professor at the University of the Fraser Valley, stated that this information was included in the Dictionary of Canadian Biography without verification from the authors, possibly because it was a "cultural memory" of the event." Z1720 (talk) 19:45, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Samuel Jarvis, the first defendant named in Types Riot civil lawsuit" named in the Types Riot civil lawsuit?
    • Fixed
  • "Campbell gave instructions to the jury before they began their deliberations. Mary Jarvis, Samuel Jarvis's wife, thought the instructions favoured the defendants, but newspapers at the time did not think the instructions were noteworthy." But what were the instructions?
    • Rephrased to, "Campbell gave instructions to the jury that summarized the evidence of the trial."
  • "the meagre amount of five shillings" Meagre sounds like WP:editorializing.
    • Yeah, I kind of agree with you. This has gone through so many iterations, but I don't think there's a way to keep it so I removed it.
  • "includes the violence of Reform meetings in the 1830s" Anything to link?
  • "He also used the event to show electors he was part of a group of citizens who struggled to reform the political system of Upper Canada" Was he ever elected?
    • Added successful in "The event was highlighted during his successful campaign to become..."
  • As noted by another reviewer, you should stick to one spelling, preferably Canadian English, and make it consistent.
    • Done. It's going to use Canadian English. Let me know if you find incorrect spelling.
  • "Mackenzie's editorials in the Colonial Advocate newspaper, which questioned the Family Compact's ability to govern Upper Canada and criticized them and their families, which offended the rioters." The repeated "which" is a bit jarring, is the first "which" even needed?
    • I removed the second "which" instead. Z1720 (talk) 21:57, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk I think I addressed everything above. Sorry that I delayed responding to the last few points: I had to re-borrow Raible's book from the library to verify the last few bits of information. Please let me know if I missed anything. Z1720 (talk) 19:45, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - the article looks good to me now, helped with some further context. FunkMonk (talk) 14:32, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed.

Pass. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:29, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Were the publications prompting the riot editorials or articles?
    • In sources, the words have been used interchangeably. Should I stick with one word, or leave as is? Z1720 (talk) 20:12, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Do you have a sense of which word is a more apt description? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:36, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't think so: the line between reporting on news and giving an editorial opinion was blurred at this time, especially by reporters like Mackenzie. Sources don't agree on terminology, so I think it's OK to use them interchangeably. Z1720 (talk) 22:16, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Bystanders ... assumed the Upper Canadian government had sanctioned the event" - text says newspapers assumed this
    • I removed "They assumed the Upper Canadian government had sanctioned the event." From the lede because the source only confirms that one bystander assumed the Upper Canadian government sanctioned the event during the riot, which is not enough to put in the lede. Z1720 (talk) 20:12, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the value of duplicating non-free links between |url= and identifiers?
    • Honestly, I copy the urls from Google/the database I found the article in, paste it into Wikipedia:ProveIt, fill in extra parameters to try to keep the citations consistent, and hope for the best. Sometimes a bot comes around and adds stuff, like doi access. Can you describe in more detail what is duplicated? Z1720 (talk) 20:12, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Look for example at Armstrong. The title is linked to https://search.proquest.com/docview/1300016915 , and then there is a ProQuest ID that links to that same page. Why have both? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:36, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I went back in the article's history, and I see that the ProQuest IDs and JSTOR IDs were added by bots. I removed the url parameter for these citations. Z1720 (talk) 22:16, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accessdates aren't needed for GBooks links
    • Removed
  • What makes Condam Publishing a high-quality reliable source?
    • While I think a case can be made for its reliability, I decided to remove it instead because the source is a biography about someone not mentioned this article.
  • Why is Kingsford cited as news rather than a book?
    • I don't know. Changed to cite book template
  • Be consistent in how locations are formatted. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:39, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I put Toronto, Ont. for locations because Kingston needs a descriptor so readers know which Kingston we are talking about, and this made it consistent. Z1720 (talk) 20:12, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: I addressed your concerns above. I also added in another source, Romney 1987. Can you also check its formatting? Thanks. Z1720 (talk) 20:12, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Kaiser matias edit

Starting to read through it now. I'll post comments once I'm done. Kaiser matias (talk) 19:54, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think the number of rioters should be noted in the lead. Later on it mentions estimates of 9-15 people (though is clear it's not know for sure), so even something like "up to 15 people were involved" would be sufficient. Something to give context to the size of the event.
    • Added 9-15 people to the lede, as I added information about the riot to the lede. Z1720 (talk) 02:57, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should the £ symbol be linked? I believe it's standard to do so, especially in a case like this, considering Canada doesn't use the pound as currency anymore.
    • MOS:CURRENCY says to link lesser-known currencies, but I don't think British sterling is lesser-known. I am not sure in this situation. Z1720 (talk) 02:57, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense, but I feel because it is in (Upper) Canada, I feel that it should be clarified, but I'm not going to hold up the article over something like that.
I agree with your point above: many readers might not know that Upper Canada is part of the British Empire at this time, and thus the £ symbol is for the British currency, not an Upper Canadian currency. I wikilinked £ to pound sterling. Z1720 (talk) 19:14, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It may be useful to give a timeline for when the Family Compact started to appoint themselves to power. You do note they were from Loyalist families, but that isn't clear to many people not familiar with the subject. Even a rough date (ex. "Since the 1780s they had appointed themselves...", though I don't know the date myself) would be good I think.
    • Added "Shortly after the War of 1812" as verified in the source.
  • Link Reformer in the "Background" section (first use of it in the body of the article).
    • Done
  • There's a brief mention of Mackenzie's paper being popular because the public wasn't too fond of the administration. Could that be expanded on? I mean is there any idea of the general feeling towards the Family Compact (did the public support their moves, oppose them, or was opinion split?) It would seem useful to add to the first paragraph of the "Background" section, and would help to give more context to the political climate of the era.
    • This is hard to determine, as there were no public opinion polls at the time. Members of the Family Compact ran as Tory candidates in constituency elections; like any political party, there are times when they won elections and times when they lost. Also, there were political coalitions that supported Tories and a different coalition that supported Reformers, and these coalitions changed between elections. The political climate at this time is more characterised by the contests between Tories and Reformers while Tories, with the support of the leuitenant general, able to use their political power to pertetuate their appointment to prominent government positions. Z1720 (talk) 02:57, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any way to incorporate this into the article, without adding undue weight and overshadowing everything? I think even a couple sentences just to give context would really help.
I looked back at the source and I changed the language to, "The newspaper was a popular publication amongst people who were displeased with the administration of Upper Canada." I think this more accurately reflects with the source says and it avoids going into too much detail about public opinion of the Family Compact and the Reform movement, which the source does not do. Z1720 (talk) 19:14, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On June 8, 1826, Mackenzie published an account of an 1817 duel between Samuel Jarvis and John Ridout..." Should note who both Jarvis and Ridout are. From what I understand Jarvis was a government official, but Ridout was a youth who served no role, but had family connections?
    • Added that Jarvis was a Tory government official, while Ridout was the son of a Reformer. I could go into a lot more detail into this duel, but I think that's for another article (which I plan to write one day as it is considered the last duel in Upper Canada by some historians.)
Good by me. And definitely interested in an article on that.
  • "The Colonial Advocate's printing press was located at the northwest corner of Palace Street and Frederick Street." In what city?
    • Whoops, added.
  • "Members of the Family Compact approached John Lyons..." When?
  • Any idea what time the riot finished?
    • I checked the sources again, and they don't say. Z1720 (talk) 19:37, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After further discussion, the jury awarded Mackenzie £625 (equivalent to £52,899 in 2019) in damages." Considering this is in Canada, would it not be more appropriate to give a modern equivalent in Canadian dollars here?
    • I think this would be quite complicated, as we would be calculating inflation, then calculating an exchange rate. I think, in an effort to keep things simple, it is better to keep things in pounds. Z1720 (talk) 02:57, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point. Perhaps some note to show its value: I've seen something like a reference to a contemporary salary or something, again just to give context (as I honestly have no idea if that was a good settlement or not).
When sources give their opinion on the settlement (which is not often) they give a "meh" impression, often citing that it is about the middle of what Mackenzie and the defendants wanted. Sources don't compare the settlement to modern equivalencies. Hopefully, the inflation figure will help readers understand the amount of money this is. Z1720 (talk) 19:14, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Other than that should be good. Interesting article on a period of Canadian history that is definitely not well-known (I only vaguely recall the era from my own education), but does a good job of showing the issues of the Family Compact. Kaiser matias (talk) 15:35, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. Added a couple follow-ups there. Kaiser matias (talk) 02:36, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Happy with everything now. Well done. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:18, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Lee Vilenski edit

I'll begin a review of this article very soon! My reviews tend to focus on prose and MOS issues, especially on the lede, but I will also comment on anything that could be improved. I'll post up some comments below over the next couple days, which you should either respond to, or ask me questions on issues you are unsure of. I'll be claiming points towards the wikicup once this review is over.

Lede
  • This is described as a riot - but the lede sentence doesn't really get that across - it just says things were destroyed. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:46, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The event is called Types Riot, but I don't think it is a riot like we could consider it. Regardless, I added information in the lede explaining what actually happened during the riot.
  • get passersby - typo. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:46, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I doublechecked this, and the plural of passerby is passersby, so I don't think this is a typo.
  • I think the lede could do with explaining who these people are. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:46, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added the Mackenzie created the Colonial Advocate, added that Jarvis was a government official.
  • Where in York did this happen? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:46, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • York was not a very big town at the time, and it was not subdivided into wards yet. Later in the article, it gives the specific street corner that the event took place at, but this is too much detail for the lede. Z1720 (talk) 04:26, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • awarded Mackenzie £625 - from the Compact? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:46, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added that the defendants of the civil suit were ordered to pay for the damages.
  • Link for martyr Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:46, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think martyr is a technical term, so in the interest of WP:OVERCITE I don't think it should be cited.
  • I think the lede is the weakest part of this article. It could do with having a bit more info for those unfamiliar with the subject Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:58, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I added some information about the actual riot to the lede. Z1720 (talk) 04:26, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Prose
  • referred to as Tories, while modern-day historians sometimes refer to the group as Conservatives - from a British POV, these are the same thing. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:28, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some previous reviewers (mostly American, I think) were confused about interchanging Tory and Conservative throughout the article. The sources state that this group was not referred to as Conservatives during the 1830s, but the name was adopted later and is used by historians today. I included this to explain the use of both terms throughout the article. Z1720 (talk) 04:26, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link and explain Reformers on first use. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:28, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I already explain that they are the political opponents of the Tories. Is additional information needed? Z1720 (talk) 04:26, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tories tried to maintain - you mean the Family Compact? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:28, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • They can be used interchangbly, but I see your point so I changed it to Family Compact. Z1720 (talk) 04:26, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • accused female ancestors of the Family Compact of being sexually active - can you accuse someone of having sex? I'm assuming this means with each other? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:28, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changed to "having many sexual partners and infected with syphilis," as it more closely aligns with the source. Z1720 (talk) 22:09, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The background is good, but the riot section opens as if you know about the riot. An explanatory sentence about when the riot happened would be suitable. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:34, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, this is done, the first paragraph could do with being movedlater in the section.Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:34, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • This section is formatted chronologically, with the planning paragraph placed before the riot paragraph. Which information do you think should be moved up to the first paragraph? Z1720 (talk) 04:26, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ferguson hired James Edward Small as Mackenzie's attorney before Mackenzie confirmed he was going to file suit - again, this is the first time we've discussed any court action, so a sentence saying that there was to be a trial needs to come before this. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:19, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I removed info that Ferguson hired Small, as it is a small detail and it is more important that Mackenzie decided to sue the rioters. Z1720 (talk) 22:09, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Henry Heward was named as a rioter but not as a defendant - why? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:19, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Raible speculates that it was because he was related to the attorney general, but this isn't confirmed and other sources don't speak of this. Z1720 (talk) 22:09, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The trial took place in York's new courthouse - does it have a name? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:19, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sources just say it was a new courthouse, and I couldn't find a wikilink. Z1720 (talk) 22:09, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lack of criminal proceedings against any perpetrators caused suspicions that the government had supported or instigated the riot. - this seems a bit of an odd sentence, considering it is right before a section on criminal charges. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:19, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I reworked the criminal trial section, adding information on why Robinson changed his mind and charged the individuals in the Types Riot. I also removed the sentence about the public opinion, as this was something that was suspected by the newspapers, not necessarily the public, and I agree it was a but awkward before the Criminal trial section. Z1720 (talk) 22:09, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comments

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:14, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Lee Vilenski: I have responded to everything above. Z1720 (talk) 22:09, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley edit

  • "The Types Riot was the destruction of William Lyon Mackenzie's printing press and movable type by members of the Family Compact". I think you need to explain Family Compact at the start. Maybe "...Family Compact, a small conservative group who dominated the politics of Upper Canada".
    • I put an explanation of who the Family Compact is as the second sentence. Z1720 (talk) 03:07, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Family Compact's ability to govern Upper Canada". You use the word "ability" here and below, but I am not sure it is the right word. You give the impression that the critics were complaining of the Family Compact's venality, not accusing them of incompetence.
    • I think Mackenzie was complaining about both. Added info about Mackenzie's critique of the Compact's profiteering in the lede. Z1720 (talk) 03:07, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "criticized the Family Compact's ability to govern Upper Canada". This still seems to me an odd way of putting it. How about "accused the Family Compact of incompetence"?
  • Done
  • "A jury awarded Mackenzie £625". Was this a high figure and a victory for Mackenzie?
    • Since you are the second person to ask this, I have added information that this was a harsh amount, as verified by the source. Z1720 (talk) 03:07, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "during his first campaign for election to the Parliament of Upper Canada." Did he win?
  • "they appointed themselves to the executive council". How? What was the system of appointment?
    • Added
  • "He accused female ancestors of the Family Compact of having many sexual partners and infected with syphilis," This is ungrammatical. "and having been infected with syphilis"?
    • Added
  • "Raymond Baby stated Charles Heward". "Raymond Baby stated that Charles Heward"?
    • Done
  • "without verification from the authors". "without verification by the authors"?
    • Done
  • "His malarial fever returned as he experienced stress". As you have not previously mentioned the fever it would be better to say "He had previously suffered from malarial fever and it returned due to the stress he suffered."
    • Done
  • "They also revealed that the four printing companies in Upper Canada submitted a joint bid to print materials for the Legislative Assembly of Upper Canada to avoid competition and receive more money for the government's printing contract." How is this relevant?
    • Upon reflection, I don't think this is relevant, so it is removed. Z1720 (talk) 03:07, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mackenzie did not seek criminal charges because he thought Robinson, who would have led the prosecution in a criminal case, would pursue the charges rigorously." I do not understand this. Areyou saying that Mackenzie would have sought criminal charges if he had thought they would not be pursued vigorously? Why?
    • Whoops, it should say that Robinson would not pursue the charges rigourously. Added.
  • "Mackenzie also used the settlement to fund his first campaign for a seat in the Upper Canada Legislature for the County of York in July 1828". As above - did he win?
    • He did. Added
  • This is a very good article but I think you need to explain more clearly the system of government - you say that the Family Compact appointed themselves but also that there were elections. Were they holding power by corrupt elections or what? Dudley Miles (talk) 17:55, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The legislature was elected, while the executive council was appointed by the leuitenant-governor without the input of the legislature (a common point of conflict at this time). Z1720 (talk) 03:07, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be helpful to explain these points in the article and I do not see that you do. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:56, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Explaining the details of the Upper Canadian government structure is a little out of scope for this article. However, I added that the executive council is unelected in the Background section to clarify this. Z1720 (talk) 21:21, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dudley Miles: responses above. Z1720 (talk) 03:07, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • You say that executive was appointed by the lieutenant governor and adding that the legislature was elected (which you imply below) does not seem beyond the scope of the article. However, this is a minor point and I am happy to support.Dudley Miles (talk) 21:53, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:27, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 13 August 2021 [43].

Transcaucasian Democratic Federative Republic edit

Nominator(s): Kaiser matias (talk) 16:58, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A second nomination here. I had this nominated a few months ago, but due to some personal events was unable to address comments and it was closed. I'm now back and ready to go, and addressed comments from the first nomination. That said, the TDFR was a month-long state that existed in the aftermath of the Russian Revolution in the South Caucasus. It was a union of the three main ethnic groups there, and was never a viable state, spending its entire existence negotiation an end to the Ottoman Empire's invasion. With that in mind, it's not a conventional country article, as the TDFR was not a conventional country, and is more a history of the events at this time. Kaiser matias (talk) 16:58, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Image review pass per the last FAC. Glad to see this back here! (t · c) buidhe 18:45, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking through (both sets, as the case has been). And glad to be here again and ready to follow through. Kaiser matias (talk) 02:20, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Funk edit

  • I believe I reviewed the entire article last time around, but it's a bit difficult to get an overview of the changes without point by point responses. Would it make sense to copy my points from the old FAC here so you could comment on them, or have they all just been addressed? FunkMonk (talk) 05:07, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I worked to address everything you noted before, but if you see anything not done please let me know. Kaiser matias (talk) 17:35, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Few more things below, repeating some of the older points. FunkMonk (talk) 14:37, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • German Empire is now linked twice in the intro.
This seems to have somehow disappeared, not sure how... FunkMonk (talk) 19:39, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As last, does O.S. have to be linked at every mention?
For the dates, that is something I wanted to get the opinion of reviewers on. I'm fine going with either using the OS/NS mention each time, or only once; not sure if there's a standard for that here.
Hmmm, I don't have strong feelings about it, just looks a bit funny. Maybe someone else will chime in. FunkMonk (talk) 00:41, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree, and like I said I'm not committed to the style as is. I do have the note about the dates (currently note b), which may be enough, but I'm also familiar with the issues of dates in this era/topic and realize others aren't, so didn't want to just go with it until I gather some feedback. It is clunky though. Kaiser matias (talk) 17:22, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still some names and places left that could be linked in image captions?
Believe they are all linked now. If there's something I'm missing please let me know.
Maybe also Caucasus and British Army? FunkMonk (talk) 00:41, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, linked those. Kaiser matias (talk) 17:22, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However they were concerned that the local population, who were mostly Muslims" is/was the Caucasus really majority Muslim?
That refers to the people of eastern Anatolia, who at that point would have been majority Muslim.
  • "however there were three major local groups: Armenians, Azerbaijanis, Georgians, while Russians had also established themselves after the Russian Empire absorbed the area." Linki each ethnicity here at first mention outside the intro?
Thanks, thought I had that done already. Kaiser matias (talk) 22:49, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I think this looks good now, and I've double checked all my points from the previous FAC. FunkMonk (talk) 19:39, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, both for supporting and reviewing (twice, as it is). Kaiser matias (talk) 18:59, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from LouisAragon edit

  • I will have another thorough view tomorrow or so. Had a cursory glance and I noticed you edited the first sentence of the body. Looks much better now IMO. Also, I just added two notes (one in the lede, one in the body) which I believe are pretty important in helping our readers obtain a better understanding of the situation's complexity. Feel free to remove one if you think a single mention is sufficient. - LouisAragon (talk) 15:29, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and I agree that is something worth noting. I did remove the second note though, as I think it's sufficient to have once in the lead. Looking forward to your comments. Kaiser matias (talk) 22:31, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Kaiser matias: Its been some time, I know, and excuse me for that. I had another full, thorough read today which has led me to conclude that the article is well-written and well-referenced and is embedded in a proper structure. The changes and fixes you carried out greatly improved the overal quality of the article. Other than one lousy interpunction fix[44] and one WP:MOS change,[45] I was unable to spot anything else at this point. Glad to support this nomination. Great job! :-) - LouisAragon (talk) 13:35, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Kaiser matias: Actually, on a second thought, there is one minor thing, which I believe should/could be addressed whenever you have time; ref nr. 17 cites Thomas de Waal for the Armenian genocide figures. Although de Waal is considered to be a regional expert, he is still a journalist by education and not a historian. Furthermore, he has been accused by the Armenian side for being supposedly non-neutral (see, f.e., the material listed at Black Garden). I suggest removing de Waal from that sentence, and instead using the casualty figures listed at Armenian genocide, a GA-class article written by our colleague Buidhe. - LouisAragon (talk) 13:45, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I modified the citation to use the one from the genocide article itself, and modified the figure in the text to reflect this. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:18, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Chipmunkdavis edit

  • The first sentence has decreased in quality since I reviewed this at GAN. "included territories of the present-day" is a lot less specific, and feels somewhat misleading considering in some cases it was almost all of the territory.
Agreed, and that was not a change I made, and one that does make it weaker. I've re-worded it to note it included most of the three states mentioned
  • Is there a way to shift the mention of the First World War to earlier in the lead, to contextualise "peace talks with the Ottoman Empire"?
I reworked it a bit, let me know if you think that will do.
  • Is the German support for Georgian independence due such emphasis in the lead? The article text seems to suggest the only intervention they made was to have a meeting at an embassy, with the final point being Von Lossow consulting with the government.
No, I think that can be cut.
  • A sentence reflecting the legacy section would help the lead reflect the entirety of the article.
Added
  • Is the new note [c] "Now the capital of Azerbaijan" needed? That's a long line to draw through time, and the city is wikilinked. If the note mentioned it became the capital of the immediately subsequent independent Azerbaijan it would fit the context, although I'm still not sure it would be necessary.
That was somethign @FunkMonk: noted in the previous FAC: "State what country this is in today, as with Georgia?". I do think it is worth noting that it is in a different modern country than Tbilisi is, as it further shows the ethnic diversity of the region.
  • The phrase "which would not be subservient to Russia" seems a bit odd in the context of its section. Later it says "the Commissariat did not want to act independently of Russia". Should it specifically be not subservient to the Bolsheviks?
It should, thanks. Changed the wording.
  • "sporadic attacks by Armenian militias on the Muslim population", is that sporadic attack on the Muslim population in the TDFR or in the Ottoman Empire? If in the TDFR, were these attacks actually happening, and if so did they have any domestic impact given the composition of the TDFR?
It was occupied Ottoman territory; clarified.
  • The Establishment section is where the article suddenly switches from referring to the groups in the Sjem by ethnicity, to referring to them by party name (Dashnaks/Musavats/Mensheviks). Is there a reason for this switch? For Dashnak especially, I don't think a casual reader would instantly recognise it is a contraction of Dashnaktsutyun. The section also includes "the Georgians leading the debate", using ethnicity, making it internally inconsistent too. If it is important to refer to the party names here, perhaps they could have the ethnicities as adjectives, at least in this period of initial use?
It's a bit confusing I'll agree. For the most part each party did represent one ethnic group (Menshevik for Georgians; Dashnaks for Armenians; Musavat for Azerbaijanis) and are almost used as synonyms in sources, with some exceptions of course. I'd argue that for the political discussions that followed (and come up at this point), party identity was a more important qualifier, and it would be incorrect to not note that. But at the same time I agree it should be made clear, and switching without clarity is not good. I'll work on this, but if you have any thoughts I'm open to that as well.
  • "the Ottoman issued an ultimatum to the defenders in Batum" is an instance of "the Ottoman" that should be fixed.
Fixed
  • "Both sides thus invited observers". Is the "thus" accurate there? If so, how does it specifically relate to the decision not to have the central powers present?
Not really; I changed the wording, but I think it can be better.
  • As mentioned above, if German intervention was so crucial, it does not come through to me in the German intervention subsection. Perhaps there is some historiography on the matter?
I don't think it needs more expansion at this point; the mention of it in the lead was added later on, and I don't agree that it fits here. For the article on the Georgian Democratic Republic it should get more coverage for sure (and I'd like to tackle that in the future), but I'm comfortable with it as is in this article.
  • "effectively ending the conflict for good.[96] However Armenia continued to fight" feels like a contradiction. If the fighting shifted to Georgia and Azerbaijan, I'm not sure it is correct to say they "continued" to fight, as the previous fight was with the Ottoman Empire. "continued" also contradicts "for good".
Agreed; I changed the wording to make it less contradictory.
  • "Under Bolshevik rule the three successor states would be forceibly reunited within the Soviet Union as the Transcaucasian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic, this would only exist between 1922 and 1936 before being broken up again into three union republics." This is quite a long sentence, could it be split at the comma? Further, not sure the "only" is applicable here, 14 years is not that short a time compared to one month.
Good point. I also added the Soviet states that were created on the break-up; feel that is worth mentioning.

Let me know if these comments/questions make sense, best, CMD (talk) 15:45, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I've addressed everything, and have two queries of my own (about Baku, and the ethnicity/party designator). Let me know if you have anything else. Kaiser matias (talk) 22:27, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi CMD. I was wondering whether you felt in a position to either support or oppose? Obviously it is not obligatory to do either. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:50, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for taking so long to come back to this. Regarding Kaiser matias' questions, I would prefer the Baku footnote feel a bit more pertinent and less like random trivia, but am not going to oppose over it. I do think the transition from ethnic groups to political parties needs to be fixed however. Having the Georgians leading the debate" and "Davit Oniashvili, a Menshevik," close together with no transition doesn't feel like clear writing. I would perhaps provide a small explanation on first use in the Establishment section, such as "the mostly-Armenian Dashanks felt that...". CMD (talk) 14:28, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Chipmunkdavis: Thanks for the feedback. I did add some more context there, so hopefully that makes it better. Let me know what you think. Kaiser matias (talk) 16:38, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's better. I am happy to support along 1abcde, 2abc, and 4. CMD (talk) 04:14, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, appreciate your review and support. Kaiser matias (talk) 16:00, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from TRM edit

Lead edit
  • "lived state in" link "state", it has masses of different meanings.
Good point, added
  • "declared independence" is there a link for that?
Not in English (yet; something I would like to work on), but a Georgian interwiki link has been added
  • " a Provisional Government took" this is captalised but it's not the formal name so I'd expect it to be in sentence case.
Fixed
  • "the Ottoman Empire, who had invaded the region, in March 1918, " too many clauses, maybe "the Ottoman Empire in March 1918, who had invaded the region, "
Done
  • "in the War" again, sentence case.
Fixed
  • "to continue on" no need for "on".
Fixed
  • "Georgian Democratic Republic " our article calls it the "Democratic Republic of Georgia". Which was the correct formal name in English?
The latter is more commonly used. I've adjusted
  • "to it's short" its
Done
  • "towards their own " who is "their" here?
I removed the "their own", which should clarify
Background edit
  • "A Caucasian Viceroyalty " what does that mean?
Clarified
  • "the administration was reformed" which administration?
Clarifeid
  • "city of significance" in what sense?
Tiflis and Baku were the only cities that had any significant population (relatively speaking). In the case of Tiflis it was the administrative centre, while Baku only became important when oil became a factor. If you have any thoughts on how to word that better I'm open to suggestions.
  • Which version of English is this article? I see "theatre" and yet I see "recognized", "jeopardized" etc.
Canadian (as am I), so it's going to be a mix. I'm not tied to any one variant though, and open to making things consistent.
No worries, perhaps add a {{Canadian English}} template to the article to stop other editors asking the same thing? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:39, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea, I've added that.
  • "Armenians, launching the Armenian genocide by" repetitive, and for me "launching" a genocide" is a weird way of putting it. Perhaps "commenced"? Or "initiated"?
Done
  • "Grand Duke Nicholas" piped to a redirect which is a little odd.
Didn't catch that before, thanks
  • "yet he was forced to resign his post" why?
The dissolution of the imperial government; I've clarified
  • "acroynm, Ozakom[e] on" comma before the footnote.
Done. Also closed the parenthesis that were missing there.
  • "in Petrograd[f], " horrible, put the footnote after the comma.
Fixed
  • "with soviets (councils).[24]" reads odd, perhaps make a footnote to explain what lower case soviets mean.
Done
  • " Menshevik Noe Jordania, " this is a sea of blue, as a non-expert I had no idea there were two links there.
Moved Jordania's name to clear things up.
  • "was not able to govern strongly" why not?
That's noted in the next clause; I replaced the semi-colon with a colon to help clarify.
  • "comprised some ten different" why "some ten"?
Not sure honestly, removed
  • "Sovnarkom[h]).[36]" again, horrible markup. Maybe just chuck [h] before [36].
Fixed
  • Link Anatolia.
Done
  • " 2 March, however" feels like two sentences.
Done
  • "a former Russian general now following " now??
Changed
  • "Trebizond Peace Conference" appears to be capitalised.
Done
  • And why "finally"?
There had been delays, but still not worth keeping the word, so removed
  • "the October Revolution central" comma after Revolution.
Done

Takes me to "Formation". More soon. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:29, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Have addressed everything so far. One query above for you, and appreciate the commentary so far. Looking forward to more. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:33, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Formation edit
  • "Right after the voting..." reads a little odd, maybe "Immediately after" or "As soon as the voting..."?
Changed to "Immediately"
  • "potential negotiation" anything come of that?
No, noted.
  • "not willing to" -> "unwilling to"
Changed
  • "whose member" makes it sound like the party had only one member?
Clarified
  • "finished, Davit Oniashvili, a Menshevik, proposed" reads odd, should the sentence start with a "When"?
Done
  • I'm sure it's down to transliteration or similar, but our article has Erzurum not Erzerum.
It does look like "Erzerum" was the name used previously (I want to say under the Ottoman Empire), and it likely switched to "Erzurum" when Turkey was established (part of the Turkification campaign; similar to Constantinople becoming Istanbul), but I can't confirm that, and neither does the article on the city doesn't say anything at all. The sources do list it as "Erzerum", so I'm inclined to keep that, and perhaps add a note about the modern name?
A cited footnote would be great. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:40, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done
  • "The first agenda in" item on the agenda?
Yes, fixed
  • "Akaki Chkhenkeli served..." image caption is a full sentence so needs a full stop.
Done
  • "the TDFT effectively" TDFR
Thanks, fixed
  • "the Dashnaks initially refused to join the cabinet. The Dashnaks negotiated" -> "the Dashnaks initially refused to join the cabinet. They negotiated"
Fixed
  • "Kars-Julfa" I think that should be an en-dash.

""Done

  • "of Bash Abarn (21–24 May), Sardarapat (21–29 May) and Kara Killisse (24–28 May), but could" I don't think the years should be part of the pipelinks.
Do you mean the dates? There are no years there.
Sorry yes, I meant dates. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:40, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Got it, and removed.

The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 13:06, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dissolution et seq edit
  • "though this ... Though the..." bit repetitive.
Changed second mention to "While the..."
  • "German and Ottoman Empires were nominally allies, German opinion towards them ..." "them" doesn't read quite right here, which "them"?
Reworded to be clearer
  • " a Declaration of Independence" that just links to a general article so it shouldn't be capitalised.
True, done
  • "meet Von Lossow.[93] Von Lossow replied" repetitive.
Reworded
  • "both Armenia and Azerbaijan making" the links here are Easter eggy for me, perhaps a gentle reword to make it clearer?
I've done some rewording, let me know what you think.
  • "wars with both Azerbaijan" similar, I would pipelink all of that.
You mean include the years linked with the country? If so I did that, but please correct me if I misunderstood
Ok, my apologies, I mean to have "wars with both Azerbaijan" linked and the years outside the pipe. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:42, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Irakli Tsereteli gave..." image caption is a complete sentence so could use a full stop.
Done
  • Both the "see also" links are already linked in the article.
Yes they are; removed that section
  • Note E seems to have a spare )
Fixed
  • Did Saint Petersburg ever have an h on it?
No, fixed
  • Ref 89 needs to be pp.
Fixed
  • ISBNs are usually formatted similarly.
Sorry I don't get this. From what I can tell they are all good, but am I missing something?
I thought some were 10- and some 13-digit. I could be wrong mind you. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:42, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Took another look, and I think they're all 13-digit (for those that have ISBN, of course).
  • Three categories about "communism" but that term doesn't feature anywhere in the article.
True, removed

That's all I have I think. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 14:27, 27 July 2021 (UTC) ::Thanks for the additional comments. Should have it all addressed by the end of the weekend. Kaiser matias (talk) 02:01, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: Again, thanks for going over everything in such detail. I believe I addressed everything, with a couple queries for you above. Kaiser matias (talk) 16:58, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Kaiser matias you're very welcome. I've replied to everything I think needed my input. Let me know if I missed anything? Cheers. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:42, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Last few points addressed, so I think we're good now. Unless you see anything else. Kaiser matias (talk) 16:09, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent work, happy to support the nomination, well done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:11, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Great thanks again for your work. Kaiser matias (talk) 18:06, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Z1720 edit

A non-expert review for prose.

  • " on 22 March 1917 [O.S. 9 March]; composed of Caucasian" Since this sentence is quite long, I recommend that this semi-colon become a period.
Turned the semi-colon into a period, that should help.
  • "The unusually large delegation was made up of individuals selected more to represent the diverse composition of the Seim, with its various ethnic groups and political factions;" -> "The unusually large delegation was made up of individuals selected to represent the diverse ethnic groups and political factions that composed the Seim" ?
Works for me; changed
  • "Chkhenkeli clarified that since the October Revolution..." This is a very long sentence that should be split into two.
Broke that up.
  • "To this end, on 20 March the Ottoman delegates offered that only if the Seim were to declare independence, thereby confirming that Transcaucasus was no longer part of Russia, could they return to negotiations." -> "On 20 March the Ottoman delegates offered that the Seim could only return to negotiations if they declared independence, thereby confirming that Transcaucasus was no longer part of Russia."
Done.
  • "The first item on the agenda in front of the TDFR was to form a cabinet to lead the new government." Was this a literal agenda, or a MOS:IDIOM that should be reworded?
I can't confirm it was literally the first thing, so modified the wording.

I made some changes as I read, mostly concerning commas. Please let me know if anything is reverted. It was a very interesting read. Please ping when the above are responded to. Z1720 (talk) 01:40, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. Have addressed everything here, but if you see anymore just let me know. Kaiser matias (talk) 02:40, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My concerns are addressed; I support. I should note that I also made minor changes to the article as I readthrough, mostly stuff with phrasing. Feel free to revert if unhelpful. A very interesting read. Z1720 (talk) 15:07, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome, thanks for taking a look. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:27, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - Pass edit

  • Why does Bournoutian not have a publisher location?
Added
  • "Russia in Flames: War, Revolutio, Civil War 1914–1921" - typo?
Yep, fixed
  • Hasanli: why is the title not in title case?
That's how the book writes it; see Google Books and I have a pdf copy as well showing the same
It doesn't matter. The MoS requires that all book titles be given in title case, regardless of how the book names itself.
Got it, wasn't aware of that, but fixed.
  • Uratadze should give the language.
Thought that was there already; added
  • Uratadze (2011) needs adding to the bibliography.
I don't see that anywhere?
Very strange. Me neither.Gog the Mild (talk) 13:07, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "known by its Russian acroynm, Ozakom". "Ozakom" is not an acronym and the source given doesn't claim that it is.
No that should be "abbreviation"; fixed.
  • "Some deputies left the chamber in order to avoid voting against the matter". The source says "to avoid voting in favour of the motion".
I believe that was modified to not directly copy Hovannisian's words; I've re-worked it to stay true to the source while trying to not copy him, let me know if that works
That is perennially tricky, but hopefully you can see why paraphrasing voting in favour to voting against rang a bell. It is fine now.
  • "so for four days the TDFR effectively had no executive." The source says it was a "three-day interval".
That would be a miscount on my part, fixed.
Counting the dates makes a possible four days, but a little later the source specifies a "three-day interval" so probably best to stick with that.

Gog the Mild (talk) 01:43, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed.
Addressed these, but if you see any more just let me know. Kaiser matias (talk) 03:51, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All looks good. Tweak the Hasanli title and I think we are done. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:07, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done, thanks again for taking a look. Kaiser matias (talk) 13:11, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 13 August 2021 [46].

1989 World Snooker Championship edit

Nominator(s): BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:35, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the sixth world snooker championship won by Steve Davis, and, to quote Clive Everton, "such was his dominance that it would have been impossible to predict with confidence that he would never win the title again." John Parrott won only three frames in the final, against Davis's 18. Thanks in advance for any suggestions to improve the article. I'm able to provide copies of offline sources on request. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:35, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Image licensing is acceptable (t · c) buidhe 16:46, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Lee Vilenski edit

I'll begin a review of this article very soon! My reviews tend to focus on prose and MOS issues, especially on the lede, but I will also comment on anything that could be improved. I'll post up some comments below over the next couple days, which you should either respond to, or ask me questions on issues you are unsure of. I'll be claiming points towards the wikicup once this review is over.

As I did the GA review previously, you can see previous comments there.

Lede
  • WPBSA isn't used again in the lede, so no need to state the acronym. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:55, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 18:24, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel like the winner/defending champion is more integral to the event than the qualifying round. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:55, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel like something mentioning that there was four sessions in the final, and Davis won so well that there was no final session. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:55, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Prose
  • The breakdown of prize money for the 1989 championship - I feel the 1989 is implied Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:55, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Qualifying matches took place at Preston Guild Hall from 22 March to 4 April 1989,[21] for 126 players, 16 of whom reached the main stage, where they met the 16 invited seeded players - could probably split into two sentences. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:55, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Three-time champion John Spencer lost 1–10 to Steve Duggan, who in an earlier round had eliminated another former champion, Fred Davis.[10 - could we reword this to celebrate Duggans wins, rather than the champions losses? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:55, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've expanded this slightly, but there doesn't seem to be much coverage of these other than around the Meo/Reynolds controversy. I could add some more match progress/frame score info. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:24, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comments

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:00, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from TRM edit

  • "The winner received..." seems odd to say it like this since you've already named the winner...
  • "These competitors in the main tournament... The top 16 players in the world rankings automatically ..." feels like you're saying the same thing twice.
  • Image captions all look like complete sentences so need full stops.
  • "imposed by the WPBSA for" overlinked.
  • I would link beta blocker.
  • "In the final round" qualifying.
  • "played Steve Newbury" do we need to repeat first names if the surname is unambiguous?
  • It may need rewording to avoid a sea of blue but I imagine we should link "fluked".
  • "third to 20th" third/twentieth or 3rd/20th.
  • "7-10" en-dash.
  • "match-ball pots" what are they?
  • "the FA Cup semi-final" you can link the actual FA Cup edition.
  • " Nottingham Forest F.C. and Liverpool F.C.." drop the F.C.'s which helpfully removes that double full stop.
  • "Hallett compiled a 133 break when 2–12 behind, and lost " and feels odd, "but" might seem better.
  • "re-spotted black" explain/link for non-experts.
  • I note you link yellow (ball) but not the other colours/red? (Oh, apart from pink)
  • " best-of-35 frames " hyphen between 35 + frames.
  • " in-off" again, jargon needs link/explanation.
  • "equal Ray Reardon's total" first name again?
  • "Snooker historian Clive Everton" well he was a player first... Indeed he played in this tournament!
  • We're spoilt for choice for decriptions of Everton. He was a leading billiards amateur from the early 1950s, has been a journalist/editor since at least the mid-1960s (I think he had articles in The Billiard Player even in the 50's), a TV commentator, and author. His book The Story of Billiards and Snooker was published in 1979, about two years before he became a professional player. I used "snooker historian" as that's the role the quote is in, but happy to add a note that he played too. How about something like ",who played in the qualifying rounds of the tournament," ? BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:25, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, I don't see the utility in repeating the frame scores on either side of the table summary, I think that's just plain confusing.
  • I think it would be worth mentioning the referee in the prose, not just in the table summary.
  • "19 century breaks in the" overlinked.
  • ""by Stephen Hendry" overlinked.
  • I would put a colon after each century score list, looks a bit odd without.
  • "by Darren Morgan" overlinked.
  • ISBN formats should be consistent.
  • Ref 5, BBC News not linked?
  • Ref 39, isn't that BBC News?
  • Ref 8, no need for wpbsa.
  • Some works are linked more than once, some not at all, what's the strategy?

That's all I have at the moment. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:50, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your review, The Rambling Man. I have some work to do on the last of the points above, but in the meantime would appreciate your feedback on the following:
  • The rewording of the part that previously included "match-ball pots"
  • How to describe Clive Everton in the article
  • Suitable template for the final. I also really dislike the two sets of scores, but that seems to have been accepted in other articles that have been through FA.
Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:32, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just responded on the Everton query, sorry for taking so long to get back. Happy to support. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:00, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Z1720 edit

Consider me a non-expert.

Prose Review

I don't have any major problems with the prose. I fixed some minor things in the article myself, which I invite you to review. If reverted, please mention it here and why.

I looked at the lede to ensure that all the information there was in the article body. Here are some thoughts:

  • "(also referred to as the 1989 Embassy World Snooker Championship for sponsorship reasons)" While the Embassy sponsorship is mentioned, the alternate name is not mentioned in the article and thus not cited. Perhaps this can be included after, "The 1989 championship was sponsored by cigarette brand Embassy." in Overview
  • Amended slightly in lead as although "Embassy World Snooker Championship" appears frequently in sources talking about the 1989 event, "1989 Embassy World Snooker Championship" doesn't as far as I can see. Also added into article body. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 17:51, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The tournament was broadcast in the United Kingdom by the BBC" I couldn't find this fact in the article's body.

Source review edit

Since my comments above are minimal, I will also conduct a source review. Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

  • Why does ref 3 have a quote from the source, when the other citations do not?
  • Ref 1 doesn't use the page number in the body of the article, but ref 7 does, creating [7]:105. Your book references should use one consistent referencing style.
  • I can't seem to find much information on Benson and Hedges Snooker Year or its publisher. Why is this a high-quality source?
  • I am satisfied with this and am no longer concerned with this source. Z1720 (talk) 19:21, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is Ref 56 a high-quality source?
  • Chris Turner was a statistician who worked for reputable sources like Eurosport; but as an alternative was easily available, I've substituted a different source. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 17:51, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who published ref 65, and why is it a high-quality source?

Please ping me when the above are addressed. Z1720 (talk) 22:29, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks for the review, Z1720. I've replied above. Let me know if anything else is required. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 17:51, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • My concerns have been addressed and I can now support. Great work. Z1720 (talk) 19:21, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 13 August 2021 [47].

2014 World Snooker Championship edit

Nominator(s): Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:01, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 2014 edition of the World Snooker Championship. Really good event this one. Let me know what you think :) Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:01, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

  • File:Logo Snooker-WM 2014.jpg is well above threshold of originality
  • Otherwise the licensing looks OK
  • Other images should be clearly labeled as not being taken at this particular competition (t · c) buidhe 23:17, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've gone through the article and added alt and labelling the years and such. I have removed the offending image. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:17, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from TRM edit

  • I got a whole heap of duplicate links, rather than list them all here, perhaps better for you to use the tool to identify and resolve them all.
  • "Neil Robertson compiled.." link 'im.
  • "Mark Selby won the event to capture..." mildly confusing as your previously mentioned "event" was the previous year's world championship...
  • ""tournament, a 140 and" comma after 140.
  • " A qualifying tournament..." feels like this ought to go in chronological order in the lead.
  • Lead feels a touch light, perhaps include how those not going through the qualifying tournament made it in there?
  • "The World Snooker Championship features 32 professional players..." should have noticed this before, perhaps it's worth clarifying that this was the rule in effect at the time of this particular tournament, as I imagine previous tournaments (and who knows, perhaps future tournaments) won't be in the same format.
  • "As of 2020 Stephen Hendry is the" comma after 2020 and presumably we can now make that 2021?
  • "the World Professional Billiards and Snooker Association." as you use WPBSA in the infobox, I would add the initialism here.
  • "was held at the Crucible Theatre, first held..." held.. held repetitive.
  • "ranking event of" events.
  • "sponsored by sports betting company Dafabet" you said in the lead it was the first time so that should be covered and expanded upon in the body, e.g. who previously sponsored it and for how long?
  • "Six-time champion Steve Davis..." caption is a complete sentence so use a full stop, and check the others.
  • "a match he needed to win " who?
  • Six-times vs six-time vs two-time... consistency.
  • "play at the event" main event?
  • "failed to play at the event for the first time since ... failed to play at the event for the first time since..." repetitive.
  • "Six-time runner-up Jimmy White" as you already said "runner-up" could you say "finalist" or something different here?
  • "1997 champion" no link?
  • "O'Sullivan defeated Hull 10–4." merge this tiny sentence into the previous one.
  • "and later 10–2" well, he won 10–2...
  • "a record number he jointly" no need for number.
  • "North Anston" wouldn't "Rotherham" (linked) make more sense for our global audience?
  • "best-of-25 frames matches" -> "best-of-25-frame matches"
  • "Ronnie O'Sullivan trailed..." no need for Ronnie unless there are two O'Sullivans.
  • Indeed, what's the strategy on repeating first names here?
  • "won frame 20 by" maybe "won the 20th frame by" to avoid mixing frame numbers and frame scores.

That takes me to "Quarter-finals", hopefully some of this is useful. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:08, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "best-of-25 frames matches" -> "best-of-25-frames matches" (the "best-of-25-frames" is the adjective...) and apply similar throughout.
  • "due to the length..." I guess you mean due to slow play?
    • You could say that, but the sources don't say that. There's a few different reasons why a session might run long. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:52, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mark Selby and Alan McManus.." Selby gets mentioned four times in three sentences which is a little jarring.
  • I wouldn't split the Dale/Hawkins QF across paras.
  • "O'Sullivan lead at 10–2," -> "O'Sullivan led 10–2,"
  • General: while there's no doubt the factual material here is on point, I wonder if there's any critical commentary that can be drawn in, e.g. did anyone do particularly well, badly, surprisingly? Was there any bad behaviour? Any criticisms of playing surfaces, conditions, tables, refereeing? Any reactions from outside the two finalists?
    • So, there is *sometimes* comments about the tables and how they play, but they are generally kept on the downlow. Nowadays the cloth is very, very good, and rarely has issues (although this years there was a little bit of commentary about this). Nothing from the 2014 event that I could find. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:52, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Brendan Moore.[98][99]" no full stop.
  • That table is odd, repeating the frame scores on both sides and just bolding alternatively. Why do we need to do that in a two-player match, isn't it obvious that one score was O'Sullivan's and the other was Selby's?
  • Alfie Burden appears to be piped to a redirect back to itself.
  • "100 Neil Robertson..." etc, I think a colon would be useful after each list of centuries.
  • Check refs for sources in titles, e.g. ref 12.
  • What's the strategy on publisher/work linking? I see multiple ESPN linked, but things like Bleacher Report (which isn't italicised in our article) and The Guardian not linked every time.

That's it for now. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 09:41, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support for prose from Shooterwalker edit

Going to take a shot at the prose. I don't have a lot of familiarity with snooker championships, but I can for sure comment on the grammar and readability. Expect more comments soon. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:03, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Working through my comments now. Feel free to push back on any of these. If I'm asking, it's because you may have a good reason for something being the way it is, and you can use judgment to decide where changes are appropriate.
Lead
  • The first sentence is always really important, so you can explain what it is to the reader and not confuse or lose them. I'd ask if you really need to bring in the other title, let alone explain that the alternate title is driven by sponsorship.
  • "Crucible and the tournament was..." -> "Crucible. The tournament was also..." (break into two sentences for readability, rather than two fragments joined by "and")
  • Otherwise looks pretty good.
Background
  • "The 32 players for the event" -> "The 32 players" or "These 32 players" (you already established that these are 32 players for the event)
  • Is it that important to know where the first championship took place, let alone who won?
    • I think it's relevant to get across that this isn't a championship that took place once. This is almost 90 years of play - so a bit of colour stating what happened in the first event is suitable. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:02, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it perhaps more relevant to know where things stood in 2014, rather than where things stand now in 2021? Some of these details are more important for the broader World Snooker Championship, where I'd expect this to focus more on a historic moment in 2014.
    • I get what you mean - thing is Hendry has won the event the most times since the 1990s, so I generally just use an up to date source. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:02, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Related, there is an irregular mix of tense here. It being a past event, you might just want to use "was" in most instances.
  • It feels like there might be some redundancy between the format subsection and the prior section – the location, it being in use since 1977, the number of participants. I actually like how it's written in this section better, and it's more clear.
  • "The total prize money for the 2014 World Snooker Championship was raised to £1,214,000 from the previous year's £1,111,000." -> "The total prize money for the 2014 World Snooker Championship was £1,214,000, a raise from the previous year's £1,111,000."
First round
  • "The first round was played as best-of-19-frames" -> "The first round was played as a best-of-19-frames over" (this seems more grammatical, but ignore me if this is more of a term of the game)
    • Should have been "as best-of-19 frame matches, held over two sessions". Else, "as the best-of-19-frames". Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:02, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In his first round match he was defeated 9–10 by debutant Michael Wasley and so failed to set a new record for tournament wins in a season" -> perhaps a comma to organize this a bit.
Second round
  • "as best-of-25-frames" or "as a best-of-25-frames"? Likewise for the first sentence in the next two subsections.
  • "throughout both of the first two sessions" -> feels a little redundant. "throughout the first two sessions" would suffice
  • "McManus played Doherty and won six frames in a row from 4–3 ahead to lead 10–3 and later won 13–8" -> probably needs a comma
Quarter-finals
  • "completed seven of the scheduled eight frames in the first session of their match due to the length" -> is this a common thing? did they run out of time?
    • Yeah, it's not uncommon, but reasonably rare. Matches are generally played starting at 10 AM, 2 PM and 6 PM. If you overrun, you might not finish. The big deal is that then your later sessions need to be even longer. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:59, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "take the led 12–11," -> "take the lead 12–11,"
Semi-finals
  • "O'Sullivan lead at 10–2," -> "O'Sullivan led at 10–2," (a reverse of the last lead/led issue)
  • "O'Sullivan himself last achieved this feat in 2004 when he defeated Anthony Hamilton 13–3 in the quarter-finals and Stephen Hendry 17–4 in the semi-finals.[78] That year, O'Sullivan won the championship one frame into the final session.[79]" -> this feels like a tangent, and might be summed up in one sentence with less detail
  • "Selby had previously reached the final in 2007, when he lost to John Higgins.[82]" -> similar thing that breaks the flow. Could be as simple as rephrasing to ", his first time reaching the final since 2007." It helps keep the reader grounded in 2014, instead of jumping all around.
Final
  • "This was the first time that Moore had presided over a World Championship final.[85] In the first session on Sunday afternoon, O'Sullivan took a 5–3 lead, which he extended in the evening session to 8–3 and 10–5, before Selby took the last two frames of the day to leave O'Sullivan with a 10–7 overnight lead." -> this might work better as two shorter sentences
  • "I want to congratulate Mark on a fantastic tournament. He's been the best player over 17 days, that was tough he had me in all sorts of trouble. In the end I was numb as he was too strong and tough" -> this isn't totally grammatical, and might need a comma. You could also shorten it to focus on what you feel is the important part.
  • The rest of it looks generally good. Some minor grammatical issues but this is within striking distance of featured quality prose. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:45, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking a look at this Shooterwalker! All seems reasonable, bar for a couple of points I'll address. Give me a day or two and I'll have this done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:56, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have addressed/changed all of the above Shooterwalker. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:13, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Very close now. A few lingering comments:
        • Now that you've gone with the construction "the best-of-X-frames", you should change the other instances. (Usually the opening sentence in each sub-section).
        • "Selby and McManus only completed seven of the scheduled eight frames in the first session of their match due to the length" -> your explanation on this review page made more sense to me than this did in the article, and it's probably because "length" is ambiguous as a measure of space/distance. It took me a little bit to understand what you meant, and I'd make it clear you mean time. For example "of their match due to running of out of time", or even better, "of their match as they ran out of time".
        • Watch for other reviewers who have an opinion on some of the background section. I do feel like what happened in 2021 is a tangent, but if I'm the only one, then it's nothing I would insist on changing.
      • With those, the prose will be in excellent shape and very readable. Shooterwalker (talk) 12:18, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, cool. I've covered those two points. Happy to keep it open, but bare in mind we currently have 7 other World Snooker Championship articles at FA with similar background. Happy to get a consensus though :). Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:44, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree and it's probably best to wait for other reviewers. I fixed a typo for you, and otherwise it looks great. Happy to support. Shooterwalker (talk) 13:16, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - BennyOnTheLoose edit

Source Review

  • Reliability - sources all look OK. Quite a few WPBSA (therefore non-independent) sources but these are used for supporting non-controversial information.
  • 11 - missing publication date
  • 12 - missing publication date
  • 29 - missing author
  • 32 - missing author
  • 33 - missing publication date
  • 34 - "Hull"?
  • 38 - missing publication date
  • 39 - missing publication date
  • 42 - missing website
  • 46 - move reference to after "set in 2009" (so that "Crucible record" is supported)
  • 49 - "|author=WalesOnline" should be removed; "|work=walesonline" is there
  • 51 - missing publication date
  • 56 - missing author
  • 59 - add "agency=Press Association"
  • 63 - missing publication date
  • 64 - add "agency=Press Association"
  • 66 - add "location=Glasgow"
  • 73 - add "agency=Press Association"
  • 87 - archive.org link redirects to the live page for me; the live page doesn't verify the info.
  • 88 - mising author
  • 90 - mising author
  • snooker.org - one of the four has an author. Make consistent.
  • snooker.org - looks like source is in English, not Norwegian.
  • "Stephen Hendry is the event's most successful participant in the modern era, having won the championship seven times" - source doesn't quite state this. It has seven wins for Hendry as the record, but not the "modern era" mention.
  • " replacing previous sponsors Betfair" - not verified by source used.
  • Main draw: Are all three sources quoted needed for "Below are the full results from the event"?
    • They all cover the draw - don't see an issue by putting citing this more than once. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:20, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Other comments

  • Typo "tournamnet" in lead
  • Background: "who had won the 2013 event to win" - change either won or win to avoid repetition.
  • Qualifying stage centuries: "The highest was a 139 by both" - I suggest removing "a" or using alternate wording.
    • Covered these three points - most of the source stuff seems easy enough, I'll work my way through when I'm next on PC.Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:59, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • snooker.org citations still inconsistent in terms of lower/mixed case and italicisation.
  • "Snooker World Championship 2014: 'The Rocket' Ronnie O'Sullivan holds" - incomplete title.
Hi Benny, from an abundance of caution, can I just check that this is a general support as well as a source review pass? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:12, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gog the Mild, yes, I'm satisfied that the FA criteria are met. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:13, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request for the coordinators edit

Hi Gog the Mild, I usually wait until I have three prose and both source and image reviews done before requesting, but as everything above seems unanimous, would you be ok with me firing up another nomination? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:46, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You do have three prose and both source and image reviews. That's what I was querying BotL about. So on that basis, sure, go ahead. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:12, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Z1720 edit

Non-expert review, although if I keep reading these snooker articles I might become one...

    • Feel free to become an expert! :P. If you would like to know more, let me know Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:23, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • You'll have to send me a YouTube clip of an exciting Snooker match one day. Z1720 (talk) 15:02, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "(also referred to as the 2014 Dafabet World Snooker Championship for the purposes of sponsorship)" while the sponsorship is mentioned in the article's body, the alternate name is not, meaning this statement is uncited atm. Suggest adding its official name in the body of the article.
    • I've gone ahead and just cited in the lede, as it's rarely suitable for the body. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:23, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "having won the previous year's event by defeating Barry Hawkins in the final." I could not find this information in the body of the article.
  • "This was Selby's fourth ranking title, also completing the Triple Crown of World Championship, UK Championship, and Masters titles" I could not find this information in the body
  • "with the final held at Camkin's Hall in Birmingham, England," Might have to wikilink Birmingham, as I'm not sure how well-known this city is outside the UK.
  • "Defending champion Ronnie O'Sullivan drew world number 122 Robin Hull in the first round," His status as defending champion was already mentioned in the Background section, so this seems redundant.
    • I mean, sure, but this is more to explain why he is being referred to first in the list of matches. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:23, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "During the first round, the second "Ladies' Day" at the tournament featured events designed to encourage greater female participation in the sport." Is this the second Ladies Day of the 2014 tournament, or was there a Ladies Days in a previous year and this is the second year that there has been a Ladies Day? Please clarify in the article.

Those are my comments. Please ping when the above are addressed. Thanks! Z1720 (talk) 02:06, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thanks for picking this up Z1720, I have made the above changes. :) Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:23, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • My concerns have been addressed. I can support. Z1720 (talk) 15:02, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 13 August 2021 [48].

Burnt Candlemas edit

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 18:45, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The 1356 English invasion of Scotland is little discussed. It gets little mention in English sources because it failed. Perhaps not surprisingly when they depended on resupply by 14th-century sailing ships in the dead of winter. And little in the Scottish sources because they provoked it by breaking a truce and weren't proud of their strategy of destroying their own crops, livestock and buildings and then running away. I believe that I have extracted pretty much all there is in the sources and that it is ready for FAC. Doubtless I am as wrong on the latter as I usually am, so have at it.

The name? Read the article. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:45, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

You may well have, but not on one of my nominations. Douglas's coat of arms removed.
*cough*
Gah! I thought that I had already explained my severe premature senility. No? I shall take more medication. And make a BIG note. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:38, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Edouard_III_devant_Berwick.jpg needs a US tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:18, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Drat. Apologies. Fixed.
Hi Nikkimaria and thank you for your prompt attention. I think that I have addressed your concerns. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:36, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:57, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comprehensive support edit

I reviewed this at GAN, and found little wrong with it, and all of what I saw there was satisfactorily addressed. Hog Farm Talk 00:31, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support edit

Have already made an edit adjusting some punctuation, but found no flaw with the rest of the article. A little polish, and I think it'll be more than worthy of FA. Horsesizedduck (talk) 02:02, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Support from Girth Summit edit

Just a few persnickety thoughts about wording and punctuation for consideration:

  • Do we like "50–60-mile-wide"? I'm sure there's nothing technically wrong with it, but all those dashes and hyphens make my eyes a bit itchy. Would rewording to avoid be more elegant?
Hyphenophobia? I am sure that a grammatically correct expression can always be rephrased to be more elegant. Better?
Yep - now I can read the article without eyedrops or special glasses.
  • "In late October 1355 the Scottish nobles Thomas, Earl of Angus, and Patrick, Earl of March gathered a small force of Scots and French and boats to transport them in." Would the sources allow any expansion on this? Where were they gathered and transported from/to?
Sadly not. I was pleasantly surprised to have that much information. The boats, like the Scots, simply appear.
Shame - I was sort of wondering where the French came from actually, and why they'd choose to attack by boat - Scottish armies tend to just walk to Berwick when they feel like a scrap, I wondered whether perhaps the men were mustered in France.
  • "In 1357 terms were agreed for the release of David II, they were very similar to those which the Scots had refused in 1354." As worded, these are two independent clauses; I don't think you can get away with a comma there without using a conjunction. It could be a semi-colon, or you could change the second one to a relative clause (...which were very similar to those...). Or just have two sentences.
Gone with the latter.
Better
  • "David's ransom was the very large sum of 100,000 marks, to be paid over ten years, on 24 June (St. John the Baptist's Day) each year, during which an Anglo-Scottish truce prohibited any Scottish citizen from bearing arms against Edward III or any of his men." As I read this, it's saying that the truce prohibited Scottish citizens from attacking Edward on 24 June each year. Worth rewording slightly?
I struggle to misread it like that, but have broken it into two sentences for clarity, at the cost of a little repitition.
Better, to my pedantic eye

That's it from me - fascinating article, I'm sure I'll support once the above have been considered. Girth Summit (blether) 08:14, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Girth Summit. Many thanks for that. I have, I think, addressed your concerns. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:59, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All good - supporting. Girth Summit (blether) 15:32, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

source review - pass edit

  • Sources are all strongly reliable for what they are citing
  • 1911 Britannica is used, but for noncontroversial description of a custom, so fine there
  • Formatting is good enough in all significant points
  • Trusted nominator, spot checks not done

Not required, but recommend author linking Barrow to G. W. S. Barrow, it looks like Sumption is Jonathan Sumption, Lord Sumption, is Tuck Anthony Tuck, Chris Given-Wilson can be author-linked as well, Prestwich is probably Michael Prestwich, and Warwick Rodwell is probably linkable as well.

Aside from the bevy of optional author links, all is in order here. Hog Farm Talk 16:11, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Hog Farm, appreciated as ever. Author links all added. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:40, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is the fastest I've seen a nomination get three supports and passed image and source reviews in my time being active at FAC. Hog Farm Talk 16:45, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A bit under four days. Good point, although it is not something I watch for. And I have done nothing to solicit reviews - it must be the catchy title which attracts them. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:55, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber edit

Looking now....

  • Support on comprehensiveness and prose. Nothing is jumping out at me prose-wise. Nice read and history lesson for a neophyte like me. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:21, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Cas and thanks for the review. Much appreciated. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:05, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from WA8MTWAYC edit

A great article and I support the nom. I haven't found any major issues, although I would personally move some refs such as #17, #18 and #32 to the end of the sentences and reorder refs 25 and 17 ("that he learnt of the fall of Berwick" [25][17]). WA8MTWAYC (talk) 13:44, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WA8MTWAYC and thanks for the review and the suggestions. Cite order swapped; but cite positions not changed. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:10, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Query for the coordinators edit

@Ian Rose:@FAC coordinators: Given the above, can I have a dispensation to nominate another one? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:30, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this is due to me being a participant and having a biased viewpoint, but I'd say this one's about ready for promotion, based on my reading of the FAC. Hog Farm Talk 19:49, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose:@FAC coordinators: Hi guys, over here! Gog the Mild (talk) 13:02, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, it seems to take two pings to rattle my notifications cage these days -- sure go ahead. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:41, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support for prose, from Shooterwalker edit

I'll add another opinion to the lot. Look for a full review from me soon. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:52, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lead
  • "A few days after agreeing the truce, the Scots, encouraged and subsidised by the French, broke it, invading and devastating Northumberland. " -> "The Scots had agreed to the truce, but broke it a few days later with support and payment from the French, leading the Scots to pillage Northumberland."
Any prose, especially mine, can be improved; but I feel this specific suggestion makes it worse. What was the issue with the original?
  • The lead is largely well-written. Great job.
Thanks. I often struggle to write good leads. Perhaps because I write them at the end when I have a good grasp on the material and so miss things out of the summary which are "obvious" to me. Good to know that I haven't done that this time.
Background
  • "regents of the newly-crowned, 14-year-old King Edward III" -> "regents of the 14-year-old newly-crowned King Edward III" (the comma breaks the readability here)
  • "The Scots felt compelled to attempt to relieve the town" -> this is a little less than clear, but I suppose the sentences that follow give this some clarity.
I would be quite happy to expand this. As it is deep background from 23 years before Burnt Candlemas it seemed inappropriate to go into too much detail. But I could cheerfully give as much explanation as you feel a reader needs. (I took Siege of Berwick (1333) to FA; and Battle of Halidon Hill to GA only last week so I may have been over wary of trying to pack everything I knew in.)
Scottish invasion
Scottish invasion
  • "By 1355 David II was still a prisoner after ransom negotiations had broken down the previous year, but Scottish nobles, encouraged by the French, started gathering an army on the border." -> this could be broken into two less complicated sentences, for better readability
I am not sure that reducing all the prose to short snappy improves readability. (As opposed to the reverse.) In this case I would need to try and get "in 1355" into each sentence, which would cause a clunky repetition.
Berwick
  • "according to a contemporary "by reason of the discord of the magnates"" -> this subphrase feels a little tacked on, and if you like the quote, it might be integrated in a different way for better flow
I really like the way that sentence flows. But if you don't, perhaps you could suggest an alternative?
English invasion - advance
  • "Arriving at Edinburgh in early February" -> add a comma here
See below.
  • "revictualled" -> I wouldn't write this article just for myself, but this feels like a complicated word where a simpler one would do
Good point. Changed to "resupplied".
  • Reading through the prose, the explanation of the etymology of "Burnt Candlemas" seems like it should be further clarified in the lead
Done.
Retreat
  • "Deprived of sea-borne supplies" -> "Deprived of sea-borne supplies,"
See below.
  • "With the English field army gone from Scottish soil" -> "With the English field army gone from Scottish soil,"
See below.
Aftermath
  • Earlier, you mention that the negotiations around the release of David II had broken down, and here you say that the terms ended up similar to what had been refused before. This makes it sound as though the terms were mainly about money. If that's true, maybe mention that earlier? Or if not, it would be useful to know which terms were difficult, then and in the end.
Gah! That is an excellent point, but, basically, we don't know. Some RS's seem more certain, but no two of the same thing. Rogers,, who gives a detailed analysis of the pre-1356 negotiations, summarises "Precisely what this entailed is very difficult to untangle", and that the terms offered by each side varied over time. And no, while the size of the monetary ransom was a sticking point, at various times so were a variety of other issues.
Commas
It seems that we adhere to different schools of commaisation, both equally valid. Despite how oddly yours reads to me; and no doubt, the reverse. Specifically, among other differences, I do not put a comma after the mention of a time, eg: "Today I ate." not "Today, I ate." and "In 1990 she was born." not "In 1990, she was born.* etc. In the several cases you mention above the "missing" commas are not errors, but adherence to different sets of rules of grammar.
Concluding remarks from reviewer
  • Many of these changes are small, though I think they would help the readability and enhance the prose. The article is very close to featured status and I'm looking forward to seeing it get there. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:38, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the thorough review Shooterwalker, much appreciated. I have, I think, addressed all of your comments above. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:46, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Honestly, the article was already in good shape when I reviewed it. Most of these suggestions are verging on nitpicking, less about errors than about making things more "readable", and I'd agree there is some room for stylistic difference. If you do find the time and the sources, the article might benefit from clarifying that the sticking points were more than just ransom price, and some of the "relief" that the Scots provided to that besieged village. But I'm happy to support the article in its current state, and appreciate you working through all the suggestions. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:09, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Shooterwalker: thanks for the support. I would prefer the summary of the 23 -year-old event as it is, but have expanded the areas where negotiations for David's release broke down a little. Which also breaks a sentence as you had suggested. :-) Gog the Mild (talk) 15:24, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think it helps illustrate the source of the conflict. Thanks for adding! Shooterwalker (talk) 19:46, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 13 August 2021 [49].

Solo Man edit

Nominator(s):   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:22, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the last known population of Homo erectus, part of my massive overhaul of prehistoric humans and allies. The only other great ape FA is orangutan. There aren't any recent comprehensive books focusing just on Solo Man (there are a lot which briefly mention it) but the primary description of the anatomy is a lengthy monograph from 1951 (I've omitted the detailed discussions on individual bones for brevity), and there are a few literature reviews which I've relied upon especially in Research history.   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:22, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass edit

  • File:Solo Man reconstruction.png, File:Ngandong excavation.png, and the other images from this 1951 publication. How do you know copyright was not renewed?
The US copyright renewal database doesn't show this publication (or any publications by Weidenreich) renewed. The Commons links this website with the description "United States Copyright Office. Online database for all copyrights registered or renewed in 1978 or after. For works with copyrights from 1950 or after, the renewal will appear here."   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:21, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would think it's more likely for Anthropological Papers of the AMNH to renew copyright for the contents of their journal? (t · c) buidhe 05:38, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I mean they clearly renewed a lot of their publications [50], including other works from 1951   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:51, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Did you look through all 201 pages of results or otherwise confirm that this issue of the Anthropological Papers of the AMNH was never copyright renewed? (t · c) buidhe 13:18, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I looked through all 201, yes   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:55, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Biface Extension.png What is the source of the information displayed on the map?
I can add one, would you prefer [51] or the doctorate thesis used on File:Carte hachereaux.jpg?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:21, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Either of these would appear to be a reliable source. (t · c) buidhe 05:38, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(t · c) buidhe 02:37, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

JJE edit

Going through WP:WIAFA point-by-point:

  • 1a: Is there no better way to present the various dating efforts than several sentences that read like "this year, then that year"? Otherwise nothing jumps out to me.
I'm open to ideas   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:31, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would probably use a bulleted list, myself. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:29, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:25, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1b: That seems to be the case.
  • 1c: Can't really speak of this as ancient hominins aren't something I am familiar with. Sources seem reliable, although I wonder if that also applies to that by Teuku Jacob who has an ... interesting article. I see we mainly rely on modern sources, which seems reasonable if the discoverers all believed into questionable anthropological theories.
He really fumbled with floresiensis but he was a pretty established anthropologist I would say   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:31, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1d: The article spends a rather large amount of discussion on the discredited racial theories; also that hybridization view of Webb is a little odd if this is Homo erectus rather than Homo sapiens. Also, I wonder if the cannibalism aspect is getting a bit undue weight.
It was basically because if the hybridization thing was to be the explanation for the robustness of the Aborigine cranium, then why weren't the skulls of Southeast Asians equally robust? So Webb said it's because Solo Man also got to Australia somehow (I think it's at least implied by boat but I don't remember, and I guess also implied other populations were exterminated?)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:31, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but what about the cannibalism? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:16, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Cannibalism section also covers pathology (even then it's pretty abridged) so it's really 2 sections in 1   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:25, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it would help to retitle the section to "pathology" then. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:39, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It leans harder to cannibalism, because if it was straight pathology it would be like "Skull I has a 5x2 mm lesion on the left parietal bone" (and would consequently be a lot longer)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  13:30, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1e: That fits.
  • 1f: The "drop random sentences into Google" test yields nothing untoward.
  • 2a: I can't help but note that the extinction reasons are only discussed in the lead.
It was supposed to be "This caused the succession of the Ngandong Fauna by the Punung Fauna" but that's pretty vague now that I'm looking at it, so I added "H. erectus, a specialist in woodland and savannah biomes, likely went extinct with the tropical takeover"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:31, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2b: Seems OK save for the cannibalism aspect above.
  • 2c: Seems to fit.
  • 3: All images are well-placed and licenced. ALT text seems to fit.
  • 4: Seems to fit.

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:58, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Qualified support here, in the sense that, since I am not an expert on prose or the subject matter, my support here should not be held any legitimate concern about either prose or subject matter raised from here forward. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:02, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support edit

I did a close reading of the article and found it well-written and understandable. My only concern is that the Paleohabitat section presents the Ndangdong Fauna, Kedung Brubus Fauna, and Punung Fauna as if they are formal concepts terms, but without any explanation or link. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 15:55, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I try to explain the relevant parts, like the Kedung Brubus Fauna is roughly 800 to 700 thousand years old and features large mammals, the Punung Fauna is consistent with tropical rainforest and namely includes humans, orangutans, and gibbons, and the Ngandong Fauna are listed and indicate an open woodland. The Kedung Brubus, Punung, and Ngandong sites don't have articles to link to   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:59, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

  • General comment: Using first names rather than initials is a lot more helpful when trying to figure out who someone is. "J. Allen," for example, isn't exactly a rare name.
My problem is I want to remain consistent with providing first name or not and a lot of times only the first initial is given, so I decided to leave it at initial for everyone   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:21, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is up to you, although the way I do it is to use full names whenever possible, and use initials only when a) I simply can't find the first name(s) or b) the author clearly was known by initials, and can be identified by such (e.g., T. D. Kendrick). There is still consistency with this approach, even if it is less evident at first blush. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:06, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't look like consistency to me   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:01, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • General comment: I'd recommend using the "| name-list-style = amp" parameter for works with multiple authors. But up to you.
You mean instead of |display-authors=etal?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:21, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Given the point below, I would dispense with using et al.; the ampersand could then be used instead. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:02, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • #1: Citing to the entirely of a 40-page article for specific information is pushing the boundaries of the identifying parts of a source guideline, which states that "When citing lengthy sources, you should identify which part of a source is being cited."
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  13:20, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How is this fixed? The full 40-page article is still being cited, without any indication of which pages substantiate which claims. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:58, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I put the page number each time it's cited, right next to the footnote   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:32, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The sentences using the source display as "They dismissed his findings as a malformed non-human ape.[1]" and "... favouring the hoax Piltdown Man from Britain.[1]". There are no page numbers listed. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:10, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:01, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  13:20, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's significant inconsistency in when "et al." is invoked. It's either after four authors (#6), three authors (#7, 9, 10, 13), two authors (#14, 19), or one author (#23).
I wasn't aware that needed to be consistent   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  13:20, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
One of the featured article criteria is literally named "consistent citations". It's in bold, too. --Usernameunique (talk) 13:26, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would strongly recommend to not leave any authors out at all, and simply provide the names of everybody. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:46, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
this has never been an issue before (and after all, why would display-author exist if it shouldn't be used?), but done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:01, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • #6, 22, 23: Nature can take a link.
done
Nope. Only the first was linked. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:59, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:32, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
done
Again, only the first was linked. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:59, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:32, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • #21: Publisher location missing.
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  13:20, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This version looked at. --Usernameunique (talk) 15:09, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Dunkleosteus77, there are still some comments above that have not been responded to. Additionally, it looks like a number of other sources suffer from the same problem that #1 did, i.e., entire long works are cited without identifying which part of the works are being cited. The most pressing examples are sources 3, 5, 12, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 28, and 30. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:07, 5 August 2021 (UTC) Fix ping: Dunkleosteus77. --Usernameunique (talk) 03:45, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
done with all except number 5   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:44, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:10, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This has not been fully done for either #3 or #5. In addition, comments above have still not been responded to. Dunkleosteus77, please read the source review carefully, then let me know when all the outstanding comments have been addressed. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:37, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As I said before, I put the page number each time it's cited, right next to the footnote. So it reads "...but was too preoccupied with the Sangiran site to continue research at Ngandong.[3]:23–26"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:17, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jens edit

  • Comments will follow soon. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:52, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • and a prominent line of bone – what does this mean? Would "ridge" be a better word?
I couldn't figure out a better gloss for torus   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:49, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think "keel" comes closest, at least, this is how the sagittal torus was translated (see Sagittal keel). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:39, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
keel is not a widely intelligible descriptor in this case   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:17, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Ridge of bone" would also do. But I think that "line of bone" is just not comprehensible; why would this qualify as a widely intelligible descriptor? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:06, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Most people know what a line is but not many people know what a keel is (myself included) unless they're familiar with boats   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  11:49, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
According to wikt:line, a "line" is one-dimensional. The structure you are describing is three-dimensional. I still don't think it is the word. If you don't like "ridge" or "keel", then sticking with "torus" would be preferable. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:08, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ring?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  12:16, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But "ring" implies something circular. In Solo man, it appears to be more straight; a bit sinuous but not circular. Another possibility would be "bulge". --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:38, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Or "thickened rim". --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:51, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I mean torus is a ring shape is it not? I thought it was called a torus because it wraps around the skull, in a circular arc   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  12:57, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sinuous in posterior view, and slightly convex in ventral view, [52]. I would not call this a "ring" because it seems to be only gently curved, but if you still want to stick with the literal translation of the term, maybe "half-ring" would be less confusing? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:18, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  13:25, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gaur does not link to Bos gaurus but to another species? Do you have a source that applies "gaur" to that species?
changed (it's related to the gaur and banteng)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:49, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You now changed to "cattle" and "cow", but the article cattle states these are domesticated animals. Is this really the word? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:39, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
it's like calling everything in Sus pigs instead of boars. These aren't scientific terms, they're flexible   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:17, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But then, it is imprecise and potentially misleading. I think we have to stick with the dictionary definitions of the terms we use. Wiktionary defines wikt:cattle as "domesticated animals", and nothing else. So your sentence implies that Solo man did use domesticated animals, which is just a mistake. We could wait and see what others think if you are still not convinced. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:06, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cow redirects to the same page as cattle   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:23, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The skulls sustained wounds, but it is unclear if these injuries resulted from an assault, cannibalism, the volcanic eruption, or the fossilisation process. – I think that this wording does not work. If it is due to fossilisation, it is not an injury per definition.
damage?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:49, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • maps included Tertiary deposits and among these was a bed dating to the Pleistocene – But Pleistocene is not Tertiary, right?
The boundary was at the midpoint of the Pleistocene at this time, and they were trying to distinguish Tertiary and Quaternary beds. Clarified   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:49, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The maps included Tertiary deposits and among these was a bed dating to the Pleistocene discovered by Dutch geologist Carel ter Haar in 1931 – I can't quite follow; was the site discovered as a result of the mapping project?
clarified   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:49, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The section "Taxonomy" contains a lot of stuff that is not taxonomy. It contains a subsection "Research history", implying that it is the research history of the taxonomy. Maybe you could split the "Taxonomy" section into three major sections: "Research history", "Age and taphonomy", and "Classification".
Is it not already?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:49, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, I mean, everything is under the major heading "Taxonomy" now. I was suggesting to just remove the "Taxonomy" heading and upgrade the three subheadings, or some other solution might work as well. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:39, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  11:59, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Survey did not publish the site map for over 75 years, so the taphonomy and geological age of the Solo Men have been contentious matters – Does this mean they did publish the site map after 75 years, and the matter was no longer contentious at that point? I am a bit confused here.
Sites degrade after a while and after 75 years it's hard to further scrutinize the map, especially considering the poorly documented excavation process   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:49, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Could you add a sentence here explaining that the map was published in xxxx, but that it now was of limited use? I think it would really help the reader with understanding. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:39, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  11:59, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • swept the carcasses to the Ngandong site, where they created a debris jam – was it really the carcasses that created a debris jam, or were they just part of one?
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:49, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Volcaniclastic rock indicates deposition occurred during a volcanic eruption. – Below you state that deposition occurred after the eruption. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:04, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
changed to soon after   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:49, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Later racial anthropologists continued to push for some ancestor–descendant relation – You do not clearly state what they proposed (who would be the ancestor and who the descendant)?
Is it clearer now?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  13:42, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but directly stating "between Neanderthals and Australian Aboriginal people" would make it even clearer. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:21, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:22, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • evolved independently from a local archaic human species. – It it was a single species, it must have been a global one rather than a local one, right?
No, it'd be like Europeans evolved from the local H. neanderthalensis, Chinese people evolved from the local Sinanthropus pekinensis, the Aborigines evolved from the (in a sense) local Javanthropus (Solo Man), etc. This is polygenism   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  13:42, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but should't "species" be in plural then, because you are talking about a number of species, not a single one? (without the a)? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:21, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
no because each race evolved from a different but singular archaic species. Racial mixing wasn't very popular, and creoles were viewed as genetically inferior and quickly selected out of the gene pool   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:22, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • his more conservative view of archaic human diversity became widely adopted in the subsequent decades. – In which way is it "conservative"? Shouldn't it be the opposite? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:23, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's conservative because instead of having like a billion different species names even among present day races and ethnicities, he just decided to have only 3 species in the genus Homo, and later only 2   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  13:42, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, maybe use "prudent" instead of "conservative"? Because the latter has other meanings ("resisting change") that give the sentence a different meaning, so it is ambiguous here. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:21, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
prudent doesn't mean restrictive, it just means better   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:22, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Solo Men fit into this by hybridising with the anatomically modern ancestors of Australian Aborigines travelling south through Southeast Asia. – Please make clear this is not an universally accepted fact. Maybe "The Solo man was hypothesised to …" or similar.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  13:42, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • of which 200 came from Island Southeast Asia – was Southeast Asia an island or what does this mean?
As opposed to Mainland Southeast Asia, as in not Indochina, but Indonesia, the Philippines, etc.   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  13:42, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see, can you link the term to Maritime Southeast Asia? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:21, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:22, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ages of these specimens were based on the closure of the cranial sutures – This can be misleading, since previously in the text "age" referred to geological age. Also, it seems imprecise, since you cannot determine the exact age with this method. Maybe "The identification as adult or juvenile was based on …".
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  13:42, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • though both males and females are exceptionally built compared to other Asian H. erectus. – Exceptionally in which way? This does not tell us much.
do you prefer the word robust?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  13:42, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that would make it clear. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:21, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:22, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • the dimensions of a modern human skull averages – "a" (single) skull can not average.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  13:42, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The brow ridge does not form a continuous bar like in Peking Man but curves downwards at the midpoint, forming a nasal bridge. – "Brow ridge" here refers to left and right taken together? Further below, you use the plural "brow ridges".
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  13:42, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • occipital torus (a projecting bar of bone) – I like this better than "half-ring", but in any case you may want to use the same wording both here and in the lead, as otherwise the reader will not know that the "half-ring" mentioned in the lead is the same as this thing.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  13:42, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • which Weidenreich cautiously attributed to an enlarged gland which caused the incredible thickening of the bones — only the bones around the sella turcica, right, not the skull bones in general? Could be clearer. Also, I would give the year here (1951) to make clear it is not a recent study that makes this claim, but more of a historical footnote. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:23, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
no, the incredible thickening of all the bones   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  13:42, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Because of the growth hormones produced by the gland? Not sure if this is still considered a viable possibility though? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:21, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
there are few who actually discuss the actual causes of such bone thickness. The others I've detailed on Homo erectus#Bone thickness   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:22, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest to rename the "Cannibalism" section "possible cannibalism" since there is no consensus. This also reflects the content of the section better. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:21, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:46, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no more points, but would like to hear a second opinion on this cattle/cow thing before I might support. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:21, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
what do you want me to replace cow and cattle with?  User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:41, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Depends on the taxa you are indicating. I just see that the common term "wild cattle" exists as a synonym of Bovini, maybe use this instead of "cattle" and "cow" and link to Bovini (assuming the taxa you are indicating are within that clade)? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:49, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
it's Bos palaesondaicus   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:32, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"wild cattle" and link to that species? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:37, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:45, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk edit

  • Though the article has three supports, one review is very short, so I think it could benefit from one more thorough review, which will come soon. FunkMonk (talk) 15:25, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You could give dates in the captions of the historical photos for contxt.
done for the excavation photo   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:53, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is a 1951 skull reconstruction really accurate and appropriate enough as taxobox image? I could imagine missing parts may be based on things that would make it inaccurate today, and perhaps an unrestored skull would be better.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:35, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Nevertheless, Haeckel's model inspired Dutch scientist Eugène Dubois" You should introduce the other people mentioned with nationality and occupation too then ( Ernst Haeckel, etc.).
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:35, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "(Out of Asia theory)" Could start with definite article ("the Out of Asia theory").
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:35, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:35, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Explain that tibiae are lower leg bones.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:35, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first dating attempts could get dates of publication?
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:13, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link stratum.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:13, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A lack of carnivore damage could mean they could feed" Repetitive double "could" can be varied.
  • "A lack of carnivore damage could mean they could feed enough without having to resort to crunching through the bone." It is unclear what "they" refers to, you could say "A lack of carnivore damage indicates sufficient feeding was possible without having to resort to crunching through the bone" or similar.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:13, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Research history" section doesn't really go into research, rather the history of discoveries and excavations?
should it be renamed?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:13, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think something like "Excavation history", "history of discoveries" or something would be more to the point? Not sure, Jens Lallensack might weigh in here, since he also suggested it to be separated. FunkMonk (talk) 02:25, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think? FunkMonk (talk) 03:07, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
it's not just about excavation and discovery of specimens, especially the last par   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:47, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Still seems off, but not a huge deal. FunkMonk (talk) 01:07, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the list of specimens would make more sense under research history. Anatomy/description sections should be about anatomical features.
moved   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:13, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The classification of Aboriginal Australians, because of the conspicuous robustness of the Aboriginal Australian skull" Do we need to spell out Aboriginal Australian twice? How about saying something like "this modern human population" instead second time, to make it clearer and less repetitive?
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:21, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The classification of Aboriginal Australians" I think you need a word before "classification" for context, like "phenetic" or "racial" or similar, it is a bit of a minefield of a subject, so we need to be careful. Might also want to get a link to physical anthropology in there somewhere,
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:21, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "has been a perplexing question historically for European science" I'd get "historically" in earlier, as this is key to understanding this is not a recent issue. Like "has historically been a perplexing question"
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:21, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "ancestor–descendant relationship between European Neanderthal and Aboriginal Australian skulls" Hardly the skulls, but the populations? A skull can't be an ancestor.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:21, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "of evolution by Charles Darwin" You can just write Darwin at this point, as you mentioned him earlier.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:21, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Preliminarily, Oppenoorth drew parallels between the Solo Man skull and that of Rhodesian Man from Africa, Neanderthals, and modern day Aboriginal Australians.[2] At the time" Would be good to get a date in there, especially since you then say "at the time".
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:21, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now that the specimen list is moved up, there is a big chunk of white space to the right that could be filled up with some images. I especially think it's good to show more of the subject of the article before you go on to show the Aboriginal skulls, the reader may be led to believe they're looking at archaic humans, which is unfortunate. Perhaps some from the galleries could be spread out more. WP:galleries are discouraged, but maybe you could try some of the multiple image templates, like in quagga.
like that?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:21, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, looks much cleaner to me. FunkMonk (talk) 02:25, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a few species have since been newly described" Newly is a bit too vague, you could just say "named" to avoid it.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:15, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "or regained some popularity" Don't think popularity has much to do with it, "regained some acceptance" would fit better.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:15, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the 1950s, Ernst Mayr" Present him.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:15, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "(which were all classified into separate species or subspecies until the mid-20th century)" This makes it sound like it was seen as universal truth, and race was used as synonym for subspecies. You could maybe say "which some antropologists considered as belonging to separate species or subspecies" or similar.
race was in fact used as a synonym for subspecies (or human species and purported genera) until like the mid-20th century when the Nazis gave racism a bad name. That's why the older ones often say things like "a new race of man" to introduce "Eoanthropus" Piltdown Man or whatever subspecies/species/genus they cared to designate   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:50, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, bad wording on my part, what I meant by "race was used as synonym for subspecies" is that the two are basically synonyms, so it looks odd to say that a "race was classified as a subspecies", it is the same already. The main point, though, was to preface it with "which some anthropologists considered as belonging to", because at least the idea that different humans races were separate species doesn't seem to have been prevalent. FunkMonk (talk) 18:07, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You sure? Even into the mid-20th century, names like "H. europaeus", "H. alpinus", or "H. indoeuropaeus" are still in use   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  13:58, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But not universally, which is the point; we can't make it seem like it was. "Racial/subspecies" classification was more common. FunkMonk (talk) 02:50, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
does "which were classified into separate subspecies or even species until" work? I'm unfamiliar with any source that talks about the relative frequency that these kinds of classifications were published   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:26, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think that would work. FunkMonk (talk) 03:07, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The claim that Australian Aboriginal" Missing plural s.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:15, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "incredibly robust" Sounds hyperbolic, why not just "very"?
I've been told not to use "very"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:15, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but "incredibly" is even worse. Highly could be an alternative. FunkMonk (talk) 18:07, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:26, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and race became less salient" Perhaps say "the concept of human races".
what's the difference?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:15, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Because you're talking about it as a concept within humans, it is still used in other fields of taxonomy or domestic animal breeding. FunkMonk (talk) 18:07, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
it says "race became less salient in anthropology", it doesn't make any reference to fungi   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  13:58, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, you need to add a link to the article about human races somewhere, as it is now only linked in the intro. FunkMonk (talk) 02:50, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
linked race on first mention   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:26, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Solo Man fits into this by hybridising with" By having hybridised with.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:15, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "from the Sangiran/Trinil populations (H. e. erectus)" Saying "from the Sangiran/Trinil populations of H. e. erectus" could be clearer.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:15, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link morph and parallel evolution.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:15, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Australoid. You could mention this is the term these anthropologists used to classify Australian aborigines under.
I think most people will understand Australoid includes Australians   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:15, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You never know, these aren't exactly common terms, and you don't explain that this term refers to a historical "race" when you mention it. You could for example say "The racial classification of Aboriginal Australians (historically classified as the Australoid race)". FunkMonk (talk) 18:07, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Should I also mention the other races normally included under Australoid? That'd be dark-skinned ethnicities from India, Southeast Asia, and the rest of Oceania   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:43, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You could say "as part of the Australoid race", to indicate it didn't exclusively include them. Don't think it is relevant here to mention the others, if Solo Man was not specifically said to be connected to them. FunkMonk (talk) 02:50, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:26, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • So when and by who was the trinomial Homo erectus soloensis coined, and what do we base on that this is the currently accepted name? You could include some modern sources that use the name and why. The establishment of this new combination isn't covered anywhere in the article.
that's a bit complicated because a lot of people were suggesting to subsume all these populations such as "Pithecanthropus", "Sinanthropus", etc. (including Solo Man) into Homo, but they were spitballing a lot of names. The first I see of subsuming Solo Man into a subspecies is Weidenreich 1940 [53] where he recommends "H. neanderthalensis soloensis" because he believed "Neanderthal" in a broad sense of the word was the last stage before modern man (So it goes Gigantopithecus → Pithecanthropus → Javanthropus → neanderthalensis but not the European one → Aborigenes). I haven't found anyone who says "this was the first person who used H. e. xyz combination" for any of the H. erectus subspecies   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:50, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think this needs further investigation then, as the intro confidently starts out with "Solo Man (Homo erectus soloensis) is a subspecies of H. erectus". We need to establish if this is the current consensus to state it this outright, and we need to figure out roughly when the the term came in to use, should be possible through Google Scholar. FunkMonk (talk) 02:50, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
found it at last   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:26, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Could it be mentioned and elaborated on in the prose? FunkMonk (talk) 03:07, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
end of 3rd par   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:47, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You mean "Solo man was first sunk into H. erectus by American physical anthropologist Carleton Coon in 1962." That is pretty cryptic, it could also be read as if it was just considered a species synonym. If he source says it was considered a subspecies in that publication, state it outright. FunkMonk (talk) 01:07, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:32, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Explain derived feature.
I juxtaposed it with "early Javan H. erectus" because I don't wanna use primitive and evolved. Maybe "more archaic" would be clearer?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:50, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You can say in parenthesis that the terms primitive and advanced were use historically, you shouldn't retroactively change the meaning of the sources. When you get to modern sources, you can use the modern terms. FunkMonk (talk) 18:07, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
derived is only used once with a source from 2008   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:43, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Should be fine then, but perhaps derived feature could be linked. FunkMonk (talk) 02:50, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:26, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It is quite thick, especially at the lateral ends (nearest the edge of the face)." What is? Last noun was nasal bridge.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:15, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Views and notes of (from left to right) Skull XI from the front, back, side, and top, and Skull VI from the underside" Perhaps state by who and when in the caption?
It's from Weidenreich's posthumous monograph so I'm not sure if I should put 1948 or 1951   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:15, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You could say "Weidenreich's notes" without date then, but I see you already linked him. FunkMonk (talk) 18:07, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "caused the incredible thickening of the bones" Again, incredible makes it sound like we're describing something from a fairy tale.
H. erectus calvaria are so thick, they were sometimes confused for turtle carapaces. I would consider it an apt description   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:15, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but see WP:editorializing. We shouldn't judge what is credible or not, just describe it. Incredible doesn't really mean anything descriptively. What do the sources say?
"...Solo man, taking into consideration the extraordinary thickness of the cranial bones and the large size of the skull, had a large [pituitary] gland"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:43, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Then perhaps better to use the wording of the source. "Extraordinary" is more descriptive anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 02:50, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:26, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Tibia A is much more robust than Tibia B and is consistent overall with Neanderthal tibiae" I think you can begin this with "of the two known tibiae" for context.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:15, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder why Palaeohabitat is under culture? Seems it would make more sense as its own section.
Where you live and the kinds of environments, plants, creatures, other human settlements, etc. the landscape features is a big part of your culture and way of life. For example, History of Indigenous Australians (not a quality status article, but it should be) includes geography and ecology under the Early history section   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:59, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, geographical distribution affects culture, yes, but going from that to putting distribution under culture is a stretch, it's the opposite cause and effect. As written, the Palaeohabitat section as nothing at all to do with culture, does not even attempt to link the to, and like all other taxon articles, should be its own section. This is not an article about an ethnic group of modern humans anyway, but about a taxon. FunkMonk (talk) 18:07, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
the section discusses their landscape, demographics (to the limited extent possible), interactions with other indigenous humans, and large creatures and predators they had to contend with, basically their home, so if we have a Culture section, environment should be included in there   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:43, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree (the same concepts would be dealt with in habitat sections for any animals without culture), but it's not a deal-breaker. FunkMonk (talk) 02:50, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "include the tiger" Spell out the common name of the particular subspecies.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:43, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a sizeable population of H. e soloensis before the volcanic eruption" What volcanic eruption? Better to give a date for it if you use definite article.
the volcanic eruption described in taphonomy   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:43, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is many sections earlier, you can't expect the reader to necessarily get the connection, so you could give a dating for it. FunkMonk (talk) 02:50, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"before the volcanic eruption which resulted in their interment"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:26, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. FunkMonk (talk) 03:07, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the lead, because I report brain size as a range for Solo Man, should I also report modern human brain size as a range within 2 standard deviations (so 930 to 1,500)?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:29, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have room for it, but the point does get across as is. Do the sources about Solo Man give these ranges? FunkMonk (talk) 02:50, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
those don't talk about modern human brain size at all, I assume because the people reading it should probably know what it is roughly   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:26, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think it works either way then. FunkMonk (talk) 03:07, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anything to link to for bone culture? And any way to make it clearer what it is at first mention?
bone technology?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:26, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, link it? FunkMonk (talk) 03:07, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
to what?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:47, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Bone technology. FunkMonk (talk) 01:07, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Who put that article there?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:32, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
it's already linked in taphonomy   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:26, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Acheulean was invented in Africa" Odd way to put it, "the Acheulean emerged in Africa" would make more sense.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:26, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Though a strict "Movius Line" is not well supported" You should indicate what it is. For example, a "Movius Line separating x from y" or "a dividing Movius Line".
in the preceding paragraph   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:26, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "So, they interpreted at the least Skulls IV and VI" The definite article is not needed here.
removed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:26, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "by French palaeontologist Marcellin Boule." When?
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:26, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Solo Man were" Incongruent tense.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:26, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link cannibalism.
done
  • I think "Possible cannibalism" could be renamed, as only a tiny minority of the section is even about it. You could call it possible antagonistic behaviour, pathologies, or similar.
only the last 3 sentences don't talk about assaulting or eating people, I would hardly call that a tiny minority   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:26, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Antagonism, yes, but almost none of it is about cannibalism, making the title misleading. The folloing is basically the only part of those two paragraphs that cover cannibalism, and alternative explanations are presented before and right after, taking much more space, so I don't think the current title is warranted: "Cannibalism and ritual headhunting have also been proposed for the Trinil, Sangiran, and Modjokerto sites (all in Java) based on the conspicuous lack of any remains other than the skullcap. This had been reinforced by the historic practice of headhunting and cannibalism in some modern Indonesian". FunkMonk (talk) 03:07, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
fixed "presuming this was done by other humans to access and consume the brain"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:47, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's better. FunkMonk (talk) 01:07, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The intro could mention its features were more derived than its earlier relatives, which is pointed out early in the anatomy section.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:26, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They manufactured simple flakes and choppers (hand held stone tools)" The article body seems less certain these were definitely made by Solo Man.
how?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:26, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For example "Because of wear caused by the river, it is difficult to identify with confidence that some of these rocks are actual tools". FunkMonk (talk) 03:07, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"some of these rocks" not all   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:47, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The skulls sustained damage" The article body seems to indicate it is only some of the skulls?
considering all the skulls are not 100% complete, they are all damaged. That's why they suggested all the Ngandong specimens were killed (other than Skulls IV and VI). Skulls IV and VI show signs of healing, so they suggested they were assaulted but survived   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:26, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi FunkMonk, just seeing how you're going responding to the last round of actions from Dunk... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:32, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Been busy in real life the last days, will have a look soon. FunkMonk (talk) 13:08, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Replies above. FunkMonk (talk) 03:07, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - looks good to me now with the last few changes. FunkMonk (talk) 19:29, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley edit

  • "modern human immigration into the area, which began roughly 55,000 years ago". This figure is not supported in the main text and a span might be better than one figure as the dating is so disputed.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:13, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As far as technology, they produced". This seems ungrammatical to me.
changed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:13, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "H. e. erectus". Java man would be more familiar to most readers.
changed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:13, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The species probably went extinct with the takeover of tropical rainforest" Maybe "transition to tropical rainforest"
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:13, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "continuing excavation of the site". presumably Haeckel's site, but this should be clarified.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:13, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "One of their missions was to firmly distinguish Tertiary and Quaternary deposits, among the relevant sites a bed dating to the Pleistocene discovered by Dutch geologist Carel ter Haar in 1931, downriver from the Trinil site, near the village of Ngandong". I lose you here. I think the grammar has gone wrong.
Tertiary and Quaternary beds on the island of Java were not well distinguished, so the Survey wanted to have more detailed stratigraphic maps of the island. One of the relevant beds which had the potential of more solidly defining the Quaternary on Java was a site ter Haar had reported near Ngandong.   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:13, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Von Koenigswald, who was hired principally to study Javan mammals, was let go in 1934." Let go is an HR euphemism. Sacked? Contract not renewed?
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:13, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1935, the Solo Men remains" Presumably the ones recovered 1931-3, but if so you should specify that they were designated as Solo Man.
I don't understand   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:13, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the lead you say that Solo Man is the name given to the bones found 1931-3. You do not spell this out in the main text, which says "From 1931 to 1933, 12 skull pieces (including well-preserved skullcaps) as well as two right tibiae (shinbones, one of which was essentially complete) were recovered under the direction of Oppenoorth, ter Haar, and German-Dutch geologist Gustav Heinrich Ralph von Koenigswald." It is a pedantic point, but it is so basic that I think you should say here that they were designated Solo Man. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:41, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, Solo Man refers to all the specimens from that site along the Solo River. Like how the Peking Man refers to all the specimens from the Zhoukoudian, not just the first few   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:46, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not think it should be "Solo Men". "Man" can cover both sexes but "Men" implies that they were all male. Ditto with with later mentions of Solo Men.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:13, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "is of limited use now anyways". I would delete "now anyways". It is superfluous and "anyways" is too colloquial.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:13, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Rhodesian Man should be linked.
it already is   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:13, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1950, Ernst Mayr entered the field of anthropology". Mayr was an anthropologist long before 1950.
changed to paleoanthropology   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:13, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The matter of Australian Aboriginal ties to Asian H. erectus was expanded upon in the 1960s and 70s" This is vague and colloquial. Maybe "The claim that Australian Aboriginal were descended from Asian H. erectus was expanded upon in the 1960s and 1970s".
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:13, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The multiregional model was not ubiquitously supported." "not ubiquitously" is a gross understatement.
I wouldn't characterize it like that   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:13, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The alternate hypothesis, first proposed by Jacob in 1973, is that the Sangiran/Trinil and Ngandong/Ngawi/Sambungmacan populations were sister groups that evolved parallel to each other.[15] If the alternate is correct, this could warrant species distinction as "H. soloensis", but the definitions of species and subspecies, especially in palaeoanthropology, are poorly drawn.[16]" I think it is confusing to finish the section with a hypothesis which is now generally rejected.
I wouldn't consider it rejected, just not widely discussed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:13, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Ngandong Fauna". I do not think Fauna should be capitalised. Ditto with other mentions of Fauna.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:01, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "By 125,000 years ago, the climate became much wetter". Perhaps worth mentioning that this was the height of the Eemian, when temperatures are thought to have been hotter than today, although of course you can only go by what your sources mention.
the warming I think is only really relevant to the poles where a large portion teeters just below or above freezing, so even a few degrees change is significant. The tropics mainly consider precipitation   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:01, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "more typical Punung Fauna — namely modern humans, orangutans, and gibbons — probably could not penetrate the island until it was reconnected to the continent 80,000 years ago". It sounds odd mentioning modern humans in this context both because they could cross water and they did not reach the area before 80,000 years ago.
It's unclear when boats were invented, the earliest definitive evidence comes from the Mesolithic. Is "after 80,000 years ago" better or should I remove modern humans?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:01, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would remove modern humans as not relevant since they had not then reached the area. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:20, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:04, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "H. erectus, a specialist in woodland and savannah biomes, likely went extinct with the transition to tropical rainforest." I do not understand this. The Solo H. erectus sub-species did survive the Eemian tropical forest phase. If the comment refers only to the mainland, this should be clarified.
it mainly talks about the disappearance of the Sundaland savannah corridor. The height of the Eemian doesn't necessarily confer to the total disappearance of open habitat, otherwise all the other open woodland species contemporary with Solo Man would've also gone extinct. And we are looking at a terminal population of a species on its last legs   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:01, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • But the site is post-Eemian and shows that this sub-species of erectus had survived the transition to tropical rainforest. Presumably the site dates to a period of transition back to woodland and savannah? Dudley Miles (talk) 15:20, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The actual date of the Punung Fauna was in 2007 argued to be Eemian contrary the source currently used and its many predecessors, which is no longer tenable in light of the most recent dating attempt of Ngandong to after the Eemian instead of the Penultimate Glaciation. These glacial/interglacial cycles don't necessarily mean fully savanna/fully rainforest, seeing as tropical rainforest represented by the Punung Fauna took over during a glacial period   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:58, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am still confused. Are you saying that the comment was made at a time when the site was believed to date to the Penultimate Glacial? The passage reads as if it is an explanation of current thinking. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:53, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is current thinking. The Ngandong savanna woodland fauna was replaced by the Pungung tropical rainforest fauna. No one has ever contradicted this. I'm unaware of any Eemian sites on Java, but it was likely warmer and more humid than the conditions of the Penultimate glaciation   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:02, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • So if H. erectus likely went extinct on Java in the Eemian and the island was cut off by a high sea level, how could Solo Man have been on Java soon afterwards? Dudley Miles (talk) 14:27, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
H. erectus does not have to go extinct during interglacial periods, the same way other woodland creatures don't have to either. They relatively not as fit for the environment as typical Punung fauna, but that didn't matter at the time since they were not yet in competition with the Punung fauna. Also the Eemian doesn't necessarily confer to the total disappearance of open habitat. Even today, Java has open woodland and savannas   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:56, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that the sentence we are discussing says that it did go extinct. It needs amendment if that is not what you mean. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:08, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So Java began transitioning to a jungle biome at the start of the Eemian, but this wasn't reversed at the exact date the Eemian ended, otherwise the Punung fauna wouldn't have been able to succeed. H. erectus went on the decline as the jungles expanded, sheltered in the last open-habitat refuges of East Asia until extinction. Solo Man was among the relict populations. The jungles wouldn't go on the decline until the Last Glacial Maximum   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:29, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am still confused and this is probably because I have not made clear what I think the problem is, so I will try to spell it out in detail. During the Penultimate Glacial Period sea levels were low and H. erectus was able to cross by land between Java and the mainland. (You put the Penultimate Glacial Maximum at 135,000 years ago, which seems a bit late, but I do not have access to your source.) This was followed by the Eemian interglacial, c. 130,000 to c. 115,000 years ago, with the maximum c. 125,000 years ago. You say "By 125,000 years ago, the climate became much wetter, making Java an island, and allowing for the expansion of tropical rainforests. This caused the succession of the Ngandong fauna by the Punung fauna, which represents the modern day animal assemblage of Java, though more typical Punung fauna — namely orangutans and gibbons — probably could not penetrate the island until it was reconnected to the continent after 80,000 years ago." You have expressed doubt whether modern man could have crossed the sea at that time, so I assume that you think H. erectus could not have crossed between Java and the mainland between before 125,000 years ago and after 80,000 years ago. You then say "H. erectus, a specialist in woodland and savannah biomes, likely went extinct with the transition to tropical rainforest." I would take the transition to tropical rainforest to have occurred c. 130,000 to 125,000 years ago, meaning that Solo Man, a sub-species of H. erectus, probably became extinct on Java at this time. In your latest post you say that H. erectus survived by sheltering in refuges in East Asia, presumably meaning the mainland as you say they probably became extinct on Java, but they could not have crossed the sea to Java. You say that the Ngandong site dates to between c. 117 and 108 thousands of years ago, but that is after you say that H. erectus probably became extinct on Java, which does not make sense. Have I misunderstood what you are saying, and if so how?
BTW "the climate became much wetter, making Java an island" is wrong. It was not the wet climate which made Java an island, but the heat melting ice caps and raising sea levels. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:26, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The hottest peak of the Eemian occurs 125,000 years ago, and corresponds with the warming and humidifying of Southeast Asia. Sundaland sinks as sea levels rise, and tropical rainforests begin to encroach on open savanna and woodland habitat over the next several tens of thousands of years. The peak of the Eemian does not necessarily preclude the persistence of savanna on Java. H. erectus goes on the decline and shelters in the few open-habitat refuges of East Asia, which includes Ngandong anywhere from 117–108 kya. Though the Eemian ends 115 kya and sea levels fluctuate, the climate is still wet enough to permit continued expansion of tropical rainforests. H. erectus, a savanna specialist, inevitably goes fully extinct (sometime after Ngandong), the precise time and location are of course unknowable due to the Signor–Lipps effect. 80 kya, sea levels dip low enough to the point Java is reconnected to the mainland, but the climate is still wet enough to permit the domination of tropical rainforests, despite it being a glacial period, which allows the Punung Fauna to immigrate onto the island. Savanna momentarily resurges at the Last Glacial Maximum 20 kya, but soon retreats.   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  13:02, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So "H. erectus, a specialist in woodland and savannah biomes, likely went extinct with the transition to tropical rainforest" is wrong. Maybe "H. erectus, a specialist in woodland and savannah biomes, likely went extinct with the loss of the last open habitat refugia"? On second thoughts, what you are saying is that the transition to tropical rainforests was long drawn out and continued past the end of the Eemian. However, this is not made clear in the article. I think it would be clearer to say "H. erectus, a specialist in woodland and savannah biomes, likely went extinct with the loss of the last open habitat refugia." Dudley Miles (talk) 14:01, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:02, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This has been reinforced by the historic practice of headhunting and cannibalism in some modern Indonesian, Australian, and Polynesian groups." I do not see the relevance of this as all the erectus groups died out long before modern humans reached the area.
At this time, as discussed in Classification, these races were believed to have descended from H. erectus from whom they inherited their savage cultural practices, as they still required a lot of evolution to reach more civilized mannerisms   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:01, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you need to spell out that the comment is based on a descent of modern man in the area from erectus which you say above has been disproved. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:20, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:58, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a first rate article but I have some further queries on earlier parts which I will raise. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:25, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments

  • "In order to find more remains of Java Man, the Prussian Academy of Sciences in Berlin tasked German zoologist Emil Selenka with continuing excavation of Trinil" You have just said that European experts dismissed Bubois's findings. Maybe clarify that dismissal was not universal.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  13:42, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "American palaeontologist Henry Fairfield Osborn and his apprentice William Diller Matthew" Apprentice sounds pejorative. Maybe protege.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  13:42, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A 2021 genomic study indicates that, aside from the Denisovans, modern humans never interbred with any of these endemic human species, unless the offspring were unviable or the hybrid lineages have since died out." As ereectus died out long before modern humans reached the area surely the words from "unless" onwards are superfluous.
I figured I'd add that in given the Signor-Lipps effect   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  13:42, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "finally 117 to 108 thousand years ago at Ngandong." This assumes that there are no undiscovered later sites, a very unsafe assumption.
Others can weigh in here but this is standard practice for a taxon only known from 1 site. Like Oxalaia reports the species existing from 100.5 to 93.9 mya because it's only found from the one place which is roughly dated to that time interval. When we say this is the fossil range, we don't mean it evolved 100.5 mya and went extinct 93.9 mya, we're saying this is where it appears in the fossil record   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  13:42, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It is unclear if this apparent bone technology can be associated with Solo Man or later modern human activity" In the lead you state as a fact that the technologies were Solo Man ones.
No, the lead says "They manufactured simple flakes and choppers (hand held stone tools), and possibly spears or harpoons from bones..."   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  13:42, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • These are all minor quibbles. My main remaining query is the dating. It seems odd to date a sub-species so specifically as 117-108,000 years ago, which you do in the infobox. Is there a source for dating the sub-species, not just the site, so narrowly? Dudley Miles (talk) 10:38, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 12 August 2021 [54].

Lights Up edit

Nominator(s): Ashleyyoursmile (talk) 12:04, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a song by English singer Harry Styles from his second studio album Fine Line. Critics have commented on the song's sound, arrangement, lyrics, and music video. "Lights Up" also received attention for its release on the National Coming Out Day and the video's imagery. The single became Styles's second top-10 entry in the UK, and attained platinum certifications in several countries. The article has received two peer reviews and was nominated at FAC once. I am thankful to all the reviewers who have provided feedback and helped to improve the prose, sourcing, and MOS issues of the article. Any comments would be appreciated. Ashleyyoursmile (talk) 12:04, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Aoba47 edit

Addressed comments

I am leaving this up as a placeholder. I have participated in both of the peer reviews for this song. I will likely support this for promotion as I believe all my concerns were already addressed in the last peer review, but I want to make sure that I do another thorough read-through first. Please ping me in a week if I do not come back to this. Aoba47 (talk) 02:52, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Aoba47. Looking forward to your comments.
  • This is super nitpick-y, but I think you can make this part, the lyrics are about self-discovery and find him embracing his own identity, somewhat more concise by saying, the lyrics are about self-discovery and him embracing his own identity, instead. I am uncertain about using "find" in the context of lyrics as they do not really "find" things if that makes sense.
  • revised
  • I think it might be beneficial to use sexual orientation in full when linking to the article rather than shortening to to "sexuality" just to avoid any unnecessary misinterpretation that it is about other parts of his sexuality.
  • kept it as "sexual orientation" in the lead
  • For this part, admitted that he felt "a lot of pressure" while making his debut album, I would paraphrase the quote. I know this sounds super nitpick-y so apologies in advance, but since you use more insightful and meaningful quotes in the following sentences, I think it would be helpful to paraphrase here to avoid having too many quotes and taking away from the subsequent ones.
  • I have changed to "was stressed out", does that sound better now?
  • I have changed it just "was stressed" as I think "stressed out" is a little too informal, but otherwise, I think it is good. Aoba47 (talk) 19:50, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this sentence, Fine Line turned out to be more experimental than his debut album, according to Vox's Alexa Lee., I would move the attribution to the start as it reads better that way to me.
  • This is a part of the sentence: A pop rock record encompassing power pop, folk rock, psychedelic pop, and funk influences, Fine Line turned out to be more experimental than his debut album, according to Vox's Alexa Lee. So don't you think moving it forward would make it sound a bit awkward?
  • That would make it awkward. For some reason, I did not see the beginning of the sentence. Thank you for pointing this out. Aoba47 (talk) 19:50, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a comment about this part,was a comment on Styles's fame. For this kind of phrasing, I have always seen and heard it as a "commentary on". The current word choice makes sense to me, but I still wanted to raise this to your attention to get your opinion.
  • agreed, revised
  • This is likely far too trivial to mention in this article, but would it be worth mentioning that the "Treat People with Kindness" caption was also the title of a song from the album ("Treat People with Kindness")?
  • I have added it, but I'm unsure about the flow of the text. Please let me know if it looks good.
  • Thank you for adding this. It looks good to me. Aoba47 (talk) 19:56, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies again for the nitpicks, but for this part, for experimenting with newer styles, I would say "different styles" as I believe they are praising Styles for pursuing different sounds. I think the phrase "newer styles" could be misinterpreted as him literally inventing or playing with newer styles in music in general.
  • changed to "different"
  • Since the more critical reviews have their own paragraph, do you think this should be represented in the lead in some way?
  • added a line "A few criticised the song as forgettable". Do you think "criticised" should be replaced with another word?
  • Would it be worthwhile to link psychedelics in this part, Styles's declaration that he used psychedelics?
  • linked now
  • I believe for this part, said the visual portrayed a more emotional side of Styles, it should be "portrays" as when things are described in the music video, it is in the present tense.
  • changed to present tense, thanks
  • this seems like as an excellent finding. Thank you very much. :) I made a request at the resource exchange.
  • it is available on ProQuest. The article doesn't talk about the song, unfortunately. It's a study on his evolution since debut and also more about the notion of fluid masculinity of boy bands. I have added a very small portion on "gendered fashion" to the discussion of music video.
  • Thank you for addressing this. Looks good to me. Aoba47 (talk) 19:52, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I hope my above comments are helpful. Apologies again for being super nitpick-y. I think this article is very well-written and engaging and once all my comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this for promotion. Best of luck with this FAC and have a great weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 06:44, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Aoba47, you have helped a lot to develop the article. I cannot thank you enough for that. I have responded to your comments above. Also, the song had a platinum upgrade today, so I changed it accordingly in the lead. But do you think the use of "Platinum" in the lead is becoming too repetitive now?
Ashleyyoursmile, I don't think you're allowed to use graphics/templates. Per WP:FAC: Please do not use graphics or templates on FAC nomination pages. Pamzeis (talk) 09:03, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pamzeis, apologies. I wasn't aware of this. I have removed the graphics.

Thank you for addressing all my comments. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. Best of luck with the FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 19:56, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the support, Aoba47. I appreciate it. :)

Image review edit

  • File:Tyler_Johnson,_music_producer.jpg: don't see that license statement at given link. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:42, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, Nikkimaria. I have now replaced the image.

Support from SNUGGUMS edit

I just made one minor change here and can safely say I support. All my other concerns were previously addressed during Wikipedia:Peer review/Lights Up/archive2. A job well done! SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 14:29, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for the support, SNUGGUMS. I appreciate your help with the article. :)

Support from MaranoFan edit

I will try to give it another read later today, but most probably it should be good to go. :) There's just one concern I noticed right away, that there are 159 usages of "Styles" on the page. So maybe his pronouns could be used in more places if possible. I touched on this in the PR as well. Regards.--NØ 03:14, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for noticing this. I will try to fix this right away. :)
  • MaranoFan, I have copy-edited it now. Please let me know if it reads better.
Happy to add my support.--NØ 06:46, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the support, MaranoFan. I appreciate you helping me through the process. :)

Source review by Bilorv edit

All sources are reliable and the formatting is almost flawless—here's the only criticisms I can find (ref numbers as of Special:Permalink/1036701910):

  • good catch, fixed now
  • Shouldn't Uproxx be in italics (ref 11)? It's a website name.
  • you're right, fixed now
  • I have a query here. I'm mostly citing the chart positions from the {{single chart}} template which is auto-generating the titles and publishers for the references. So if you notice, Association of Hungarian Record Companies is already linked on the Hungary reference. Would you rather that I format the citation normally?
  • Ah, I see. Okay, I'm fine with it being left as is then. — Bilorv (talk) 17:03, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks on refs 2, 7, 13, 24, 34, 38, 44, 48, 72, 82, 99, 112, 118.

  • Ref #2 doesn't need to be cited in the "During an interview with Zane Lowe of Apple Music ..." sentence, and the "fun and adventurous" sentence also seems to come from the Lowe/Apple Music source rather than #2.
  • removed now, thanks for pointing out

Very impressive work! — Bilorv (talk) 14:03, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bilorv, thank you for taking time to do the source review. Much appreciated. :) I have responded above.
Support: excellent-quality and meticulously-formatted sourcing that supports all of the article content as far as spotchecking shows. — Bilorv (talk) 17:03, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the support, Bilorv.

Support from Ojorojo edit

All of my concerns were addressed during the peer review and I don't see any problems with the subsequent clarifications/changes. This is a high quality article that meets all of the criteria and deserves to be a FA. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:21, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the support, Ojorojo. Really appreciated your help with the article.

Comments from Heartfox edit

  • "In the UK, the single reached number three on the chart" → specify UK Singles Chart.
  • done now
  • "and was certified Platinum" → specify British Phonographic Industry. Also link certifications here as it appears before the current link in the next sentence.
  • specified and linked the certifications here, removed it from the later instance
  • "He disliked feeling obligated to create a record to appease the audience" → specify the audience
  • changed it to "the listeners". Please let me know if that's alright.
  • I believe "Rea Mcnamara" should be spelled Rea McNamara
  • fixed now, thanks
  • "Prior to the release of "Lights Up", Styles launched a campaign on World Mental Health Day" → is there a date for this?
  • 10 October, added it now
  • "the song was added to a BBC Radio playlist" → specify BBC Radio 1
  • done now
  • "prodigal return to the pop slipstream" → can this be simplified
  • changed it to "generous return to pop slipstream". Is that okay?
  • The whole sentence feels really wordy to me idk it's hard to understand. If the paragraph is about Styles experimenting with different styles (which the first sentence suggests) then I would refer to Caramanica's quote "Somewhere between '70s soft rock, lite disco and indie pop" in the paragraph instead. Also, the NYT article is not about "the best songs of [the] release week" but "the week's most notable new songs and videos" so the previous sentence shouldn't be citing The New York Times as doing so.
  • Heartfox, would you prefer if the original wording of the quote is retained here? I think the "Somewhere between '70s soft rock, lite disco and indie pop" quote is more appropriate for the music and lyrics section. I have removed NYT from the week's best songs sentence. Please let me know what you think.
  • I don't think the quote goes with the other sentences in the paragraph:
  • "Snapes praised the song's refreshing sound that distinguished Styles from his British male contemporaries and from the "narcotised" synth-pop-dominated sounds of that year"
  • "Time's Raisa Bruner regarding it as an example of his versatility"
  • "The Atlantic's Spencer Koornhaber said the track rendered the type of eerie yet simple listening territory that had seldom been explored since Donovan's "Mellow Yellow"."
  • "O'Connor called it Styles's most self-confident song yet. To explain this viewpoint, she highlighted that Styles's identity often felt lost in the middle of musical tropes on his debut album. Contrastingly, O'Connor argued that "Lights Up" stood out on its own."
  • These all reflect the opening sentence "Some critics commended Styles for experimenting with different styles." Caramanica's quote "a soft-touch re-entry into the pop slipstream. Somewhere between ’70s soft rock, lite disco and indie pop, it doesn’t ask much more of Styles’s voice than a gentle coo, and surrounds it with a plangent sparkle" doesn't seem to fit in with the rest of the paragraph, so I would leave it out. Heartfox (talk) 15:46, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Heartfox, thank you for the detailed response. I have a query. Isn't the NYT quote also highlighting his re-entry to pop? So it falls in the rest of the quotes.
  • Was he not doing pop music before? I still don't see how it fits in with the rest of the paragraph about experimenting with different styles aside from "Somewhere between '70s soft rock, lite disco and indie pop." Heartfox (talk) 18:23, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not really, his debut album was a 1970s rock record.
  • "It was Styles's Hot 100 chart appearance following "Sign of the Times" → is there a word missing here?
  • thank you for pointing this, added "second"
  • ref 35 is not url-access=subscription as the article text is readable by clicking the "Show article text (OCR)" button
  • you're right, removed now
  • per MOS:CONFORMTITLE bullet #4, stuff like "Fine Line" or "Billboard" should be italicized in article titles in citations.
  • done now. Let me know if I've missed out any.
  • I think "Jools Holland" should be as well in ref 52
  • done now, thanks

Heartfox (talk) 21:50, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Heartfox, pinging again. I have revised the NYT quote in the reception and went by Homeostasis07's suggestion below. Let me know what you think, and if you'd be willing to support this. --Viridian Bovary (talk) 18:33, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that works better. Happy to support and congratulations on your hard work with the article! Heartfox (talk) 21:19, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the support, Heartfox. :)

Support from Homeostasis07 edit

Hi @Viridian Bovary:. This article is in fine shape, save these few minor suggestions.

Writing and production

  • "He said;" → "He said:" or just "He said,"
  • revised

Music and lyrics

  • "Editorials reviews of Paper and Time noted a melancholic edge to the lyrics." → Editorial reviews by Paper and Time noted a melancholic edge to the lyrics.
  • revised

Release and promotion

  • Hilary Hughes of Billboard praised the performance, writing; → Change the ; at the end to a :
  • changed now

Critical reception

  • "Caramanica described "Lights Up" as a generous return to the pop slipstream that played to Styles's strengths, demanding nothing more than a soft coo from his voice surrounded by a melancholy vivacity." → I agree with Heartfox's point above. As it is, the sentence is a bit wordy, and the latter half doesn't really make that much sense, at least to me. I'd consider simplifying to something like "Caramanica described "Lights Up" as a generous return to pop that played to Styles's strengths."
  • thank you for the suggestion, revised it accordingly
  • In a similar vein, Loiuse Bruton from The Irish Times likened the song production-wise. → "likened" means comparing. Change this to "liked", or rephrase to something along the lines of "In a similar vein, Loiuse Bruton from The Irish Times complimented the song's production."
  • you're right, changed to "complimented"
  • Andrew Unterberger was more critical in his review for Billboard in which he singled out the song's direction as deceptive and wrote that the track "never quite tells you where its going and then leaves you off somewhere you don't even recognise." Best to correct quotes where necessary for proper usage. its → it's
  • thank you for noticing, changed now

Commercial performance

  • removed now

Later sections

  • I checked all the chart positions and certifications, and can confirm they're accurate. The only thing I would suggest changing is the reference for Singapore. Since the primary link goes to the current chart and the relevant info can only be seen by checking the archive URL, I think you should change |url-status=live to |url-status=dead.
  • done

Otherwise, I thought this was a well written and informative article. Will be happy to support once these are resolved. Hope you're keeping well. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 01:14, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Homeostasis07, thank you for taking time to comment. Much appreciated. :) I've responded above. --Viridian Bovary (talk) 18:33, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the prompt response. I'm happy with the changes you've made, so can gladly support this article for promotion. Good luck with the nomination. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 00:20, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 9 August 2021 [55].

1964 European Nations' Cup Final edit

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:57, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as we head toward the final of the UEFA Euro 2020 tournament, there's no better time to take a look back at the "good old days" of the Soviet Union, the involvement of Franco and Khrushchev, and all overseen by an Englishman. Proper pre-Brexit "soccer" fare for one and all. As always, I will be delighted to address any constructive comments as soon as practicable, and thank you in advance for your time and energy. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:57, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

  • Image licensing looks OK (t · c) buidhe 21:39, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks buidhe. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:44, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Commments from valereee edit

In the 2nd para of the lead: The referee for the final was Arthur Holland from England and the match was played in front of an attendance of 79,115 spectators. It's a run-on as is, and maybe just needs to be recast into two sentences as they aren't really related. Probably attendance > audience or possibly crowd if the reason for choosing audience was to avoid too-close para? —valereee (talk) 18:19, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 18:25, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in so far as we never call attendance at football match an "audience". And actually, of course the sentences are related, both being about the final. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 18:30, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Same para: With six minutes of the match remaining, Pereda beat Anichkin and played in a cross which Viktor Shustikov failed to clear, before Marcelino headed the winning goal inside the near post. I feel like the comma in the section I've bolded is an awkward choice. Maybe recast? —valereee (talk) 18:24, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree, when I read it out loud, the comma there makes a good, natural pause. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 18:26, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from ChrisTheDude edit

Comments
  • "It was the second UEFA European Football Championship final" - technically it was the second European Nations' Cup final. Can it be reworded to something like "the second final of what is now called the UEFA European Football Championship"?
  • "the previous tournament winners Soviet Union" => "the previous tournament winners the Soviet Union."
  • "crossed for Chus Pereda who scored, to give Spain a 1–0 lead" => "crossed for Chus Pereda, who scored to give Spain a 1–0 lead"
  • "the semi-finals and final taking place in Spain, between 17 and 21 June 1964" - that comma kinda makes it read like everything up to that point took place in that five day period. Any way to reword?
  • "The home side took an early 2–0 with goals" => "The home side took an early 2–0 lead with goals"
  • "Spain's semi-final opposition were Hungary, who they faced" => "Spain's semi-final opposition were Hungary, whom they faced"
  • Luis Suárez was playing? Wow, he's much older than I thought :-D
  • "Amancio diverted into the Hungary goal" => "Amancio diverted it/the ball into the Hungary goal"
  • "took the ball past Eduard Mudrik and after making a one-two with Lapetra, before crossing for Pereda" - this doesn't seem to be gramatically correct
  • "after suffering defeat against West Germany and Argentina and failed to progress" => "after suffering defeat against West Germany and Argentina and failing to progress"
  • That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:33, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ChrisTheDude thanks for your comments, I've had a shot at addressing them all, let me know what you think and if you have anything else I need to address. Re: Suarez, yes I was going to use that as a quirky DYK but felt the Franco/Khrushchev angle was more encyclopedic! Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 14:54, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Lirim.Z edit

  • "The match was contested by Spain and the previous tournament winners the Soviet Union." Isn't there a comma missing between winners and the? "tournament winners, the Soviet Union."
  • "There they faced Northern Ireland, with the first leg taking place at the" -> comma after there
  • MOS:Caps No need to write Euro's in all caps in the references
  • Looks really good!--Lirim | Talk 07:25, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lirim.Z hi, and thanks for your comments! I think I've addressed them all, please let me know if there's anything else I can do? Many thanks. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:07, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Read through it again and couldn't find any flaws. Great article. Lirim | Talk 20:01, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Amakuru edit

  • "UEFA's top football competition for national teams" - sort of obvious I suppose, but should this be cited? And is "top" a proper encyclopedic adjective in this context?
  • "Spain had refused to play against the Soviet Union in the quarter-final" - Easter Egg link, should probably have "the quarter-final" as the link text.
  • Route to the final tables - the scores are wrapping in an annoying fashion, with just the final (H) or (A) on a new line. Either wrap the whole second leg, or widen the column so that it fits on one line.
  • "where they faced Romania" - prefer "in which"
  • "There, they faced Northern Ireland" - similar thing, I know you can use this type of wording but it still sounds slightly wrong to treat a round of the competition as a location
  • "Their goalkeeper, Bobby Irvine..." - might be useful to say "Northern Ireland's" as the last "they" you mentioned was Spain
  • "Bobby Irvine, twice denied Amancio Amaro before he opened the scoring..." at first I read this as Bobby Irvine opening the scoring.
  • "Marcelino scored his side's fifth goal after taking a deflection off Hurley" - sort of sounds like Marcelino himself deflected off Hurley here, rather than the ball being deflected
  • "it was to no avail" - sounds a bit like an WP:IDIOM
  • "10 yards (9.1 m)" - too precise
  • "the final tournament which they themselves would host" - was this as a result of their being in the event themselves, or was it preordained? (The background section could probably have covered that aspect in brief).
    Well all sources say that Spain were the hosts of the final tournament. They don't say when this was made official or why. That is already noted in the Background section. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 05:43, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Chipping in momentarily just to say that all the tournaments held under the original format (only four teams qualified) were hosted by one of the final four, so we can presume that the host nation was only decided once it was known who had qualified (either that or it's a monumental coincidence :-D). But I'm afraid I can't shed any light on what the actual selection process was. So not really any help, I'm afraid, but I just thought I would point that out for info :-D -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:03, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Soviet Union's European Nations' Cup campaign saw them receive a bye in the preliminary round" - why was that?
    Sources don't say why but it was presumably to get the odd number of entrants down to a binary number for knockout purposes. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 05:38, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and as such, their first match" - doesn't really need to say "as such" probably, could just say "and their first match..."
  • "The first competitive match between the sides took place at the Central Lenin Stadium in Moscow on 13 October 1963" - it sounds like you might be talking about some earlier match than the one in question here. Make it clear that this was the first competitive match
  • "There, they faced Sweden" - hmm, there again
  • "There they faced Denmark"
  • The summary feels very short compared to previous section - the final isn't described in much more detail than any of the other games. I guess you're going to tell me that's all the information your sources have though...
    Yes indeed. This was covered in scant detail in contemporary press, I have all the books I can find on the subject. If you can find anything I've missed, please point me to it. And to be fair, the previous section is covering 12 games with 37 goals and one period of extra time while this section covers 1 game, 3 goals... The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 05:43, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I did add some more detail from Kier's book which I had forgotten about (because I've been working on a couple of these) so hopefully that's beefed it up a little. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 06:02, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's about all for now. I'll have another look after you've taken a deco at this tranche.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:34, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Amakuru I've taken a stab at those, unless I've commented I've pretty much blindly followed your suggestions...! Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 05:38, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, jolly good. That satisfies my concerns now, happy to support. Good work as ever.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:46, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review — Pass edit

  • #1: Contributors and last edited date can be added—see links on the left. Link not archived.
  • #37: Link not archived.
  • Bibliography: Publisher locations missing.

Boy, nothing much to see here. This version looked at. --Usernameunique (talk) 14:57, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Usernameunique hey, thanks for those comments all of which I have now addressed hopefully. Let me know if there's anything else I need to address. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:27, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:00, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Query for the coordinators edit

@FAC coordinators: with three supports and image/source review passing, can I nominate another article? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:42, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:47, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 13:53, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Z1720 edit

Non-expert prose review.

  • "All but three of UEFA's team of the tournament had featured in the final, including six Spain and two Soviet Union players." What is a team of the tournament? Can there be a short description in the article?
  • I checked the lede and infobox to ensure the information was in the article and found no issues.

Excellent article. Just one issue to resolve. Z1720 (talk) 19:14, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Z1720 thanks very much. I am struggling to find anything more I can say, it's just like an MVP but a "best" team selected from all the the competing teams. There's nothing specific to say about it beyond that, and even that detail is not "verifiable" for the 1968 final, like it is for (say) the 2020 team. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:07, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Information that can't be verified shouldn't be added, so we'll just leave out that explanation. I also did a quick search and couldn't find any information explaining what it is. That was my only concern, so I support. Z1720 (talk) 15:16, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, much appreciated. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:48, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note edit

Hi TRM, the match report link appears to show the players' numbers but not their positions on the field -- or did I miss something (entirely possible)? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:59, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Rose I added another UEFA ref which indicates (by inference) the positions shown, in the team listings toward the bottom of the source it shows the teams with semi-colons delineating between GK, DEF, MF and FW players. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:52, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 9 August 2021 [56].

1986–87 Gillingham F.C. season edit

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:24, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a full and detailed account of the exploits of the English football (soccer) club Gillingham during the 1986-87 season. I was 14 years old at the time and followed the team's ups and downs with the passion which only a 14-year-old fan can exhibit :-) I actually created this article way back in 2011 but then didn't really touch it again until, inspired by the excellent work done by Kosack with current FAC nom 1921–22 Cardiff City F.C. season, I decided to expand this article and managed to take it from 2K to 58K. Your comments will be very gratefully received and acted upon as swiftly as possible...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:24, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Aoba47 edit

Addressed comments

This is very outside of my comfort zone, but since I have worked with ChrisTheDude in the past, I would like to review this and at least try to broaden my Wikipedia horizons somewhat. Hopefully a completely unfamiliar perspective will be helpful. Please ping me in a week if for whatever reason I have not posted any comments. Have a great day! Aoba47 (talk) 05:17, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: - very much looking forward to your review! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:40, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would encourage you to add ALT text to the Tony Cascarino image. Aoba47 (talk) 23:41, 5 July 2021 (UTC) done[reply]
  • I have a clarification question about this sentence: Before the season began, a series of wranglings took place involving the club's board of directors. By "wranglings", are you referring to something specific for football or the more general meaning (i.e. dispute; disputation; quarreling)? There is not wrong with the current version, but if I am being honest, I do not think I have ever seen that word used, but that could just be a cultural thing as I am American. Is this a common word to use here? done - changed to "disputes"
  • For this part, and the club paid semi-professional club Welling United a fee, I think it may be helpful to add a link to the semi-professional sports articles for "semi-professional". It is probably obvious to most readers, but as someone who is not familiar with sports really at all, I was uncertain of what this meant. done
  • Throughout the article, I notice some minor spacing issues, which are mostly just additional space between the end of a sentence and the start of a new one. I have fixed some of these. I know this is a pain, but I'd look through the article to see if there are any other ones. I am not sure why these spacing issues happened in the first place. done - didn't spot any others
  • For this part, but failed to agree personal terms with Reading, I am not really sure what is meant by "agree personal terms", but again it could just a cultural difference. done - changed to "failed to agree a contract" - basically it means that he and Reading could not come to an agreement on the terms of his contract (presumably wages, etc)
  • Would a link for league table be beneficial? I believe the first time this is mentioned is here, left Gillingham in fifth place in the league table. done
  • I would link goal scorer on the first instance, especially since other positions like captain and winger get links. - not done - goal scorer is not a position, it just means a player who scores/scored a goal. Any player can be a goal scorer and potentially a team's top scorer. Quite early in one season in the 1970s, Mancester United's top scorer was their goalkeeper :-) Goal scorer redirects to attacker, which I personally think is debateable and potentially confusing......
  • In this part, due to heavy snow in the south of England, would it be beneficial to use a link to the Southern England article? done
  • For the Tony Cascarino image, I would add the year that it was taken for further context. done - couldn't narrow it down to a specific year, even though it's my own photo :-)
  • The Newspapers.com sources require a subscription to view the articles. I would recommend that you either take clippings of these sources, which do not require a subscription to view, or modify the citation to clarify that a subscription is required to view the source. done
  • I have a question about Citation 49 and Citation 71. They are both referencing books, but the full citations are put in the references section while the other books have the full citations in the bibliography section with the last name, publication year, and page number put in the references section. I would revise this two to match the others.
    • I've done one, but I can't format the other in the same way because I don't have a page ref (I only have access to the Google Books version, which doesn't show page numbers). How should I treat this one?
  • I would just have the last name and the publication year without the page number since it is not available. I have done that in past FACs without an issue. Aoba47 (talk) 20:19, 6 July 2021 (UTC) done[reply]
  • For Citation 71, I would hyphenate the ISBN number as you have done for the other ones too to be consistent. done
  • It is not required for a FAC, but I would encourage you to archive web citations (like citations 32 and 62) to avoid any future hassle. I do not think the Newspapers.com or Gale citations need to be archived.

I hope that my comments are helpful. Again, I am completely unfamiliar with this subject as I do not think I have watched any sports game all the way through. Despite that, I still found the article to be engaging and I did not have any trouble following the actual information. A majority of my comments are focused on the prose, with a few about the citations at the end. Once everything is addressed, I will be more than happy to support the FAC for promotion. If possible, I would greatly appreciate any feedback on my current FAC. I hope you are having a great start of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 01:31, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: - many thanks for your review! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:22, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoba47: - final point addressed :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:23, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for addressing everything and for your patience with the review. I support this FAC for promotion. I think you have done a wonderful job with the article. Everything is very clear and engaging even to someone like myself who is not really knowledgable about sports at all. If possible, I would greatly appreciate any help with my current FAC, but I understand if you do not have the time or interest. I am just glad that I could look at something outside of my comfort zone to at least try and help. Have a great week! Aoba47 (talk) 18:34, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: - many thanks for your support, and I will certainly endeavour to take a look at your FAC over the next few days -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:18, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. I am just glad that I could help at least a little. Aoba47 (talk) 18:44, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from TRM edit

  • Both home and away kits are blue and white. What happened when they played away at teams like Carlisle? Is there a ref for those shirts by the way?
  • "voted back" could be link, I assume, to Re-election (Football League)?
  • "the play-offs for" link those.
  • 'and hope that two" well, that actually had to not win, not just Gillingham "hoped" they'd not win. You know what I mean, this just seems a little unecyclopedic.
  • "both rival teams", "two other teams" enigmatic, any reason?
  • "in the final." there's an article for that.
  • "replay at a neutral venue," link both replay and neutral venue.
  • "Gillingham also reached" Perhaps go back to "During the season" or something as we're firmly parked at the end following the previous para.
  • "the highest number of appearances" -> "the most appearances".
  • Cascarino scored 14 goals in 17 non-Division Three appearances? That's remarkable.
    • He was a legend, and no mistake :-)
  • "southern section" but the table says "Semi-final (southern region)" was it section or region?
  • "1986–87 season " put season inside the pipe.
  • All those suggestions I made for links, do them all in the main prose too.
  • "team gained promotion from the Fourth Division in 1974.[1] " maybe add "as runners-up"?
  • "In the preceding 12 seasons" preceding which season?
  • "and 1984–85 seasons" again, seasons inside pipe.
  • Apply that hereafter...
  • "Gillingham had finished fifth and missed out on promotion by two places." I wonder, it may be worth noting why fifth missed out on promotion that season yet fifth got them into the play-offs in the subject season...
    • I would say that is already covered by the bit that says "At the start of the season, the Football League had introduced a new play-off system, under which the teams which finished just below the automatic promotion places in the Second, Third, and Fourth Divisions would have the opportunity to compete for one further promotion place", no...?
  • Is "winding-up order" something all our English-speaking brethren understand?
  • "win the championship of the Second Division" curious phrasing, I'd just have said "win Second Division" or worst case "win the Second Division title"
  • "team warmed up for " touch colloquial, maybe "prepared"?
  • "for which Tottenham Hotspur of the First Division provided the opposition" -> "against First Division side Tottenham Hotspur".
  • Newport is an AFC btw.
  • "the Welsh team" many readers won't know Newport is in Wales. Indeed, there's a Newport not a million miles from me.
  • "against Bristol City in" overlinked.
  • "scored in a 1–1 draw and then scored" scored scored... repetitive.
  • "came at the hands of" maybe just remove "the hands of" as that's a bit unencyclopedic and a shade anthropomorphic.
  • "another Saturday off" -> "another Saturday without a game" and here's a question, do our readers all know games mainly take place on Saturdays?
  • "100% home record in the league, having won every game played at" saying almost the same thing twice, I'd just say they won every game played at home at Dean Court in the league thus far.
  • Link sent off.
  • "consecutive days, but a draw " but?
  • Fulham is overlinked.
  • "in 3rd place" third?
  • "more than 4,000 more than" repetitive.
  • "to this point" that point.
  • Link hat-trick.
  • "against Brentford on " overlinked.
  • "to 6th in the" sixth?
  • "sustained an injury" any information on that?
    • Sorry no, can't find anything on what sort of injury it was
  • "before returning" only a month loan? Did Shearer recover in that time?
  • "out of favour again" was he out of favour before? Is that why the time between signing and his debut was extended? Sounds odd to sign someone and them immediately be out of favour?
  • Ah, Shearer came back in March, that's only four weeks, not such an "extended period"?
  • "score a hat-trick, scoring three goals" maybe replace "scoring" with "with"?
  • "on Easter Monday, drew" interesting, you avoided "Boxing Day" and "New Year's Day" but Easter Monday is a thing...
  • "from Brighton & Hove Albion during" overlinked.
  • "began the month of April" no real need for "the month of" is there?
  • Link foul.
  • "against Bristol Rovers on 25 April" overlinked.
  • "the league table, " you link that here?
  • "teams finishing third, fourth, and fifth in the final league table" what about the team from the league above playing to stay in their division?
  • "defeat Bolton Wanderers on the last day of the league season and hope that both Bristol City and Notts County failed " all three overlinked, and again "hope" isn't what needed to happen.
  • Avoid semi-colons for bold text/pseudo-headers.
  • Partial league table needs WP:ACCESS code, e.g. col/row scopes.
  • Indeed, I would copy one of the magic tables from the playoff final articles as it has hover-over abbreviation explanation and is fully screen-reader savvy.

That takes me to "Play-offs" which is obviously my favourite bit, so I'm saving that and subsequent sections. I think there's enough to be getting on with. Cheers for now. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:07, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: - all done (I think). For ease, you can see all the edits I made re: the above, here -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 05:50, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of us like to link "relegation" as well as promotion, while it technically results in overlinking, the terms are so distinct that it could be considered useful to our readers.
  • "with three clubs from" which ones.
  • "scored a hat-trick after" overlinked.
  • "score(d)" is used twenty times in these two paras, can we mix up the prose a little?
  • "into the second leg.[54] In the second leg at" repetitive.
  • "second round, the team played" last team mentioned was Kettering.
  • "from a penalty kick but" link.
  • "of the First Division.[65] " overlinked.
  • "This was the highest number of goals conceded" -> This was the most goals conceded?
  • Link round-robin.
    • Done as far as here, not my wife needs the laptop. Back later..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:26, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Worth noting in the stadium image captions when each picture was taken.
  • "No player appeared in only one game" bit factoidy.
  • "only added two " 2.
  • Could crop that Kite image, it's a bit odd (but I know it's the best we have).
  • Player stats table, the competitions could be linked to the season competition (where available) rather than the generic competition articles.
  • " gain promotion Cascarino" comma before Cass.
  • "star player" is this encyclopedic tone?
  • "represent the Republic of Ireland at" overlinked.
  • "season beat Southend United 8–1 and" overlinked.
  • Strictly, the 11v11 link doesn't show the relegation zone for the 87/88 season table...
  • Newspaper.com clips aren't subscription only, anyone can see them I think...
  • "On Film..." could use a non-breaking space before the ellipsis. Same for ref 73.
  • Gale does need subscription though.
  • As does BNA.
  • Check page numbers are present where available e.g. ref 37 is p. 26.

That's all I have for now. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 06:54, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: - all of that lot done now, I believe. Sum total of diffs is here for your perusal..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:29, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All good for me, thanks for addressing my pedantry, gets my support. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:19, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Edwininlondon edit

I'll make a start:

  • first sentence: I would argue that the first sentence should at least say which division they played in (see 1980–81 Ipswich Town F.C. season)
  • fifty-fifth season --> in the body you have 55th
  • voted back into the League --> are you sure about the capital L? Doesn't look right to me
  • was an ever-present --> is this okay as a noun? I've only ever seen it as an adjective

Just been told there is football on the telly, so taking a break and back for more later ... Edwininlondon (talk) 18:46, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Done the first three. And yes, ever-present can be a noun. See, for example, this BBC story, the first sentence of which is "Newcastle United youngster Kelland Watts says he hopes to be an ever-present at League One Plymouth Argyle." -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:35, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A bit more. Not much I could find. Just these nitpicking ones:

  • Partial league table: there is an argument to be made to show position 6 and 7 as well
  • why is Swindon bold in this partial league table?
    • Because I copied it from the article on the play-off final and forgot to unbold them :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:08, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • the starting XI --> I guess you're trying to avoid repetition of "starting line-up", but XI is a bit too cryptic I think.
  • Source:[28] --> Can [28] not just simply move to the table's header Player statistics[28] ?
  • Bibliography: usually we have the publisher's location as well

That's all I could find. I applaud your ability to write neutral prose despite being a lifelong fan. Edwininlondon (talk) 17:45, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Edwininlondon: - all done, and thank you for your kind words! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:08, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work. I support on prose. Edwininlondon (talk) 17:06, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

I noticed that a source review is still needed. I shall start one shortly. Edwininlondon (talk) 14:44, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Edwininlondon: Thanks! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:56, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spotcheck:

  • #2 #11 #31 #35 #36 #47 #48 #52 #53 #57 #61 #84 all ok
  • #45 links to the wrong article
  • #65 does not mention Aldridge is a Republic of Ireland player

Edwininlondon (talk) 06:05, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Edwininlondon: - fixed #45 (no idea what I did there!) and added second ref to #65 to support Aldridge's status as an Irish international -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:50, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, #45 and new #66 ok. Given your experience at FAC I think this suffices as far as checks go. Edwininlondon (talk) 06:26, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Edwin, tks for that spotcheck -- did you also happen to check the references for reliability and formatting? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:03, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Formatting ok. Reliability also looks ok to me. There is some reliance on matchday programmes. I'm guessing the reliability of matchday programmes has been discussed here at FAC before, although I am not able to find any using Search. For the claims made here in this FAC article I am happy with its use. Source review passed as far as I'm concerned. Edwininlondon (talk) 06:26, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass edit

Image licensing looks OK. (t · c) buidhe 08:34, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Amakuru edit

I promised you a review on your last FAC, and never got around to it, so making amends here!

Background and preseason
  • "Paul Taylor continued in the role of assistant manager" - this makes it sounds like we already know he was in this role, but it is in fact the first mention.
  • "first team trainer" - maybe hyphenate, assuming he's the trainer of the first team, rather than the earliest of the team trainers.
  • "Mark Weatherly took over as team captain, replacing Keith Oakes," - did he replace him before the season began, or only when Oakes left the club?
  • "Four days later, however, following a showdown meeting..." - I'm not sure you need "however" here. I'm not really sure what it's howevering.
  • "The directors then issued a statement to Gillingham supporters stating that the club's finances were now under control" - then and now? I think maybe the now can be removed.
  • "the winding-up order had been withdrawn" - was a liquidation order actually issued then? I'm not a legal expert and don't know much about this, but it seems from [57] that the winding-up order actually means the deed is done. That page says: "Once a winding-up order is made, the Official Receiver becomes the liquidator". Did that happen at Gillingham? If so, it's unclear to me how it gets withdrawn. Maybe clarify this if you have the info available.
  • "The most high-profile signing" - according to whom? This should probably either be attributed, or qualified with some objective measure on which it was the most high profile.
  • "most notably defender Mel Sage" - ditto
August–December
  • "Colin Greenall, a highly-rated defender signed from Blackpool" - there should be an off-setting comma after "defender"
  • "a game in which Cascarino was sent off" - this is the first mention of Cascarino in the body I believe, so should give his full name and link
January–May
  • No issues that I can see.
Results
  • For Fulham (H) 4–1 you only give three scorers.
Partial league table

I feel like some sort of indication as to who was promoted and who made he play-offs would be useful. In a MOS:ACCESS compatible way of course, perhaps a notes column at the end, as wee see at 1986–87_Football_League#Third_Division.

Play-offs
  • "to give Gillingham a two-goal lead" - clarify that this is on aggregate.
Players
  • "youth team manager" - perhaps hyphenate

That's about it. Looks good otherwise. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 16:52, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lead (forgot to look at this yesterday)
  • "Gillingham faced Swindon Town in the final. The two teams drew 2–2 on aggregate in the final" - two instances of "the final" in close succession is repetitive.
  • I'd also prefer "the final" rather than "the final".
  • Looking at 1980–81 Ipswich Town F.C. season, I see it has an overall summary of won/drawn/lost during the season in the lead. Is that something you could include here?
  • Otherwise looks good.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:32, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Z1720 edit

Non-expert prose review.

  • "The team's form declined in the second half of the season, however, meaning that to qualify for the play-offs for promotion to the Football League Second Division, a level at which the club had never played, the team needed to win their final game and both Bristol City and Notts County not to win theirs." -> "The team's form declined in the second half of the season; to qualify for the play-offs for promotion to the Football League Second Division, the team needed to win their final game, and both Bristol City and Notts County had to lose theirs." Since this sentence is long, I think cutting the "a level at which the club had never played" is necessary, and I suggest some rewording for flow.
    • Done. albeit with a slight variation - the other two teams didn't have to lose, they only had to not win (i.e. lose or draw) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:13, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "an outbreak of illness among the opposing players." Does the source say which illness?
  • "Jacobs was sent off for retaliating after being fouled by an opponent and never played for Gillingham again." Why did he not play for the team ever again?
    • Well, he wasn't selected for the team in any of the remaining seven matches and then his contract expired at the end of the season so he left. Beyond that, I can't say.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:13, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Was he not selected for the seven matches because of this send-off? I recommend splitting this sentence in two, with the second sentence expanding upon the fact that he wasn't selected to play in the remaining matches and then he left. Z1720 (talk) 15:08, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Z1720: Changed. There's no sourceable explanation for why he didn't play in any of the remaining games, but the fact that the game against Walsall was his first appearance for ages suggests that he was already out of favour and probably only played in that game because other players were out injured (although I have no source to confirm that)....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:18, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "visited Gillingham matches to watch him in action, and" This sentence is long, so I recommend replacing this comma with a period or semi-colon
  • I checked the lede, and it seems like all statements there are mentioned and cited in the article body.

That's all from me. Good work. Please ping when the above are resolved. Z1720 (talk) 17:29, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: - see responses above -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:13, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
One respones above. Z1720 (talk) 15:08, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My points have been addressed. I support this nomination based on prose. Z1720 (talk) 15:21, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 8 August 2021 [58].

Singer Building edit

Nominator(s): Epicgenius (talk) 16:38, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a building in Lower Manhattan, New York City, that was briefly the world's tallest building and later the tallest to be demolished peacefully. It was first constructed as two low-rise buildings in the late 1890s, which were combined and expanded in the 1900s. The building had an otherwise relatively uneventful existence until 1967, when it was torn down to make way for a larger and less architecturally distinguished structure. The interior was elaborately decorated, as was the facade, and the building in its heyday would have been considered quite innovative. Unfortunately, the Singer Building just didn't have enough space for modern office demands, so it was not preserved.

This was promoted as a Good Article a year ago, having undergone an excellent GA review from Eddie891 and a much-appreciated copy edit by Twofingered Typist. The previous FAC nomination failed due to a lack of activity, as Heartfox and Edwininlondon were the only users who commented. I believe it is up to FA quality now, and I hope the nomination gets more comments this time around. Epicgenius (talk) 16:38, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

Image review edit

All images are appropriately licensed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:10, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Hawkeye7 edit

Just some comments and questions:

  • "Below the water level, the ground was saturated with groundwater, making it unfeasible to dig the cellar conventionally." So how was it dug?
    • This is addressed in the next paragraph. Caissons were used to excavate the soil. Epicgenius (talk) 16:39, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the building's first few months, the elevators were involved in at least two deaths" Do we know how?
    • One was decapitated and the other was crushed to death. I have fixed this now. Epicgenius (talk) 16:39, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Singer Building was the tallest in the world for a year after its tower's completion, surpassing Philadelphia City Hall.[141] The record was surpassed..." Do we have to use "surpass" twice in adjacent sentences?
    • Fixed.
  • "This law was superseded by the 1961 Zoning Resolution." What did it mandate?
  • I personally don't think the double-conversion of US gallons into litres and imperial gallons is necessary; litres should suffice. The same goes for weights into tonnes and log tons; US and metric should do, but it's not an issue for me, and your personal taste is fine.
    • Nope, you have a good point. I have set it to convert only to liters. Epicgenius (talk) 16:39, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:46, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7: Thanks for the comments. I've fixed these now. Epicgenius (talk) 16:39, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Let's hope that you get some more reviewers this time.! (The coordinators should also take Edwininlondon's support from the previous review into account.) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:23, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Cas Liber edit

Taking a look now....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:08, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When completed, the building had a large lobby, 16 elevators, 410,000 square feet (38,000 m2) of office space, and an observatory. - "large lobby" - looks odd here (how large is large anyway?) - measurements would be better...
I reworded it. Strangely, there were very few mentions of the lobby's dimensions. By the time the Historic American Buildings Survey got to it, the building was already being demolished. Epicgenius (talk) 01:56, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
which was built nearly simultaneously. - why not, "which was being built over the same time."
Done.
As built, the original Singer Building was faced with stone and brick. - is "As built" necessary?
Removed.
Err...what does "rusticated" mean.....
Suggest linking Rustication (architecture). Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:29, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
thx Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:49, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise looking on-track Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:03, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Casliber: Thanks. I've addressed all of your comments now. Epicgenius (talk) 01:56, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HF edit

Will take a look at this over the coming week. Hog Farm Talk 00:44, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • The endnote for the record height note in the infobox doesn't seem to be working
    • I finally figured out what the problem was. The infobox uses the {{ref label}} template by default, so maybe this will have to be fixed in {{infobox building}} later. In the meantime I linked to a ref. Epicgenius (talk) 17:29, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jno. Williams, Inc. - is this the right link for the redlink in "Whale Creek Iron Works provided ornamental iron while Jno. Williams Inc. provided the ornamental bronze"
  • "In addition, the water level was 20 feet (6.1 m) below the Singer Building" - maybe this is just words having slightly different meanings in the world of rural agriculture I was raised in, but isn't the water level the height of an open water body, like a river or lake? While if I'm reading this right, its the level of groundwater, which would be the water table. This may just be me overthinking this.
  • "Over the Singer Building's existence, its lighting system was changed at least five times,[2] The copper ornamentation on the tower's dome was restored in 1939" - this appears to be two separate sentences separated by a comma, not a period, unless it's suppose to be a semicolon
    • Fixed.
  • Unsure why 1968 was chosen as the demolition date in the infobox - destruction started in 1967 and finished in 1969
    • Fixed.
  • Sources are all reliable for what they are citing
  • From a quick glance, the images look fine.

Good work, anticipate supporting. Hog Farm Talk 03:40, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: Thank you for the comments. I have addressed them all now. Epicgenius (talk) 17:29, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comprehensive support against WP:FACR - I saw no major issues and checked all criteria except for #1f, which I'm willing to AGF on based on past experience with nominator. Hog Farm Talk 23:10, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Lee Vilenski edit

I'll begin a review of this article very soon! My reviews tend to focus on prose and MOS issues, especially on the lede, but I will also comment on anything that could be improved. I'll post up some comments below over the next couple days, which you should either respond to, or ask me questions on issues you are unsure of. I'll be claiming points towards the wikicup once this review is over.

Lede
  • Singer Building (also the Singer Towe - (also known as)?
    • Fixed.
  • Is it worth stating up front that the building is demolished with dates? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:56, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I arranged it chronologically here (based on the order of the sections). If stating the important dates in the first para is better, I could do that too. Epicgenius (talk) 05:49, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it not a Façade? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:56, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think either variant (with or without the cedilla under the "c") is correct. Or, at least, my spell-check system does not seem to flag it as an error. Epicgenius (talk) 05:49, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was the tallest building for a year - probably worth mentioning which took the title from this building. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:56, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done.
Prose
Additional comments
  • Very little to critique here. I don't often pass articles on first pass, but I found very little here. Great work. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:06, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:49, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question from nominator edit

@FAC coordinators: I had a question about the source review. As Hawkeye mentioned above, a source review was performed during the first nomination and the article has had only relatively minor changes (almost entirely in response to FAC comments) between the first nomination and now. Does that source review count, or do we need a new one? Epicgenius (talk) 18:53, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It needs a new one. Of course, the original source reviewer may feel able to provide this, with whatever changes to the earlier one they feel appropriate. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:20, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I will ping Edwininlondon to see if they're interested in revising their earlier review or performing a source review. Epicgenius (talk) 20:58, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for missing this somehow. Comparing the versions I conclude that nothing has changed in the sources. I see Nikkimaria just beat me to it regarding formatting. I did a spotcheck in June and was satisfied all is well. I still am. Edwininlondon (talk) 16:19, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

  • Why was 1899 chosen for the completion date in the infobox?
    • Good point. I have clarified the original Singer and Bourne buildings' opening dates of 1898 and 1899, respectively. Epicgenius (talk) 18:01, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Were Boller & Hodge structural engineers or steel consultants?
    • I clarified they were steel consultants. Epicgenius (talk) 18:01, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • What does "consultants" mean in this context? Can they be characterized as engineers, or are they fabricators? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:56, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • They were engineers. Their firm was technically a consulting engineering company, according to the source. Epicgenius (talk) 18:04, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The foundation of the tower was excavated to the underlying bedrock". The text states the bedrock was at a depth of 92 feet but the foundation was excavated only to 85 feet
    • I clarified this. 92 feet was the maximum depth, but in many places it was less. I'm not sure where the 85-foot figure came from, so I've removed it for the time being. Epicgenius (talk) 18:01, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, but now we have a claim in the lead that the foundation was excavated to the bedrock, and a text that identifies the depth of the bedrock but doesn't specify that the foundation was extended to it. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:56, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've adjusted the lead to reflect that the tower's foundation was dug by caissons. Epicgenius (talk) 18:04, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • |postscript= shouldn't be used for tags
  • "In part because of its comparatively small amount of office space" - don't see this in the text
  • Be consistent in when locations are included and how they are formatted, and see MOS:POSTABBREV
    • Fixed - I removed all locations for consistency. Epicgenius (talk) 18:01, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ranges should use endashes, even in titles
  • FN17: the citation details appear to be outdated
  • Be consistent in whether "The" is included in newspaper names, where relevant
  • FN105: check formatting - "Durable Goods" appears to be the volume name
  • FN164: is the given pagination correct? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:10, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Z1720 edit

Consider me a non-expert. Overall, this is a very well-written article. I made small edits as I read, mostly for putting refs in numerical order. Please review and note below if they are reverted. Other concerns:

  • "The facade was made of brick, stone, and terracotta, and a dome with a lantern capped the tower." These feel like separate thoughts, with the first half talking about the facade while the latter half talking about the architecture. Consider splitting into two sentences?
  • References of the same media type should be listed in the same way. I recommend that the book sources in "Citations" are given sfn templates and listed in "Sources". These include Stern, Robert A. M.; Gilmartin, Gregory; Massengale, John Montague (1983) (ref 9), White, Norval; Willensky, Elliot; Leadon, Fran (2010) (ref 10), Pile, John F. (2005) (ref 11), Jorgensen, Janice, ed. (1994) (ref 105), Meighan, Michael (2012) (ref 106), "Haughey, Patrick, ed. (2018)" (ref 141), "Fenske, Gail (2005)" (ref 170).

Please ping when these are addressed. Z1720 (talk) 20:25, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: Thanks. I have done both of these - in regard to the first one, these were separate thoughts. Epicgenius (talk) 00:49, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fixes look great. I support this. Z1720 (talk) 05:26, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 8 August 2021 [59].

Battle of Byram's Ford edit

Nominator(s): Hog Farm Talk 21:24, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

With 8 successful FACs under my belt, I'm now taking the bold step of taking an article straight from GAN to FAC. I'm confident in the sourcing and comprehensiveness, but apologies in advance for the prose, which may be even worse than normal, as there have been fewer eyes on it.

At least to me, this is a two-day battle that feels kinda like a hodgepodge of two different actions: the first day as an extension of the Battle of Little Blue River, and the second as an extension of the Second Battle of Independence. But historians have treated this as a separate event, so here we are with the third Price's Raid FAC. Confederate cavalry pushes Union cavalry and militia across the ford on Day 1, while Union cavalry trailing the Confederates push across the ford on Day 2. Hog Farm Talk 21:24, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Image licensing looks good. (t · c) buidhe 21:54, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source review pass, sources look good, no source checks done (t · c) buidhe 02:21, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • is The Big Blue Battlefield Park separate from the NRHP listing? (t · c) buidhe 02:58, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Buidhe: - I can't quite tell with certainty. Official stuff for the park doesn't mention the NRHP, while the NHRP nomination form doesn't mention the park but could well be older than it. There's a number of references to the "Big Blue Battlefield" being on the NRHP, but I'm not sure if that's referring to the park or other parts of the battlefield. This says yes but it's unreliable and cannot be used. Hog Farm Talk 03:40, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild edit

  • Infobox: Template infobox military conflict says "Ranks and position titles should be omitted."
    • Removed
  • "Union Victory": why the upper case V?
    • I have no idea
  • "The Battle of Byram's Ford," Why the comma?
    • Forgot to remove that when I rewrote the opening sentence; gone now
  • " Union forces led Price to". Optional: → ' Union resistance led Price to'.
    • Gonna stick with the current wording, as Price didn't really try to attack either place so I'm not sure "resistance" is the best word
  • "Price's army reached Texas". Mention when.
    • Added in the lead and the body
  • "took long enough to reach Jefferson City" → 'took so long to reach Jefferson City'.
    • Done. I have a reluctance to use the word "so" leftover from an elementary school teacher who forbid the class to use the word "so"
  • "the Union garrison could be reinforced, growing from 1,000 men to 7,000" → 'the Union garrison was reinforced from 1,000 men to 7,000'?
    • Done
  • "Eventually, Confederate pressure on the Union center led the Union troops". if we are still talking about the Little Blue, maybe 'these Union troops'?
    • Done
  • "6 miles (9.7 km)" Looks like false precision to me. Similarly elsewhere.
    • Rounded on the several with miles/km. I think it's okay with the acres later on because those are exact figures.
Agreed.
  • "He then formed a plan". Delete "then".
    • Removed
  • "the units sent to Kansas City had suffered from severe straggling". This is getting a bit specialist. Maybe rephrase or expand a little?
    • Does changing the whole sentence to "As not all of the Kansas State Militia was fully mobilized, and the strength of those units that had arrived at Kansas City had been reduced greatly due to men lagging behind on the march, Curtis had around 5,000 men in his force, which was known as the Army of the Border." improve this somewhat, or do I need to take a crack at simplifying this?
It looks good to me. I might replace "lagging" with 'falling', but that is just personal preference.
  • "with only a "strong skirmish line"". I think you can lose the quotes.
    • Done. I'm not entirely sure what my rationale for adding the quotes was.
  • "The Union soldiers had abandoned a number of axes at the ford, which allowed the Confederates to clear the obstructions". The Confederates were attempting to force a blocked ford without having the tools to clear it! Really?
    • The source (Sinisi) specifically notes that that the Confederates needed to use the captured axes. The Confederates did have axes on the raid because they'd used them earlier, but my guess is that they must have left them in the rear with the wagons. Would it be too unfair to note that this was a cavalry expedition led by a general who was too fat to ride a horse effectively and had to be hauled around in an ambulance wagon for much of it?
Ha! Leave it then. I'm not sure why I was surprised at a commander launching an all out attack on a ford knowing that he won't be able to clear it if he succeeds, but I was.
  • "the unit and cannon were completely overrun." Does "completely" add anything?
    • Nope, removed
  • "the 12 foot (3.7 m) to 15 foot (4.6 m)[91] or 15 foot (4.6 m) to 20 foot (6.1 m)". This is not helpful to a reader. Perhaps footnote it?
    • Footnoted.
  • "had heard rumors from stragglers". A wikt link for "straggler"?
    • Done. I'm slightly surprised there's not an enwiki link for the term
Yeah. We could do with a glossary of common military terms, similar to those for cricketing or nautical terms.
  • "Seeing Shelby's command disintegrate, Jackman withdrew in the face of Sanborn's brigade. The collapse occurred at about 14:00." Possibly switch the order of these sentences?
    • Done
  • "Price's wagon train was to make its south by taking the Harrisonville Road south". I am not sure why "south" occurs twice.
    • Rephrased
  • "was very incomplete". Is "very" needed?
    • Not really. Removed.
  • "after the campaign ended". Consider deleting this.
    • Removed

Gog the Mild (talk) 21:42, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No worries - look at the state in which some of my drivel arrives at FAC. Nice account. Supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:57, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Funk edit

  • I'll have a look soon. FunkMonk (talk) 01:39, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A combination of Confederate and pro-secession Missouri State Guard forces" Is there a distinction between the two? I thought they pretty much overlapped?
    • It's a weird case where the MSG was fighting along with Confederate troops and sometimes under Confederate officers, but were actually fighting for the Missouri government, not the Confederacy
  • "to the southwestern Missouri" Why definite article?
    • I'm not entirely sure. Removed.
  • Some more names and terms could be linked in image captions?
    • Added a handful
  • "and order to collect available cavalry and move towards Kansas City" Ordered?
    • Fixed
  • Link Official Records of the War of the Rebellion?
    • Linked. And italicized since it's the title of a printed work
  • Missouri River is linked twice in the article body.
    • oops. Corrected.
  • Link Ford (crossing) somewhere? Not a term I'm familiar with (outside another article I reviewed).
    • Linked
  • "Brown ran at least 90 minutes late, and when Pleasonton arrived, he placed Brown and Colonel James McFerran, the commander of the 1st Missouri State Militia Cavalry, under arrest." For being late? The cause and effect is not entirely clear here.
    • Clarified the official reasons. Sources imply that Pleasonton was a little too happy to can Brown because he didn't like it, and McFerran had also hid out behind the lines in his previous battle, but the relative merits of the arrests are probably undue material here.
  • "and begin firing into the Confederate flank" Began?
    • Corrected
  • "was to make its south via the Harrisonville Road" Make it south?
    • Was missing the word "way"
  • "Sinisi considers Lause's figures to be too high, and prefers estimates from researcher Bryce Suderow of 510 Confederate and 361 Union losses for all fighting on the 23rd.[126]" Why give Suderow's estimate through Sinisi, and not just that estimate itself? Then you could end the sentence with Sinisi agreeing with it.
    • Sinisi state's that Suderow's work is unpublished and it probably isn't really due weight on its own or directly citable to itself, and the usability of that figure comes primarily through Sinisi agreeing with it. I'm open to other ways to phrase it, though, FunkMonk. Hog Farm Talk 01:36, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Could perhaps note that Suderow's estimates are unpublished, but not a dealbreaker for me. FunkMonk (talk) 02:39, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How does "Unpublished research by Bryce Suderow estimates losses of 510 Confederates and 361 Union soldiers for all fighting on the 23rd. Sinisi considers Lause's figures to be too high, and prefers Suderow's numbers." sound?
Good to me! FunkMonk (talk) 00:17, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - the solutions for the more complex issues seem sufficient to me, nicely done. FunkMonk (talk) 02:39, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from TRM edit

  • I noticed a few refs in the lead for alt names, ("Battle of Big Blue River[2] and the Battle of the Blue[3]) was...") any reason why those alt names are only mentioned in the lead and not in the main prose? I thought the should summarise the article but not contain facts that don't appear in the article.
    • I've added the alt names to the aftermath section, and moved the refs to there from the lead
  • The location is referenced in the infobox and stated as Jackson County yet that's not in the lead, why not?
    • Because the sources don't make a point of noting that the battle was in Jackson Co., as the county lines were not significant to the fighting. Kennedy states that it was in the county, but Kennedy also provides the county or parish for every battle listed in that book. Essentially, I'm only including that because I feel like I need to have a location in the infobox, and that's about the most useful location I can think of, as the Byram's Ford redlink isn't going to provide a reader who doesn't already know where the redlink was any information. Suggestions on how to better deal with this are welcome
  • Why is it the only fact in the entire infobox with an inline citation?
    • Because it's the only fact in the entire infobox that isn't cited elsewhere, and I think it's best to keep infobox citations to the minimum necessary
  • " 2nd Kansas State Militia Infantry Regiment " State isn't in our article's name for this, why is it here?
    • Don't have access to Monnett at the moment, but checked the other three I view as the principal sources (Lause, Collins, Sinisi) and all three use "2nd Kansas State Militia Regiment" or "2nd KSM", so the "State" is standard in sources. Adding the "infantry" in the article is needed for the MILHIST unit naming MOS, I believe. (As an aside, I've noticed that a number of ACW-adjacent articles have names that don't align with what modern sources use; I've had to start a fair number of RMs).
  • "garrison could be reinforced" could he, or was?
    • Was. Changed.
  • "not armed or only poorly armed" why "only"?
    • Removed
  • Our article is at Department of the Missouri.
    • Changed the mention to Department of the Missouri. Collins and Lause use "Department of Missouri", but Sinisi, which is the best of the three, uses "Department of the Missouri" and Collins quotes a period letter that uses "Department of the Missouri", so I think going with that title is supported enough by the sources to add the "the"
  • "stand at the Little Blue" -> "stand there"
    • Done
  • What's a "signal officer"?
    • Source just uses "signal officers" without any elaboration. I can't find an equivalent link, I'm not sure how to explain it since the source is a bit vague, and the officer's role as signal officers isn't vital to the meaning of the sentence, so I've just removed the word "signal".
  • "Also at 11:00" are we certain of these precise timings? Wouldn't "around" be better?
    • Yes, around would be better. Added
  • "found Hinkle's Ford.[56][57] Hinkle's Ford was" repetitive.
    • Merged the second sentence into the former and done some rephrasing, so the repetition is gone
  • "1865 depiction of..." avoid starting even fragments with a numeral.
    • Done
  • "led to two decisions: Grant decided ": repetitive, perhaps "Grant elected to" or "Grant chose" or something slightly more engaging.
    • Went with elected
  • Is there a link for wagon train?!
    • Yes. Linked in both the lead and the body
  • "continued 4 miles (6 km) south of the place" of the place? why not "continued 4 miles further south" or simlar?
    • Went with "further south"
  • "Unpublished research by Bryce Suderow ..." is that notable enough for an FA?
    • Normally I'd say no, but Sinisi (who is one of the very best sources for this subject, IMO) says it's the preferable estimate, and Suderow has published a book about another battle in this campaign through an academic publisher, so I think it's okay for this specific circumstance
  • "the dual defeats" no need for "dual"
    • Removed

Nothing much more to report. Mostly queries rather than issues. Close to support. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:42, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • @The Rambling Man: - Thanks for reviewing! I've tried to reply to all. Most are done, although I've got a bit of a query on your thoughts for handling the Jackson County one. Hog Farm Talk 04:06, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, two responses above, only one needs potential action, but it's not breaking any FA criteria I'm aware of so take it as you find it. Happy to support at this point. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:56, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM edit

I reviewed this at GAN, and am pretty thorough there, but given it hasn't been to Milhist ACR and the extra eyes it would have got there on military technical aspects, I have quite a few comments:

Lead and overall
  • in the lead, the alternative names don't need to be cited if they are cited in the body.
    • You may have been looking at an old version - I removed the cites addressing TRM's comments
  • also, the link at fn 3 refers to Battle of the Big Blue, not Battle of the Blue. Also Battle of the Big Blue River and Battle of the Big Blue are almost identical and I'm not sure the second one is justified in the lead. It also seems to me that the NPS is a far better source than Kansas Memory.
    • Replaced with a source that refers to this specifically as "Battle of the Blue". My OR I won't include is that "Battle of the Blue" is primarily used in Kansas-related sources and seems to focus on the destruction of the 2nd KSM.
  • I have a fundamental question about whether this is in fact two or more battles, and the overall schema of the related battles: Big Blue 22 October, Independence, Big Blue 22 October and even aspects of the Battle of Westport appear inter-related and overlapping. The commanders and forces on the two Big Blue days are different, and the scenes of the two sub-battles are also different, one being the ford and the other Potato Hill, with Westport then also apparently involving the ford. It is interesting that Kansas Memory specifies that the Battle of Byram's Ford occurred on 22 October, and doesn't mention the second day, while the NPS does. This overall confusion seriously impacts on the lead, as what is part of this battle and what is part of other battles is not as clear as it needs to be.
    • The overwhelming consensus of high-quality sources treat this as a single battle (I don't know why, I personally would be tempted to divide this up among the other actions). In particular, the ending stage of the rout at the end isn't clearly delineable between Westport and Byram's Ford. If this happened in one of the World Wars, everything between Little Blue River on Oct. 21 and Westport would probably be considered a single battle, but for some reason, this is very subdivided in sources. I've tried to clarify the dividing line between Second Independence and Byram's Ford in the lead, and I'm open to suggestion on how to accomplish this better
Body
  • suggest "did not secede – despite allowing slavery – as it was politically divided."
    • Done
  • suggest "the Confederacy had essentially no chance of prevailing in the war"
    • I think it's significant to keep the difference between military and political here - a battlefield victory was out of the question, but there was thought to be a decent chance of the 1864 US election leading to a peace party winning and electing a truce
  • suggest "Smith decided to attack the Union forces within his area of responsibility"
    • Done
  • suggest "Price's army took so long to reach Jefferson City that the Union was able to reinforce the garrison from 1,000 to 7,000 men."
    • Done
  • suggest "Brigadier Generals Egbert Brown, John McNeil and John B. Sanborn, and Colonel Edward F. Winslow"
    • Done, although I do like my oxford commas
  • suggest "Sanborn temporarily commanded the formation until Pleasonton took up his position on October 20."
    • Done
  • it would help a lot if the rough distances between Curtis' force and Pleasonton's force and Price's force were included at the bottom of the second para of the "To the Big Blue River" section. In fact, a local map would help a lot in understanding the dispositions ("five miles east of ...", "ten miles southwest of ..." etc). In the absence of such a map, this sort of textual description of the various locations and directions is needed. The Map No. 1, for example, shows the road from Kansas City and Westport to Independence and two fords, as well as several other landmarks that could be used to help the reader, and from which better physical descriptions could extrapolate. A more detailed explanation of where the forces were with respect to various landmarks would be very helpful. Here are some examples: "ordered Blunt to move (in what direction and how far) to Warrensburg", and "Price was only 20 miles (32 km) away (in what direction) at Waverly", there are plenty of examples of where more information is required about locations and their relative position to places and other troops.
    • I'll see what I can do. The sources aren't great about providing distances (Lause in particular has been criticized as being almost incomprehensible in geography to a non-Missourian).
    • I've also added a pushpin map indicating the relative locations of Jeff City/KC/Warrensburg/Lexington/etc, although it's a little sketchy because a bunch of those places are crammed in a relatively narrow geographic window
  • "Blair's brigade was sent to Kansas City" but then he appears as Curtis' left wing
    • Bit of a messy situation. Technically detached and under Deitzler, but Deitzler didn't do hardly anything and Blair did more. But despite being nominally a separate wing, I noticed doing a re-read of Lause that he briefly notes that Blair essentially functioned as another brigade for Blunt, so I've added that
  • "Pleasonton's division was encamped 6 miles (10 km) to the east of the Little Blue" comes out of the blue. Last we heard, he was at Jefferson City. When did he start chasing Price westwards?
    • I've mentioned that his division converged on Price while it followed the Missouri
  • It would be helpful to describe the extent of the Big Blue along which the sides were arrayed. Map No. 1 is unclear, but it looks as if it included the Old Independence Road in the north with what looks to be a unit deployed there. How far south? Hickman Mills?
    • Clarified using Collins - 15 miles from the Missouri to Hickman Mills
  • was the ford at the extreme northern end of the Union line located on the Old Independence Road, or between it and the Missouri River?
    • Three main sources I have access to right now (Collins, Sinisi, Lause) don't mention the Old Independence Road by name, except for an appearance in a map in Sinisi. I can compare Sinisi's map and Lause's description of the Union line and be pretty confident that the extreme northern one was one the Old Independence Road, but it takes some hardcore SYNTH to get there, so I can't really add that to the article.

Down to Battle, but at this point I'm quite concerned that the text doesn't provide enough detail about dispositions and movements. That is making this a bit of a grind. More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:38, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Battle
  • "At around 08:00, fighting began when Shelby drove Union skirmishers back across the Big Blue" where?
    • Sources don't specify. My guess would be about everywhere, but I obviously can't include that
  • "When Union officers on the north part of the line reported seeing minimal Confederate activity on the road to Kansas City, Curtis became concerned about a potential flanking attack." I don't follow the logic of this. Why and where did he expect it, north or south?
    • I've tried to clarify that this made the ruse even more obvious for what it was, and added that the expected attack was to the south. Is this better, or does it require additional work
  • "He then gave Blunt and Melvin S. Grant, who commanded two Kansas State Militia regiments positioned to the south near Hickman Mills," makes it sound like Blunt and Grant both commanded a Kansas State Militia regiment. Perhaps "He then gave Blunt, along with Melvin S. Grant – who commanded two Kansas State Militia regiments positioned to the south near Hickman Mills, orders..."
    • Done
  • suggest "Jennison's brigade since around 09:00, butwith defensive works prepared by one of Grant's militia regiments the night before"
    • Done
  • suggest "but not that element of Jennison's brigade which was in the immediate vicinity of the ford"
    • Done - I'm assuming you were referring to the context of "meaning that the Confederates had cover, but not that element of Jennison's brigade which was in the immediate vicinity of the ford"
  • suggest "Jennison's stubborn defence."
    • Done
  • suggest "Slayback's Missouri Cavalry Battalion was sent north, where it quickly found Hinkle's Ford – a crossing used by local farmers – which was unguarded."
    • Done
  • suggest "but arrived at Hinkle's Ford after the Confederates had crossed. He then withdrew towards Westport."
    • Done
  • suggest "Jennison, who was the senior officer, did not take command overall command of the two-brigade force," It was hardly Moonlight's job.
    • Done
  • suggest "Curtis had sent his escort to reinforce Jennison at Byram's Ford, placing the escort under the command of his chief of artillery, Major Robert H. Hunt."
    • Done
  • why did Ford's brigade and Deitzler's militia withdraw? Outflanked to the south?
    • Order from Curtis. Clarified
  • which formation was 19th Kansas State Militia Infantry Regiment part of?
    • Blair's brigade. Added.
  • suggest "Grant's withdrawing men encountered Gordon and the 5th Missouri Cavalry Regiment who had crossed at the southern ford,"
    • Done
  • what troops were the "reinforcements from Hickman Mills" Grant was expecting?
    • Source just states that he was expecting them, without identifying which ones he expected
  • suggest "but the stout resistance led Shelby"
    • Done
  • "the Confederates had crossed the Big Blue" where?
    • Replaced with "the Confederates had broken Curtis's line on the Big Blue" as the source is referring to the general Confederate breakthrough at the various points
  • suggest "McNeil's and Sanborn's brigades successfully attacked"
    • Done
  • suggest "Pleasonton's men were also on the move at this time: McNeil's brigade moved south from Independence towards Hickman Mills"
    • Done
  • "Smith's XVI Corps began a movement towards Independence" from where?
    • 16 miles to the east. Added

Down to October 23: Pleasonton crosses the river. More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:00, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • This batch should hopefully be addressed, except one I can't answer. Hog Farm Talk 03:48, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Peacemaker67: - before you move on to the rest of the article, how much work is needed on the attempted-addressing of the points above? Hog Farm Talk 20:23, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All good thus far. Sorry about the delay in getting back to this, will hopefully finish off today. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:09, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Continued from October 23: Pleasonton crosses the river

  • suggest "While the Confederates had worked on clearing the ford the previous day, obstructions still remained, and the Confederates had strengthened its defenses."
    • Done
  • "the main Confederate line" does this refer to Clark's brigade at Potato Hill?
    • YEs. Clarified.
  • "positioned on the other side of the road from the ford"? Surely a road runs through a ford? Do you mean the left side of the road? Is that the southern side?
    • The left (southern) side. Clarified. It took me a bit to even figure out what the sentence I had written meant.
  • "which provided a significant firepower advantage over the single-shot rifles of the Confederates."?
    • Source doesn't explicitly state this (says that the Union had a firepower advantage due to repeating weapons, but doesn't explicitly say that the Confederate only had single-shot pieces, which would be implied)
  • "south via the Harrisonville Road, recrossing the Big Blue, and then striking the Fort Scott Road south of Little Santa Fe" isn't clear. In which compass direction would they be recrossing the Big Blue? Any idea about distances? There is a rough scale on the old map.
    • I've tried to clarify this a bit (I actually forgot to mention a second recrossing of the Big Blue). I've added part of the distance which is directly stated in Sinisi, but aside from attempting to OR distances by trying to use the scale for a map found in the Collins PDF, I don't think there's a good way to provide more distances
  • "which Union troops incorrectly estimated as 10 guns" how many were there then?
    • I remember my annoyance at this part when I was writing this article. Sinisi tells me this, but none of the sources give a good total number. Should I just remove this clause?
Yes, I would. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:09, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This has been removed. Hog Farm Talk 03:20, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest "The Union 7th Kansas Cavalry Regiment" as the sentence isn't clear who they belonged to.
    • Added
  • "an[136]d the Battle of the Blue"
    • Oops. Corrected.

That's me finally done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:35, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator comment edit

@FAC coordinators: As this one has passed image and source reviews, four supports, and supports from non-MILHIST editors, may I have a dispensation for a second nomination? Hog Farm Talk 03:21, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, please do. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:31, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Hog Farm Talk 03:31, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 8 August 2021 [60].

John Thirtle edit

Nominator(s): Amitchell125 (talk) 10:16, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a little-known Norwich artist whose paintings are accomplished depictions of his home city and the surrounding Norfolk countryside. My third member of the Norwich School of painters at FA? Amitchell125 (talk) 10:16, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tim riley edit

An interesting article. I know Norwich quite well and even know a little bit about Norwich painters but Thirtle is new to me and I am pleased to have made his acquaintance in such a clear, well written and beautifully illustrated piece. A few quibbles:

  • Lead
  • We have "frame maker" in the text, "framemaker" in the references (which can't be tampered with) and the OED prints the term as "frame-maker". I generally stick with the OED's prescriptions, but I don't press the point.
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:26, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "whilst continuing to paint" – I'm never sure what "whilst" has got that a plain "while" hasn't, apart from one extra letter, but again I merely mention it.
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:27, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He produced relatively few works" – relative to what or whom?
Text deleted (the point is made elsewhere in the lead). Amitchell125 (talk) 07:30, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "has deteriorated due to the fading" – In AmE "due to" is accepted as a compound preposition on a par with "owing to", but in BrE it is not universally so regarded. "Owing to" or, better, "because of" is safer.
Sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:37, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Family, early life and apprenticeship
  • "St Saviour's Church, Norwich… a churchwarden at St. Saviour's" – does St have a full stop after it or not? Better to be consistent.
Sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:40, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Artistic career
  • Second para – John Crome and Norwich School of painters are given duplicate blue links
Sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:40, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Marriage
  • "Thirtle married Elizabeth Miles of Felbrigg, from a minor landowning family in north Norfolk,[5] and whose sister Ann had married" – the "and" jars a bit. You could smooth the sentence by replacing "and whose" with a semicolon and then "her".
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:42, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There were likely no children produced from the marriage" – an unexpected, and not especially pleasing, Americanism, where in normal English usage we should say "probably" rather than "likely". And perhaps it would be less wordy to say just "The marriage was probably childless".
Sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:44, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Secession from the Norwich Society of Artists
  • The Twelfth Exhibition of the Norfolk and Norwich Society of Artists – do we usually italicise the titles of art exhibitions? (Question asked from the starting point of complete ignorance.)
Sorted. I'm not entirely sure about italics here either, but other articles don't seem to have them. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:49, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Later life
  • "He is known to have suffered from tuberculosis" – Wikipedia has developed, I know not why, a convention, not seen in any other work of reference I know of, that at first mention in a paragraph a pronoun won't do, and it must be the person's name.
Sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:51, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Technique
  • "Cotman, who was his brother-in-law" – you've already told us that.
Text amended. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:52, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 39 – link seems broken. I suggest adding the page number (p. 11) and removing the url.
As I can access the link as a member of a public library, I've added the page number, kept the url, and added a subscription template. Amitchell125 (talk) 08:01, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Margarie Allthorpe-Guyton" – she was Marjorie Allthorpe-Guyton earlier in the article
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 08:03, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "We went on to paint" – I imagine this should be "He went on …"
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 08:04, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Art historian Derek Clifford" – a pity to introduce a clunky AmE false title this late into an otherwise impeccably BrE article.
Sentence amended, and Clifford should have been introduced earlier on, so I moved it up a bit. Amitchell125 (talk) 08:10, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use of indigo
  • "a cheap form of indigo that sold by a local dealer" – is the "that" intended here?
Sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 08:11, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Legacy
  • "Thirtle was praised for his work in the local press" – might be less ambiguous to say "Thirtle was praised in the local press for his work", or even "The local press praised Thirtle for his work".
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 08:13, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Norwich Mercury" – but The Times earlier on has its definite article capitalised and italicised (quite rightly)
Done, but see Illustrated Daily News (FA); New York Herald Tribune (GA) to understand why I'm not quite convinced The Norwich Mercury now looks right. Amitchell125 (talk) 08:20, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point: there is no one right way in these matters (as witness the eccentric practice of the paper I read every day, which calls itself the Guardian (lower case article and no italics). Tim riley talk 10:41, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but the exhibition forced to close" – was forced to close?
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 08:22, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Those are my few quibbles. I'll look in again, with a view to supporting, all being well. Tim riley talk 22:28, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

​Thanks for these comments, there's just one (about the newspaper) that might need discussing. Amitchell125 (talk) 08:26, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support the promotion of this article to FA. It meets all the FA criteria, in my view (and I thoroughly enjoyed reading and reviewing it). Tim riley talk 10:41, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review — Pass edit

  • #13 — Why not cite the original dictionary entry instead?
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 16:20, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • #16 — I'm a bit confused by the cite. What does "T. National Portrait Gallery" mean?
"National Portrait Gallery: British picture framemakers, 1600–1950 – T" is what is says on the web page. Amitchell125 (talk) 15:53, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. I've added a link to National Portrait Gallery, which hopefully makes the separation a bit more obvious. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:40, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • #39 — This is long out of copyright. Is there no freely available version online? Also, The Times can take a link.
Link added. I've never been able to find a free online version of The Times, unfortunately. Amitchell125 (talk) 15:58, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
With Gale's newspaper databases, I've had some luck with right clicking on the papers, opening the images in a new tab, and then playing with the URLs to cut the page to size. It's a process, but can work. See ref #2 at George Sidney Herbert, for instance. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:43, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It worked (thanks for the tip). Amitchell125 (talk) 07:10, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • #40 — Ashmolean Museum can take a link. ", Oxford" is probably not needed, given that the next line is "University of Oxford".
Sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 16:04, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • #52–53 — Why are the dates and page numbers in the title fields? Mention of the need for a subscription should be added.
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 16:18, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Come to think of it, The British Newspaper Archive isn't the publisher. It should be in a "| via = The British Newspaper Archive" parameter instead. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:44, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clifford 1965 — Publisher location missing.
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 16:22, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dickes 1906 — Assuming "London, Norwich" means that offices are in both locations, perhaps "London & Norwich" (or just pick one)?
Sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 16:24, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hamlin 1986 — Why initials rather than a full first name?
Sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 16:27, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moore 1985 — Perhaps "&" rather than "/"?
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 16:29, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This version looked at. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:38, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these, all sorted now. Amitchell125 (talk) 16:29, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, I'm signed off. Amitchell125, I left two comments above (though ended up addressing the second myself). Something to keep in mind if you are able re The Times, but not a requirement. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:47, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Aza24 edit

  • Looking through now Aza24 (talk) 22:26, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • If he is "known for frame-making" (per infobox) surely he should be designated a "frame-maker" in the lead, like his teacher?
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 05:18, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Likewise with the above, perhaps a line could be added about his manner of frame making to the lead—maybe that he often made them for his fellow Norwich School colleagues?
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 05:26, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • A minor point, but you might considering altering the second paragraph of the lead so there's not three sentences in a row that begin with "he", "his" and then "he".
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 05:32, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "cannot be confirmed by documents" sounds a little awkward. I presume you're saying there are not enough surviving documents, but it comes off as there are a lot of documents, but they don't have the right information—would suggest rephrasing the sentence.
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 05:34, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • wondering why "and was an" can't just be "as" if he worked these positions in Elephant Yard
Text amended, whilst still making it clear his role as churchwarden was not an occupation. Amitchell125 (talk) 05:40, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • why "carver and gilder" and not "carver, gilder..."? If he was just a leading carver and guilder, you could add the "as well as" to separate the occupations from picture dealer and printmaker—the current double and with commas just seems odd
Sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 05:42, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This painting seems to have been unusual"—maybe "The subject matter" instead of "This painting", since the painting it self isn't unusual
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 05:43, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • More later... Aza24 (talk) 23:15, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He continued to produce " maybe vary word choice since you have "continue" right before this sentence
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 05:44, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any year for Devil's Tower – Looking towards Carrow Bridge and/or Old Waterside Cottage, Norwich?
Sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 06:02, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I changed "and was criticised for..." to "but was criticised for..." but honestly not sure which makes more sense
Your edit looks fine imo. Amitchell125 (talk) 06:03, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only other thing is I wonder if "Technique" might be a little narrow of a section name, what about "Style and technique"?
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 06:04, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking forward to supporting Aza24 (talk) 02:43, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Aza24—All sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 12:20, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A great read, happy to support. Aza24 (talk) 23:59, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from TRM edit

  • "lesser extent) John Sell Cotman" why not just Cotman?
Sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:44, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is Indigo capitalised?
Now sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:52, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pretty sure we don't need to link "education".
Crikey, agreed. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:53, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "carver, gilder" what are these?
Links added to explain these occupations. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:57, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mr. Allwood" maybe times have changed but I was taught that no full stop was required on abbreviations which have the first and last letter of the word...
Mmm, MOS:POINTS allows me to keep it in, so I will. Amitchell125 (talk) 20:30, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "exhibited five paintings at an exhibition" repetitive.
Sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 20:31, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "c.1803–1808," shouldn't that be c. 1803 – 1808?
Sorted (3 times). Amitchell125 (talk) 20:33, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you're relinking terms linked in the lead then watercolour needs relinking.
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 20:34, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as Vice-President of the Society" why all the capitals?
Capitals taken out. Amitchell125 (talk) 20:36, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "married John Sell Cotman" again, why do we need his first names this time?
My force of habit, no-one calls him anything else. Cotman it is. Amitchell125 (talk) 20:37, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "excellence". " shouldn't that full stop be inside the quote?
Sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 20:38, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "light effects;[43]" something missing or that should be a full stop.
Sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 20:40, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "of buffs, blues and grey-browns" you previously only linked buffs. I would be consistent.
Only 'buffs' should have been linked. Amitchell125 (talk) 20:42, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "for art historians[2] that " why can't we just put that ref at the end of the sentence.
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 20:44, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as purple and brown madder" you link purple (which I think is a common word) but not brown madder which I have never heard of...
Madder is now linked. Amitchell125 (talk) 20:55, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "natural indigo pigment" you mentioned indigo in the previous section but didn't link it there.
Now linked correctly. Amitchell125 (talk) 20:58, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorted (I hope). Amitchell125 (talk) 21:11, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Beard needs en-dash in year range in title.
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 21:12, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Added. Amitchell125 (talk) 21:20, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise nothing much to complain about, seems as comprehensive as it can be given its opening caveat that not much was known about him! The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:16, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

High praise indeed from The Rambling Man! Many thanks for the above comments, all of which I think are now sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 21:22, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All good, nice work, happy to support. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:07, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Modussiccandi edit

  • "...as his first exhibited works that were not landscapes " I find this sentence difficult to follow. Could it be that the word "his" should really be 'he'?
Thanks, sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 06:47, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He was probably a founder member" would 'founding member' be more elegant?
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 06:49, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After he developed to become a landscape artist" the juxtaposition comes across a bit clunky. Maybe just 'became'? Or something else entirely, like 'developed an interest in' etc.?
Sentence amended. Amitchell125 (talk) 06:52, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He exhibited only once outside Norwich, at the Royal Academy in 1808" you could add that the Academy was in London.
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 06:54, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "created a superb rendition in black and white" one would think that these are the words of the Searle (2015). I feel a bit queasy about having 'Wikipedia's voice' praising the picture in this way. Maybe quotation marks could be added or something along those lines. Do tell me if I'm being too pedantic about this.
Sentence amended, as the words appear not to have originated from Searle either. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:02, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "equivalent to over £120,000 in modern currency" it would be more informative to replace "modern currency" with the year of the estimate.
Done, using the Wikipedia template. The value has increased using this website. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:49, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This unfortunate reddening" seems editorialising (MOS:EDITORIAL).
Sentence amended. Amitchell125 (talk) 08:00, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "should not have found time for a single drawing" this same quote is used earlier in the article. Was this by intention?
My error, and nobody else noticed! Removed from the legacy section. Amitchell125 (talk) 08:04, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding images: would it be possible to provide a date for the picture of the mother and for Crome's Woodland Scene?
The miniature was undated (I saw it at auction), and the Crome landscape came from a gallery in Norwich, I will contact them for more information about the date. Amitchell125 (talk) 08:17, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These are my comments on an interesting and well-written article. I will support promotion to FA once you've had a chance to reply to the above points. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 18:55, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Great stuff. Don't stress about the date for the Crome landscape; it won't keep me from supporting. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 09:01, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

  • Don't use fixed px size
Sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 17:46, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:John_Thirtle_(lithograph_after_self-portrait).jpg: the given source predates the existence of Creative Commons, as does the death of the creator; how is it possible that this image is CC licensed?
Image replaced with the actual self-portrait instead of another artist's version of it. There is hopefully not a problem now. Amitchell125 (talk) 18:21, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Thirtle_-_Susanna_Thirtle_(miniature_of_the_artist's_mother).jpg: source link is dead; when and where was this first published?
The only way to get this information now is to contact the auctioneers and obtain details from the catalogue. Image removed until this is done. I was at the auction and it's just possible I took a photograph myself, so all may not be lost. Amitchell125 (talk) 18:30, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Source found from 2019, so image restored. Amitchell125 (talk) 17:38, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
When and where was this image first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:57, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
According to this (which I've added to its WikiCommons page), the image was included in the Keys Fine Art Auctioneers catalogue for their East Anglian Sale at their premises in Aylsham in October 2019. I've added this information to WikiCommons. Amitchell125 (talk) 06:31, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. The image currently has a tag stating it was published before 1926 - if it was not, that tag will need to be replaced. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:55, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've replaced the tag, to make it clear that the artist died in the 1830s. However, an image of the painting first appeared when Keys made their 2019 catalogue. If the tag I put in in wrong, could you point me in the right direction? Amitchell125 (talk) 06:55, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If that was truly the first publication of the image, then likely {{PD-US-unpublished}} would apply. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:19, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone for {{PD-US-unpublished}}, as even the Thirtle exhibition catalogue from the 1970s didn't publish it. Amitchell125 (talk) 13:31, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:John_Berney_Crome_-_Woodland_Scene.jpg should include a tag for the actual artwork. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:53, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 06:56, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: issues now addressed, please advise if the last point isn't sorted properly yet. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:03, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Z1720 edit

Non-expert prose review. I reviewed this article at its peer review, although I will do another readthrough now.

  • The lede says he was born on 22 June 1777, but the article body says this is is baptismal date. I think you might need to put a note in the lede specifying that this date is his baptism date, not birthdate, unless we can verified that he was baptised on the day of his birth.
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:27, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Apprenticed to a London frame-maker before returning home to Norwich, he set up a frame-making business, while continuing to paint." This sentence feels awkward because it is combining two separate thoughts of his frame-making career with his painting activities. I would move this sentence about painting to the end of the frame-making career section of the lede. I would also rework this sentence as, "After apprenticing with a London frame-maker, he returned to Norwich to establish a frame-making business."
I've amended the paragraph, which now hopefully is a little less awkward-sounding. Amitchell125 (talk) 21:49, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "His father, who worked in Elephant Yard off Magdalen Street as" wikilinks for Elephant Yar and Magdalen Street?
No such links exist. Elephant Yard, now lost, was a small enclosed courtyard surrounded by buildings, and Magdalen Street, although possibly notable enough to have its own article, does not have one. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:43, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Jeremiah and William Freeman, who dominated the Norwich framing market during this period." Wikilinks for Jeremiah and William Freeman?
There are no links for the Freemans. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:45, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he produced outdoors what the art historian Andrew Hemingway has described as "wonderfully spontaneous and sure sketches"." Is outdoors supposed to be there?
Yes—he painted outdoors. Link to En plein airadded. Amitchell125 (talk) 21:32, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This subject matter seems to have been unusual," Can this statement be more definite? Maybe "This subject matter was different from his previous work" or "This subject matter was usual for him because...."
Sentence amended. Amitchell125 (talk) 21:38, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He then became a landscape artist, depicting scenes of the rivers Yare and Wensum, and thunderstorms, and the nature of his exhibited works changed." Too many ands. Maybe, "The nature of his exhibited works changed with depictions of landscapes, like the rivers Yare and Wensum, and thunderstorms."

Sentence amended. Amitchell125 (talk) 21:53, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Crome, Cotman and Thirtle were sources of inspiration for the artists of the Norwich School.[19] He served as vice-president of the society from 1806 to 1812." Since three people were introduced in this first sentence, the use of he is undefined in the second sentence and should be changed to Thirtle (who I assume is the person you are talking about)
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 21:24, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "from a peak of 17 (in 1806)" 17 a year? Should be specified.
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:59, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " from the Society in 1816, to form the Norfolk" I don't think this comma is needed.
Sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 08:08, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The secession was caused by a disagreement..." This sentence is very long and should be split.
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 08:11, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ""exceptional";[19] His pictures" Either this semi-colon should be a period (recommended) or his should be in lowercase
Sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 09:05, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and is likely to consist in part from works such as Ackermann's New Drawing Book (1809)." What is this trying to tell the reader? I was confused by this and it might need to be reworded.
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 21:58, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which Allthorpe-Guyton considers to be owing to his lack of success" -> "which Allthorpe-Guyton attributes to his lack of success"
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 08:10, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These are my comments. Please ping me when ready for a re-review. Z1720 (talk) 00:54, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: Thanks for the above comments, which I've now addressed. Amitchell125 (talk) 22:01, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My concerns have been addressed. I can now support. Z1720 (talk) 02:19, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 8 August 2021 [61].

Inuit clothing edit

Nominator(s): ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:30, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Inuit skin clothing is a tremendously interesting topic that I wrote a whole article about out of spite because we didn't have one and I wanted to merge an orphaned stub to it. The more I said about it, the more I learned there was to say about it, and my research resulted in not only the comprehensive primary article, but two child articles as well (history of Inuit clothing and research on Inuit clothing). It's a shame it took us until 2020 to have an article on the topic, but I'd be lying if I said I wasn't happy I got to be the one to do it.
Throughout their entire history, the Inuit have been master survivors, and their skin clothing system is a living testament to that: research has found that the traditional clothing of the Inuit is warmer and more comfortable than modern military and expedition gear. In addition to being effective, Inuit clothing is an expression of identity, artistic technique, spirituality, and style. While full outfits of traditional skin clothing are no longer worn all the time, it would be a mistake to pin Inuit clothing to the past – the Inuit continue to integrate the patterns and styles of their traditional clothing with their modern lives today. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:30, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As noted bolded phrase in the lead should match the article title per MOS:BOLD. Otherwise there shouldn't be a bolded phrase. (t · c) buidhe 23:52, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

  • https://skinddragter.natmus.dk/ states that its photographs are "CC-BY-NC". That is NOT a compatible license, nor is it the same one you used when uploading these photographs to Commons. Unless the license was changed post-upload, all these photographs will have to be deleted from Commons. (t · c) buidhe 00:03, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you double check the samlinger.natmus.dk source links for all the photos, all are tagged as CC-BY-SA. I'm not sure why the front page of the Skin Clothing database would give contradictory information, but I believe it's not possible to un-license a photo once it's released under a more free license
  • There is no need for exclamation marks. When those photos were uploaded, the license on the source pages explicitly stated CC-BY-SA 2.0. They may have updated their licensing since then. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:08, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I somewhat doubt this as 4.0 was being used before these uploads, according to Wayback Machine:[62][63][64][65] (t · c) buidhe 01:33, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those archived links are from January this year. I started using the site in August last year (you can see this from my earliest skin clothing upload), at which time their licensing stated CC-BY-SA and linked to CC-BY-SA 2.0. Obviously they have updated their licensing since then. I had no reason to realize they had done so in the mean time - why would I, since the line describing the licensing still read CC-BY-SA as it always had? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:07, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
However, there is no way to verify that the images were ever available under the other license. (t · c) buidhe 01:14, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Irrelevant, as the Commons pages have been updated to CC by 4.0, which you would know if you had looked. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:42, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Inuit-Kleidung 1.jpg File:Throat singers 1999-04-07 (cut).jpg — why is the underlying clothing out of copyright?
  • I have never heard of clothing having to be out of copyright before it can be photographed. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:15, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commons seems to indicate that freedom of panorama would cover it, clothing being a 3D work. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:30, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The underlying clothing also has copyright. Unless the clothing designer has relinquished their rights to it or it expired. FoP only applies to permanently located works such as buildings or statues. (t · c) buidhe 01:33, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The helpful people in the Commons Discord pointed me to Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter, which has a section on clothing. Per that section, "Images illustrating clothing styles or articles of clothing are normally acceptable." It goes on to state that copyright of fashion exists in some countries, such as France, but as far as I can tell, Canada does not have such a provision (See for example [66]). Since both photos were taken in Canada, they are fine. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:07, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since it's a traditional design, no one can own a copyright on it. It's not like it's the Disney logo   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:09, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Two smiling Kauwerak Eskimo girls wearing print cotton parkas, Nome, Alaska, between 1903 and 1910 (AL+CA 6372).jpg — when was this first published?
  • Before 1926, per the PD tag applied to it on the Commons page. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:15, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The source does not give a publication date, so you can't assume it was just because the tag has been applied to it. People often use Commons tags incorrectly. (t · c) buidhe 01:33, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per [67], the photographer, Beverly Bennett Dobbs, stopped working in still photography and had sold his negatives to the Lomen Brothers by about 1911, including that photo in particular. The Lomen Bros. got out of photography entirely after a fire destroyed their building in 1934; they never reopened. If Dobbs published it himself first before 1911, or if Lomen published it before 1926, it's expired, both under {{PD-US-expired}}. If Lomen for some reason hung on to it for fifteen years and published it sometime between 1926 and the 1934 destruction of their studio, it's {{PD-US-no notice}}, because while the studio's name is on the photo, there is no explicit copyright notice on it. I find it exceedingly unlikely that they published it after they went out of business. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:07, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It could have been published by someone else at any point. The image is the negative, not a published form. (t · c) buidhe 01:14, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Respectfully, are you suggesting that it could have been first published after it was first published? It was clearly published in by Lomen Brothers, as you can see on the photograph in the bottom left corner. Therefore, the latest that this image could have been "first published" is 1934, when their studio burned to the ground and went out of business. If anyone else published it first, they did it earlier, which only strengthens the PD-expired argument. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:42, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Camp at Tikkoot, Hudson Strait (69047).jpg How do I verify that this is available under the stated license? (t · c) buidhe 00:25, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was uploaded by an employee the Canadian Museum of History working through GLAM; they're still an active uploader so if you have further questions I'm sure they could answer them. It was also created before 1949 so it hits {{PD-Canada}} even if it wasn't uploaded as CC. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:15, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The gallery. Sticking a bunch of images at the bottom of an article in a section titled "Gallery" is the worst way to do images in a Wikipedia article. If you MUST have galleries, they should be split up and placed in the article sections where they are relevant. For example, if you feel you absolutely must have three images to illustrate caribou clothing, put a gallery of three images in that specific section. Also, I did not check these images for copyright status.[68] (t · c) buidhe 01:06, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You aren't obligated to like the gallery, but in my opinion it presents a selection of images that illustrate relevant and unique aspects of Inuit clothing that do not otherwise fit well in the text. WP:GALLERY does not forbid them in articles, nor does it state that they must be positioned in any specific place. The image of Niviatsinaq shows that beaded parkas have a long history, there is no other image of a Mother Hubbard parka where the subject isn't obscuring much of it, there are no photos of gloves in the text, the chewing to soften leather demonstrates the traditional clothing-making process, the Kalaaliit outfit illustrates the modern evolution of Greenlandic wear into the national costume (and the "skin embroidery" process mentioned in the article), and the image of kamiit with the tools demonstrate the specific process of boot-making. It's clear that the gallery serves the reader by providing a curated selection of images that are otherwise of interest to them. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:23, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from the peanut gallery: I think the gallery adds value to this article and should be kept. This is a topic wherein visuals really help and freely licensed photography exists, so use it (if anything, increase the default size of the pictures in the gallery), and the gallery allows lots of relevant images to be included without creating sandwiching or overwhelming the text. Also, just stylistically, it's cleaner to have a single gallery at the end rather than multiple galleries, barring a truly gigantic amount of images in the gallery; not saying that the multiple gallery approach can't work, but it's a style preference at most. SnowFire (talk) 04:24, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not my opinion: MOS says that images should be placed in the section where they are relevant. If there isn't a relevant section with text closely related to the image, then it shouldn't be there at all. (t · c) buidhe 04:31, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are extrapolating MOS:IMAGELOCATION, which describes the most sensible place to put individual images, to apply to galleries. In fact, that section goes on to state that if that's not possible, only to avoid placing images too early in the text. It gives no direction about galleries. Neither WP:GALLERY nor Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout specify where galleries should be located, but most general galleries are placed at the bottom of articles by custom, such as at dress, wedding dress, Lolita fashion, or oil painting. I see no reason that this gallery should be any different - as SnowFire says, it's cleaner to have one gallery than a bunch of tiny ones cluttering up the main text. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:07, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, they are, and just making "policy" up, and not for the first time. Perhaps unfortunately, WP:GALLERY doesn't reflect the existence of "mini-galleries" at all, mainly because they had not been "invented" when it was written - everybody using galleries did what you have done and put a single gallery at the end of the article. Just ignore. The pictures are of course absolutely vital for this, like any costume article, and very good. I'd only say the gallery size could be upped a bit. Johnbod (talk) 21:58, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Johnbod, I appreciate your input. I've never actually used the image size parameters for galleries before - should I use both the height and width parameters, or only one? And how big do you recommend? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:46, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I mostly use something like <gallery widths="180px" heights="200px"> , then maybe fiddle with the settings as appropriate. You have a mix of "portrait" and "landscape" images; you could split them into 2 consecutive galleries, or use the landscape ones in the text somewhere. Johnbod (talk) 02:43, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose 1f and 3. I'm concerned that the image licensing is not compliant with Wikipedia copyright policy in all cases and that images are being used without demonstrated encyclopedic relevance and connection to the article text. As stated in WP:IMGCONTENT, "The relevant aspect of the image should be clear and central." With each image I should be able to connect it to some aspect discussed in the article. A curated image gallery that's not directly connected to the text can be moved to Commons and linked as an external link. I don't appreciate being accused of "making policy up" when WP:image use policy actually says, "A gallery is not a tool to shoehorn images into an article, and a gallery consisting of an indiscriminate collection of images of the article subject should generally either be improved in accordance with the below paragraphs or moved to Wikimedia Commons." (t · c) buidhe 22:19, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Buidhe, can you clarify as to which images you feel are out of compliance with copyright policy? I replied with clear explanations to all of your objections above over a week ago. Unfortunately, I have received no replies from you since then, so if you had any further concerns, it has been impossible for me to know what they are as you have not articulated them. It also feels distinctly unfair to have an opposition based on wording in a comment that someone else made - I did not ever say you were making anything up. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:23, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I'm sorry if my remarks (not solely based on this nom) caused this, and I don't want to make things worse, but Buidhe, perhaps you could give the policy support for your statements above:
  1. "Sticking a bunch of images at the bottom of an article in a section titled "Gallery" is the worst way to do images in a Wikipedia article. If you MUST have galleries, they should be split up and placed in the article sections where they are relevant."
  2. "If there isn't a relevant section with text closely related to the image, then it shouldn't be there at all."
  3. You might also comment on how "An image should generally be placed in the most relevant article section; if this is not possible, try not to place an image "too early" i.e. far ahead of the text discussing what the image illustrates, if this could puzzle the reader" (from MOS:IMAGELOCATION) ends up as "MOS says that images should be placed in the section where they are relevant. If there isn't a relevant section with text closely related to the image, then it shouldn't be there at all".

Johnbod (talk) 01:49, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It’s a really strange oppose. If Buidhe can't reply to PMC's in-line responses, it doesn't seem actionable to me. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 23:14, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to clarify, a full image review has not been done. I have not checked the copyright status of the image of the gallery, because the gallery itself violates WP:image use policy. Furthermore, the copyright issues from other images have NOT been resolved. so the oppose still stands. (t · c) buidhe 01:14, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any "outstanding issues" exist because you failed or refused to reply to me, and then showed up ten days later to dump an oppose based on so-called unresolved copyright concerns - and still without responding to me at that time. Now you show up another ten days after that to respond to exactly two of them, then reaffirm your oppose without waiting for any reply to that! I hope the coordinators will treat this oppose with some scrutiny, because I feel that it goes completely against the collaborative spirit of FAC at which discussion and responsiveness from all parties is expected. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:42, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Coordinator comment edit
  • @Buidhe: hi and thanks for your work on this. Would it be possible to clarify if your oppose is solely on the basis of licensing, or because of the licensing and, separately, the use of the gallery? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:59, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's based on both issues. (t · c) buidhe 14:15, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Premeditated Chaos, can I ask if you are happy that the non-gallery images are appropriately licensed? Buidhe's concerns seem clear to me - I have not examined them in detail and so cannot comment if they are valid, but they seem clear. Regardless, it is for a nominator to bring a nomination to FAC with its image licences in good order. Are you quite sure that these are?
  • Similarly, Buidhe comments that they have not reviewed the gallery images; are you quite sure that they would stand up to a scrutiny of their licensing status.
  • In passing I note that ensuring that only images which quite clearly have no licensing issues are included in featured articles is one of the more important parts of FAC. Getting this wrong has the potential to cause serious legal issues for Wikipedia and the coordinators, and image reviewers, perforce err on the side of caution. Rereading, can I stress that that this is not meant to prejudge any coordinator decision as and when we dig into the detail of this nomination's image review, but to give some background on where we will be coming from.

Gog the Mild (talk) 11:59, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For what its worth, it seems Buidhe is really digging in their heels and going against long standing norms re galleries. Which would be fine if they had well articulated and reasoned grounds, but no; just a vague sullenness. Ceoil (talk) 16:46, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Can we lay off the personal attacks. Ceoil, the last four words are inappropriate. I would be grateful if you would consider striking them. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:11, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Gog the Mild, I responded to each and every one of Buidhe's licensing concerns above in a timely manner yet I have received essentially little to no discussion in return. What little response I have received has been has been unhelpful and verged on feeling that Buidhe was assuming bad faith on my part. As a result, it has been utterly impossible for me to know what images she remains concerned about and which (if any!) she considers acceptable. It took a separate ping from ImaginesTigers for her to return several weeks after she stopped responding to me here, and at that time she basically reiterated her oppose with - again - no concrete feedback. Even now, a ping from an FAC coord receives five words in response, with zero clarification as to which images she has concerns about. As her interactions with me at the Dali FAC were both civil and reasonably responsive, I can only imagine that her unusual behavior at this FAC has to do with her feelings about the gallery, which is disappointing.
Since I have received no specific feedback, I can only guess, but I assume that her major concern is the set of images from Skin Clothing Online. I have gone through all of my uploads on Commons a second time to ensure that each has an active URL in the source field which links to the item's page at the Danish National Museum that clearly states the license for the images is CC-BY-4.0. The rest of the images on the article are either PD by virtue of being old, or are recent but have been freely licensed by their creators. I have zero issue with any coordinator or any other image reviewer digging through them with a fine-toothed comb, and in fact, I welcome it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:43, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I understand Buidhe's reasons for their comments on galleries, and I understand your response. Obviously either of you may add whatever you wish, but as things stand I believe that the position will be clear to the closing coordinator.
I may come across as "belt, braces and a piece of string" but image licencing is important and when an experienced reviewer feels driven to an oppose, the coordinators need to sit up and take notice. Thank you for double checking and for your detailed response above. We'll now consider how to take things forward. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:29, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I totally understand. I have absolutely no problem with people reviewing my work and my use of images - I wouldn't be here at FAC if I did. I appreciate your stepping in to seek clarification, although I'm disappointed that none was forthcoming. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:11, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility review edit

  • I would suggest adding alt text to at least the map image, as the caption doesn't make it clear how the distribution of groups is being presented (e.g., a map, graph, chart, etc.)
  • I went with "Map of the North American Arctic with colored zones to indicate the primary Inuit language or dialect spoken within the area" - does that suit? And are there any other images you would recommend an alt for? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:44, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to WebAIM, "Every image must have an alt attribute". (This is because every image in a Wikipedia article links to another URL. According to WebAIM, "An image that is the only thing inside a link must never have a missing or empty alt attribute"). This is why if the alt text would mostly repeat a caption, I would recommend just doing alt=refer to caption. Heartfox (talk) 17:13, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Heartfox, extremely sorry - I only just remembered to do this now. I've put the "refer to caption" tag on most things, but for a couple where the caption wasn't as self-explanatory, I added fuller alt text. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:20, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add row scopes, column scopes, and row headers to the "Main components of traditional outfit" table per MOS:DTAB. Heartfox (talk) 20:56, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source thoughts

  • Why is Bird 2002 a reliable source? It appears to be a self-published report that was submitted to the UN
  • I'm not sure self-published is the right descriptor. It was prepared by Bird for Pauktuutit, a national-level Inuit women's organization, as a report on a major research project they undertook regarding rights to the amauti (as well as the relevant background leading up to Project Amauti), and submitted at a UN summit. I'm fairly sure you have to be invited to speak at those, although admittedly the UN website isn't very clear on that. Also, I realize the organization was unlinked in the reference so I've linked it now.
    • I think of it like written testimony before a parliamentary committee. We wouldn't use the testimony itself as a source. --In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 01:18, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry to be argumentative, but this is a source I'm willing to quibble over (not least because it's used in History of Inuit clothing more substantially, and I plan to take that to FA eventually as well). I believe the report meets our "acceptable use of self-published works" criteria. Pauktuutit as an organization is a subject-matter expert on the question of Inuit women's issues, having studied and published on the topic since the 1980s. Their work in the area of Inuit clothing/IP protection and the report itself specifically have been cited in other reliable works, ([69], [70], [71] for a couple of examples) and the report was cited as a document for discussion at a World Intellectual Property Office invitational workshop in 2019 ([72]); all of which indicates to me that it is considered a reliable source by experts, and so should be by us as well.
  • It is, see the source that starts with "Kobayashi Issenman, Betty; Rankin, Catherine (1988b)."
  • Why is Pauktuutit: Inuit Women of Canada a reliable publisher?
  • See note under Bird - national-level Inuit women's organization that works in various fields including education. Since it's the only use of the source and the content is supported by the Truth & Reconciliation report, I'm willing to drop this one if you object to it strongly.
  • Why is Inuktut Tusaalanga a reliable publisher?
  • Published by Pirurvik, an Inuit educational centre that publishes Inuktut-language educational material. The Inuktut Tusaalanga site in particular has been given an award by the Canadian government ([73]) and is supported by the government of Nunavut (the polar bear "Nunavut" logo at the bottom of the page is a government icon - see here for confirmation).
  • Why is UpHere a reliable source?
  • Up Here is an established magazine with a reputation for quality, having won several journalistic awards over its 35+ year history. They accept outside pitches but not user-generated content, all stories are bylined, and the contact info for their editorial department is transparent and available. They include corrections when they make errors. The author of that particular article, Kassina Ryder, is as far as I can tell an experienced journalist in covering northern culture.
  • The way chapters from books is organized is strange, but I like it
  • I figured better to go alphabetical on the chapters since the names are the primary means of identification in the citations. Glad you like it :)

No spotchecks were done --In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 03:00, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments! Hopefully that's sufficient to address any concerns. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:59, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support after reviewing the changes made after my comments last month --In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 21:12, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Likely to Support Excellent article, in an area (clothing) where we have few very really strong articles. I will do some points soon, but nothing is likely to be major. Johnbod (talk) 03:51, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review and spot-checks edit

Sources don't need any interrogation. Everything is from reliable sources (anthropological or Inuit-focused journals). None of the citations are malformed or missing necessary parameters.

There are a lot of citations on this article. For that reason, I'm going to start with an unusually low 5% (which is still 15 citations). If there are more than 2 errors in that sample, I'll do another 15. If I need to do another 15, it'll be tomorrow or the day after. Given that the nominator has previously gone through FAC with a stellar sourcing record, I'm not concerned. Nominator has helpfully provided a list of her source access. Of the ones she does not have access to, I've been able to track down most online, so I don't think we'll struggle to get a representative survey.

  • Fns 1 and 2 – Pass
  • Fn 29 (end of Upper body garments subheading) - I had a brain fart and couldn't find where it said it, but it’s right at the beginning of p.42 – pass
  • Fn 35 (trousers and leggings) - this website is hideous, but it’s an established museum and does indeed support the statement – pass
  • Fn 20 (accessory garments) - google books preview was enough - pass
  • Fn 61 (accessory garments) - pass
  • Fn 7 (very end children's clothing) - this author has two articles with a very similar name, weirdly - also, pass
  • Fn 65 (end of accessory garments) - this one caught my eye because it’s fascinating - pass
  • Fn 68 (children's clothing) - this is pretty hardcore - also pass
  • Fn 105 (bird skins) - makes sense - pass (available online)
  • Fn 97 (other natural mammals) - this is the only fact in the article so far that I actually knew - pass
  • Fn 10 (construction and maintenance) - side note: construction feels like a weird word for this heading - pass, though MUSE did not work for me
  • Fn 145 (hide processing) - straightforward pass, paraphrasing across the board is really good (paraphrased but not so much that it’s impossible to find)
  • Fn 12 (major principles) - a brilliantly written section, clearly grounded in judicious research - pass
  • Fn 184 (decorative techniques) - pass (found online)
  • Fn 223 (decorative techniques) - PDF copy provided by nominator I'm not paying £7 for it. quote from paper: "Traditionally, kamiks had geometric patterns which ran vertically down the front on men's and horizontally around the top on women's". pass, but would probably be worth including that extra information about where the patterns go. also, standardise the tense (the nominated article has "are" for men and "were" for women, as if things have changed; Oakes' article says "were")

And just like that, we have 15. This one was really straightforward. I have literally no reservations in supporting the article on the quality and judiciousness of its sources. This has very clearly been a labour of love for the nominator, and I want to extend my sincere appreciation to her for making such an incredible, centralised resource. I love seeing this sort of stuff at FAC. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 23:11, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to throw in that I made the change proposed for the content at fn 223 and forgot to actually mention it here. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:20, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Aoba47 edit

  • I have a question about this bit, inhabiting the Arctic areas of North America and Greenland, from the lead. Why is Greenland specified here? It is a part of the Arctic areas of North America, but this bit makes it sound like a separate area from that.
  • Not everyone immediately pictures Greenland when they think North America, so I wanted to make it clear what's being included. Would one of "Arctic areas of North America, including the United States, Canada, and Greenland" or maybe "Arctic areas of the United States, Canada, and Greenland" be better?
  • Thank you for the response. Upon doing further research, it seems like people tie Greenland very closely to Europe even though geographically, it is very clearly a part of North America. Because of this, the current wording should be fine. That being said, I prefer "Arctic areas of the United States, Canada, and Greenland", but I will leave this choice up to you as you have more knowledge about this area than I do. Aoba47 (talk) 22:01, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've reworded it to that.
  • Thank you! To be fair, I asked my brother which continent Greenland is associated with, and he said Europe so there's that lol. Aoba47 (talk) 00:22, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a comment about this part, Recent efforts by Inuit organizations to revive traditional cultural skills, from the lead. Instead of "Recent efforts", I would specify the time period that these efforts started as "recent" can mean something very different ten years down the line for instance. I would think it would be better to be more specific to help establish a clearer timeline for readers.
  • Swapped out to "Since the 1990s"
  • This is a minor suggestion, but it may be beneficial to link ruff in this part, and fringes, ruffs, and decorative inserts, especially since other clothing terms like fringe get wikilinks.
  • The ruff (clothing) article is pretty specific in referring to elaborate fabric collars worn in the 16th-17th centuries. It doesn't mention the more modern sense of the word, which can refer to trim on hoods. I think it might be confusing to link to.
  • Thank you for the explanation. I should have read that article more thoroughly so apologies for my mistake. You are right that it would be unnecessarily confusing so it would be best to keep it as it currently stands. Aoba47 (talk) 22:01, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the first paragraph of the "Tools" subsection, would it be possible to avoid having four citations together? I would think that would be considered an example of citation overkill. From my personal experience, I have seen around three citations being considered as the limit, but I do not know if there is a greater (and more formal) consensus about this. Another instance of this is in the "Research and documentation" section.
  • There isn't a formal limit, and normally I would try to stick to 3 or less. In the case of the tools section, each ref supports a chunk of the sentence but not the whole thing, in a way that makes it hard to separate into two sentences without wonking up the structure. For example, the first ref supports many of the tools but not the materials, the second ref supports some tools and some materials, the third supports other tools that aren't in the first, and the fourth supports the materials that weren't supported in the others. I did pull the 4th cite from "research and documentation" as it turned out I hadn't added any new content with it.
  • Thank you for the explanation. It should be fine as it currently stands then. Aoba47 (talk) 22:01, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a suggestion for this sentence: Even after the decline of the residential schools, most day schools did not include material on Inuit culture until very recently. I would replace "until very recently" with something more specific as the current wording will change over time to mean something different.
  • I found a ref and have changed the wording to "the 1980s"
  • Thank you. Aoba47 (talk) 22:07, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Double checked and the source says "Smithsonian Institution", no specification.
  • Thank you for the explanation. I would not be surprised if this collection was not assigned to a specific Smithsonian museum and could be put on display in a number of locations since it could really fit into a number of these contexts. Aoba47 (talk) 22:07, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again for your work on this article. It was a very fascinating read and I very much enjoyed it. My comments are focused on the prose and are relatively minor. I do not feel comfortable enough with image use policy to add anything to the discussion about how images are used in the article. Apologies for that. With that being said, I will be more than happy to support the article for promotion based on the prose once my comments have been addressed. I hope you have a wonderful week! Aoba47 (talk) 18:06, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Aoba47, thanks for your comments here and again I'm glad you enjoyed the article. I've responded above, most of them I've made the changes you requested, but in a couple I have some justifications. Let me know your thoughts. Cheers! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:39, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for taking the time to respond to everything. I agree with your justifications, and I will leave the Greenland matter up to you. I support the article for promotion. If you have the time, I would greatly appreciate any input on my current FAC. It is on a completely unrelated (and much more obscure) topic though so I understand if you do not have the time or interest. I hope you have a good rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 22:07, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jens edit

  • This is an interesting one. First comments below, more to follow:
  • as early as 24,000 years ago, and in northern Canada and Greenland as early as 2500 BCE – I propose to use the same format for the years, either "years ago" or "BCE", to make those numbers directly comparable.
  • I used the "X years ago" phrasing because that's what the source said - I didn't want to overstep into OR/potential misstatement of the source by translating it into BCE. I'm fine to swap it to BCE if you don't feel that would be problematic though.
  • I don't see how a simple unit conversion could overstep into OR. As the sentence currently reads, the reader needs to think if they need to add or substract 2021 years from the first (or second) number to be able to compare those values. This is just disrupting reading flow. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:28, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed
  • In Arviat, a hamlet in Nunavut, some women wear a beret, a cap introduced by French missionaries. – Here I wonder why this detail is relevant in this comparatively central article; you are talking about a single village? Mentioning this would imply that similar incidents did not occur in some other hamlets, is this the case?
  • It just happened to be an interesting tidbit that tied into the sentence about modern Inuit wearing caps. I don't have any indication as to whether it never happened elsewhere, only that it specifically did happen and became traditional in that one location. I'm not crazy attached to it though, I can pull it.
  • It would help to translate the Inuit terms in the image captions as well.
  • Done
  • Inuit groups that practiced kayaking regularly developed specialized garments – I don't understand why the "regularly" is needed here. I thought a particular group only need to invent it once?
  • Ah, that's meant to be "kayaking regularly", not "regularly developed". I'll reword.
  • For the sake of consistency, this article uses Canadian Inuktitut terminology, unless otherwise noted. – This is not completely ideal since it introduces bias, but it might still be the best option. Unfortunately, some famous names such as "anorak" do not appear in the article because of this decision. If you would briefly mention the words of the other languages as well, would that clutter the article too much? Also, can you back up this decision a bit, i.e. why Inuktitut and not another language? Has this precedence in the sources? This reasoning could be added as well. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:59, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • So...my reasoning here came from a few things.
    First, the majority of English sources that I found used the Inuktitut words (particularly Sinews of Survival which is the main comprehensive book on the topic). Most sources don't discuss this choice explicitly in the text (Kobayashi Issenman for example mentions using the Inuktitut for place names but doesn't seem to talk specifically about using it for garment names). My guess is that's probably because those sources are mostly Canadian and because Inuktitut is the largest Canadian Inuit language with 35k+ speakers and official recognition in Nunavut and the Northwest Territories. While some sources mention other terms here and there, which I have sometimes used in the article, I never found sources that comprehensively listed the outfit equivalents in other languages like Iñupiaq and Greenlandic.
    Second, I believe it would be overly cluttery to mention every equivalent word that I could find - as I quoted from Kobayashi Issenman, the vocabulary is extensive and there are lots of dialects/regional variations and not necessarily any one "official" word. Once I start including some dialects, where do I draw the line?
    I did find a source for the origins of parka/anorak so I've put that in - couldn't find a place to logically insert it so it's a footnote for now, but I'm happy to move it if you can see somewhere better to put it. It's at the end of the upper body garments subsection now.

Thanks for your comments Jens Lallensack, looking forward to the rest! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:45, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • which confirms significant consistency – When reading "significant", I think about statistics. I think something can be significantly different, but I don't see how a lack of difference can possibly be significant. Would it hurt to remove this word, or what exactly does it actually add?
  • When you think about how much clothing styles and technologies change, it's basically jaw-dropping to consider that the ancestors of the Inuit invented a clothing technology so effective that it remained in use for something like 24,000 years. Aesthetics changed here and there, and new techniques developed, but the system of layered insulating furs sewn in specific shapes to capture and retain heat while permitting ventilation remained the same. That's significant.
  • It is indicated that ulu knives are made from "bone, baleen, antler and ivory", and later it is stated that they are made from "Wood and stone" and "meteoric iron or copper". Is this correct?
  • Yup. There was no "prescribed" material. The Inuit used whatever was at hand and could be made nice and sharp. The first sentence describes materials for all traditional tools, including ulu. Wood and stone were also used for ulu - wood to make grips, stone for the blade. Here's an example I'd kill to have a free picture of. When they found metal, they made blades from it, like this one - ivory handle, iron blade. Later, when white people showed up, they started to make them from metal much more systematically, but that wasn't an option for the majority of their history.
  • bespoke paper patterns – link?
  • Instead, frost accumulates on the surface of fur – bit difficult to imagine. Does it mean that sweat is migrating through the skin and hair to the outside?
  • I wound up re-reading some sources and rewriting a bunch of the paragraph. Better now?
  • Shamans from groups which permitted the hunting of albino caribou, – I don't understand the significance of the albino caribou. Other groups did not permit hunting those? The albino caribou is somehow linked to the color-inverted parkas?
  • Yes, it was specifically noted in the source that those groups allowed it; by inference, other groups didn't for whatever reason. Lots of hunting societies have taboos or beliefs about differently-colored animals. Some groups forbid hunting such animals for spiritual reasons; the source didn't get into detail about why but it appears that the Copper and Caribou Inuit encouraged it for spiritual reasons, and when someone killed one, the shaman got an incredible and visually distinct white parka. Remember, until basically the modern period, everyone's caribou garments were colored basically like a caribou - brown, with some white trim. Most caribou don't have a lot of white fur, so you can't get a white parka unless you get an albino caribou. Thus, for the shaman to have a parka with inverse coloration is a big deal - they look different, they look connected to that specific spiritually-significant animal in a way that sets them apart from laypeople. Call it the equivalent of a cardinal's red robe - you know the guy wearing it is something special.
  • I don't understand that Jill E. Oakes quote. I can't find "Text stitched into footwear designs" discussed in the article. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:28, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • She doesn't mean literal text... she's talking metaphorically about the culture and history that underlies individual kamiit designs, how they often represent personal or spiritual things that may not be apparent just from looking at the boot, and how it can be impossible to properly understand what was intended without the actual designer there to interpret things. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:15, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opinion on the above oppose: My reading of WP:GALLERY is that the use of galleries is in-line with the MOS. "Fashion" is even listed as a topic for which image galleries may be suitable. I therefore don't see any issue in this regard. I consequently may support. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:31, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Johnbod edit

  • So far so good (down to decoration). I have tweaked a few things, mostly links. More later. Johnbod (talk) 00:04, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - great stuff. A few tweaks made but no real queries. I've described my objections to the oppose on images above. Johnbod (talk) 21:30, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Ceoil edit

Placeholder (will prob support). Ceoil (talk) 02:10, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Having followed the improvements over the last few weeks, and making trivial edits, am very happy to recommend that this impressive, fascinating article is promoted to FA. Excellent work. Ceoil (talk) 18:22, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, criteria for my support are quality of sources, prose and image use (I'm also not convinced by Buide's oppose above). Ceoil (talk) 18:28, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dunkleosteus77 edit

  • You say their clothes are made out of made of animal hide and fur twice in the lead in consecutive sentences   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:09, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've reworded this bit (and a bit of the lead in general)
  • Oddly, I don't recall any of the sources I read using the word "Venus" specifically, but I can't imagine it's somehow a different set of figurines. I'll have a look at that source - it'll probably be useful detail for history of Inuit clothing. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:40, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from the large number of modern archaeologists who object to the whole "Venus" name, many others restrict the term to finds from Western Europe. Johnbod (talk) 22:40, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah it's not the best name, but Venus figurines of Mal'ta is kinda their most commonly recognized name for better or worse. If you'd like, we can say human figurines?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:39, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So is the 22 kya thing referring to Mal'ta?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:45, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's for sure the Mal'ta culture, that's discussed in detail at history of Inuit clothing. The only thing I wasn't sure of was whether or not the figurines were the specific Venus figurines you were talking about. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:33, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They didn't make any other figurines. In that case, link "carved figurines" to Venus figurines of Mal'ta and somewhere at least say the words "Mal'ta–Buret' culture"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:44, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a bit detailed given the tightness of the summary in the main article here; the sub-article gets into it in more detail. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:10, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I know, I'm just asking to actually have a link to that sub-article. If the Mal'ta–Buret' culture is so unimportant to not even name, then don't include the 22,000 year thing at all   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:47, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, linked the culture. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:24, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Canada and Greenland as early as 2500 BCE" I think we're talking about the Saqqaq culture which arrived at the Canadian archipelago and Greenland right around that date. It's a bit too early to be referencing the Qilakitsoq mummies, so the source is probably just simplifying things using that date. Am I correct? If so, including all of Canada may not be the best description, and you might wanna move the date to the mummies but that's optional since Qilakitsoq is a Saqqaq site. Sorry this is coming so late, I just noticed it now   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:06, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, Dunkleosteus77, I didn't notice this comment until now. The Kobayashi Issenman source mentions archaeological finds on Baffin & Ellesmere Islands dating back to as early as 2500 BCE, as well as Independence I culture finds in Greenland. and Stenton talks about archaeological evidence of pre-Dorset clothing-making tools. Neither mentions the "Saqqaq culture"; both use Dorset and pre-Dorset. I'm not comfortable extrapolating this to be about the Saqqaq without a reference.
    Not sure what you mean when you say "move the date to the mummies". Evidence for tools for making skin-clothing "as early as 2500 BCE" is correct to the sources cited; the mummies are carbon-dated to c. 1475, so that's quite a significant difference. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:02, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This book has a great overview of the Saqqaq, and on p. 96 it mentions, "Another unusual find category from Qeqertasussuk are skin fragments, some being clothing. The foot of a kamik-stocking appears to have been made in the same fashion as more recent inner boots: a sole and a tube, sewn together with very fine thin twisted sinew. Within the inner boot there was some plant material believed to be the remains of a lining (Møller 1991), which in more recent times was usually made of lyme grass." The Qeqertasussuk site dates to 2400 to 900 BCE, but I'm still kinda convinced the source is just oversimplifying given this which goes over the earliest dates of Greenlandic colonization. And, if we're going off just stone tools instead of fabric samples, I'm worried how the source has decided to set its cut-off point especially considering that's not its main focus, since delicate sewing needles were invented before Greenland was colonized. What are your source's exact words?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:43, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) That first source you gave comes back as a 404 for me. The Stenton source is linked in the article and is available on JSTOR, and here's a Google Books link to Sinews with a search for 2500 highlighted. It's probably easier if you read them and see what they say rather than me trying to figure out what you want me to quote, since the content covers more than a single sentence. The second source you cited mentions that earliest colonization of Greenland occurred around 2500 BCE. I honestly don't understand what issue you're trying to highlight. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:59, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just link whatever culture you're discussing, because like I said earlier, if it's not worth mentioning by name, it's not worth mentioning at all   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:40, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've put pre-Dorset and Dorset, since that's what my sources say. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:25, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Image review gallery edit
  • Click "source" URL, scroll to bottom, under Details, you will see Photographer: Roberto Fortuna followed by License: CC-BY-SA. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:04, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, I appreciate you taking a look. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:13, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Drive by comments edit

  • Cites 23, 83, 128, 180 and several others contain p/pp errors.
  • All of these errors should now be dealt with.
Cites 83 and 262 not resolved.
Sorry, should be now.
  • Cite 236 has an em dash in the page range.
  • Fixed
It's not.
What on earth...Okay, it should be now. Not sure what happened there.
  • There seems to be inconsistency in the use or non-use of sentence case in the titles of works. For example in "Websites".
  • I used the same case that the source used. Newspapers tend to use sentence case for their titles, while other websites mostly use title case. I couldn't find guidance on how to resolve that in the MOS, but I could very well be blind :)
The MoS takes a lot of getting used to. "The English-language titles of compositions (books and other print works, songs and other audio works, films and other visual media works, paintings and other artworks, etc.) are given in title case, in which every word is given an initial capital except for certain less important words (as detailed at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters § Composition titles). The first and last words in an English-language title are always capitalized." sums it up. For detail see MOS:TITLECAPS. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:10, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, thank you. I've sorted it, and have also linked publishers and journals in the first instance, as I realized I hadn't done that consistently either. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:34, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 12:20, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, Gog. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:31, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Typo alert: " 'Wear Their Culture on Their Cleeve, Literally' ". I bet they don't. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:42, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All done. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:55, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Likely Support from Sdkb edit

 Doing... {{u|Sdkb}} talk 15:59, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so as you can probably tell from the time delay/the size of this edit haha, I got sucked into this article and went through it with a pretty fine-toothed comb. Overall, it's in excellent shape: comprehensive, scholarly, and well-referenced. My comments below reflect a lot of nitpicky things, many of which are moreso suggestions rather than major concerns that would lead to an oppose if unaddressed, so please feel free to disagree with me if anything doesn't seem like it'd be an improvement to the page. Once the few more significant issues (e.g. religion section) have been resolved, I look forward to supporting, and I hope the smaller suggestions are helpful for tuning it up to get it to the best possible state. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Would it be possible for you to hat out or otherwise separate any ones that you consider dealt with, even if only temporarily? I get lost in huge swaths of wikitext and it would make it easier for me to find and reply to ones that are getting threaded. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:50, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll start out with the archetypal picky comment haha: Oxford comma usage is inconsistent. Most sentences in the lead so far use it, but caribou, seals and seabirds doesn't. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's quite a lot of use of the word "traditional" in the lead. Are there places where we could take it out? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • extreme weather of the polar regions could wikilink to Climate of the Arctic. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Above three all handled. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:11, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's some tense inconsistency. In the second paragraph, have historically been consistent uses [grammar nerds, please help me out] tense, different from past tense, which would be were historically consistent. The paragraph later switches to past tense with varied and decorated. Overall, we need to make a decision about whether to describe Inuit clothing as a past aspect of history or something contemporary. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • We can't, really - it is distinctly both. Much of what was traditionally practiced, particularly the nomadic hunting lifestyle that followed the migration cycles of useful animals, is pretty clearly past tense. On the other hand, there's also a lot that's still done more or less in line with traditional methods and patterns. So it's neither entirely historical nor entirely contemporary, and it would be misleading to try to make it a bright line. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:11, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that, using a mix of past and present tense seems fine. The most I ask, then, is just that we put consideration into which places use past and which use present, and that we don't mix them when referring to the same thing. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 19:33, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • history of the circumpolar clothing system goes to History of Inuit clothing, which is a bit odd given that the previous sentence just talked about there being other circumpolar peoples. One way to resolve this would be to create a redirect from History of circumpolar clothing to History of Inuit clothing, tag it as {{r to subtopic}}, and then link to the redirect instead of directly. That way, it'd be clearer to readers that they're being pointed to a subtopic, and if a broader history article is ever created, it'll go to that instead. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Non-breaking spaces are needed between years and BCE or CE. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • For 3–4.5 kg (6.6–9.9 lb), I'm assuming the original comes from kg and is accurate to .5kg, so the conversion to lb appears to introduce a false precision to .1lb. See here for instructions on reducing the rounding to the nearest pound. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Previous 3 done
  • In the sentence where Betty Kobayashi Issenman is brought up, I'm not sure it's necessary to cite her by name or to quote her directly. WP:INTEXT suggests caution about when to use in-text attribution, and this material doesn't seem to be among the most subjective or potentially controversial. Stating basic factual information rather than quoting it is generally preferred. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same for the block quote in the next paragraph. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not really possible to reword those quoted sentences without closely paraphrasing; better to quote outright in my opinion than try to contort myself around rewriting what's already been elegantly put. As for Kobayashi Issenman, she was generally considered the all-around expert on the broad topic of Inuit clothing (Oakes & Riewes probably know more about footwear, but that's a subtopic). Sinews was big enough in its field that it smashed GNG easily, which is something for a reference book from 1997. In my opinion it is necessary to introduce her and Sinews, as the article relies so much on her scholarship. I'm responding to these point by point so forgive me if this touches on something you mention later, but I also mention several other experts a number of times in the article, so to me it doesn't feel out of place, as it occurs throughout. It's also something I did at Dali (goddess) and it wasn't considered an issue there.
    I speak a little more to paraphrasing below. If she's so important to the topic's research history, would it make sense to talk about her in the research and documentation section below? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 19:33, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The great tragedy is that she wrote quite a lot of the significant work on the topic, and everybody cites her, but nobody that I've found has actually written about her and her research. That's why I bluelinked Sinews but not her. I also think it might be undue to focus on one researcher in that section in the main article, since it's a really condensed summary of what has become a fairly substantial article on its own. (I suppose it could be worth trying to squeeze anything I can find from the Sinews reviews for the research article, but that's a separate future FAC :P)
  • For the sake of consistency, this article uses Canadian Inuktitut terminology, unless otherwise noted. is a MOS:SELFREF. I've only recently come across this area, which appears pretty complex, so I'm not confident making a suggestion about whether it needs wrapping in {{xref}}, conversion to a footnote, or something else. But I'd appreciate hearing from someone more familiar about how this sentence should be handled. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • {{xref}} appears to be for text that refers to other Wikipedia articles, so it doesn't quite fit. I had this conversation at the GA review, and I don't believe a footnote is suitable. I want this information to be visible and clear to the reader without having to click elsewhere, which many readers (especially on mobile) don't do. It's rare, but per MOS:SELFREF, References that exist in a way that assumes the reader is using an encyclopedia, without reference to the specific encyclopedia (Wikipedia) or the manner of access (online), are acceptable.
    Sounds fine; glad to hear it's been considered. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 19:33, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, no, that article says that ITK approved a standard orthography that uses Roman letters, but syllabics still use the 1976 standard developed by ITK as far as I can tell. I still put your source in since it's more specific about the date.
    Looks good. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 19:33, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't really have a problem with the lack of a {{Contains special characters}} tag, as the article doesn't use that many of them and it's my sense that the tag is somewhat a relic of a time when browsers had much worse rendering support. But just noting it here for the record, as others might disagree. I wish it were possible to make the template display only when needed. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, it wasn't a conscious choice to omit, I just forgot about it. I can put it in if you want.
    I think it's fine without it. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 19:33, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm seeing more inconsistent tense use: Parkas for women were called amauti and had large pouches starts in past, but then the paragraph moves to present. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed, I wound up moving some stuff down into the "decorative techniques" area.
  • Non-breaking space fixes are needed for the en-dashes; I fixed one. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Duffel" isn't wikilinked on its first appearance, but is then wikilinked twice later on. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • National Museum of Denmark isn't wikilinked in the caption where it first appears but is then wikilinked later on; I'd suggest wikilinking it in the caption, too. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prev 3 done
  • These baggy leggings were much-noted by non-Inuit who encountered them I don't really have a sense of why this is. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reference doesn't get into it so I can't put this in the article, but consider that for white people in the 1800s-early 1900s, these would have been incredibly exotic and interesting garments. Women wearing pants was weird enough for Euro-Americans at the time, but the fact that they had these big huge storage pockets for carting stuff around was fascinating to them. Remember, cargo pants were only invented in the 1940s or so :)
    That's interesting to know! I think the current article text is fine, then. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 19:33, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • During the wet season of summer This is the first mention of summer Inuit clothing. Is there anything to say in the upper body garments and lower body garments sections about this? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at the lower sections about hoods/etc., you seem to address this, so it's probably fine. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Basically that's because the structure of the garments were the same, just made of different fur as seasonally appropriate. I get into it in the materials section - caribou outfits were for cold dry winter, seal outfits were for wet cool summer. Layer up in winter or as otherwise necessary.
  • It'd be nice to see {{circa}} used whenever there are approximate dates. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you specify where you mean?
    Just ctrl+f search for "c. 1". I'm not sure using the circa template is required, but many people don't know what "c." means, so I think having the tooltip (as the circa template does) is helpful. If you choose not to use it, you'll still want to replace the space with a non-breaking one. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 19:33, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh duhhh, I wasn't thinking of the captions, sorry. Fixed now :)
  • The sentence about Arviat women wearing berets is interesting. But it looks to be a pretty tiny place, and there's no indication of this elsewhere. Is it really a significant enough factoid to warrant inclusion? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since someone else commented about it above, I pulled it.
  • More present vs. past tense confusion in the accessories section. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I changed the paragraphs about hoods/hats and mitts to be completely present tense as those are still commonly used in the same fashion today, belts I left past tense since that mostly concerns historical usage.
    Sounds good. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 19:33, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cockpit links to an article explicitly about aircraft cockpits. Unless we're talking about flying kayaks, that wouldn't seem ideal.[understatement] Cockpit (sailing) unfortunately doesn't look like a great fit either; do we need a wikilink here at all? If so, maybe Wiktionary? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delinked for simplicity
  • My preference would be to have snow goggles linked in the caption, per the exception for captions at MOS:REPEATLINK and the fact it's an interesting concept. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the child suit, by 1924 in the caption took me a minute to figure out, as I generally associate "by" more with authorship than with dates. You use "collected [date]" above; would it be appropriate to do the same here? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Above two both done
  • Hairstyles for pubescent girls also changed to indicate their new status. Would it be possible to give a concise explanation of how, or is it complicated/varied enough that explaining it would be WP:UNDUE? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • IIRC neither source got into the detail of what changed. I don't have the sources right now to double check; my library made me give Sinews back and those pages are not in the GBooks preview, and I don't have the Arctic Clothing pdf at hand.
    Thinking about it, hairstyles is a little beyond the scope of this article on clothing, so that's probably reason enough to not both to go into further detail. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 19:33, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was able to check Arctic Clothing on my break and it barely gives any detail, and that was only for Greenland anyway. But Inuit hairstyles beckons, I suppose.
  • use of seabird skins is now rare even in places where traditional clothing is still common Is there a particular reason why, or is it just a trend? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Birdskin sucks in comparison to basically any other skin; I talk about it in the materials section. Nobody really did much birdskin sewing unless they really had no other options, so nowadays with all the modern commercial options available, most people are going to avoid birdskin unless they're making a particular choice to use it.
    Yep, I wrote the above before I'd read through the rest of the materials section; this seems covered fine there. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 19:33, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • For [74], there's a 3D model of the outfit in addition to the photo. I'm not sure if Wikipedia has the technical infrastructure to support 3D imagery (probably not), but it'd be super cool to have that. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think the 3D models are CC, sadly.
  • today, many seamstresses also make use Are Inuit who sew still universally female? If not, it'd be better to de-gender. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Same with all the other uses of this word farther down. Regarding a gender neutral term, some suggestions include "tailor", "sewer", and "sewist". {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the Inuit, sewing is and always has been a female activity. Every single source I read used "seamstresses," talked about it as a woman's craft, how it's a part of women's identity, etc etc, even when referring to modern times. Every modern Inuit designer I've read about has been female. Every cultural education program I've read about talks about engaging women. I have literally never seen a single reference to a male taking up sewing as a major activity. I can't guarantee that there's not a single man or nonbinary person who's taken up sewing (only the Sith deal in absolutes), but in my opinion, it would be both incorrect and culturally inappropriate to use gender-neutral terms here.
    Sounds reasonable. There's still one related line I'd like clarified, though (see below; ctrl+f for "conflicts with"). {{u|Sdkb}} talk 19:38, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Traditionally all clothing material was obtained I'd suggest a comma after "traditionally". {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • to make waterproof jackets, for inclement weather I'd suggest removing the comma here. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Last 2 done
  • {{ill}} linked it since it has an article in German
  • The use of bird skins has been documented by all Inuit groups Do you mean "The use of bird skins by all Inuit groups has been documented"? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed it to "documented across all Inuit groups"
    Even better. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 19:33, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Over two dozen I'd suggest changing to "more than two dozen". Same with over 2100 historic skin clothing items later down. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done
  • Is there anything to say about Inuit sleepwear? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think they had jammies. None of the sources I read (and I read...several) mentioned it.
  • and fabric which began I'd suggest a comma after "fabric". {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done
  • These garments were valued by women as they were simple to make "Appreciated" might be a better word here than "valued", as the latter tends to refer to something rarer or better rather than just cheaper. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, reading the next sentence, I guess they were considered better, too. Still, the "as" in the previous sentence implies a causal connection, and something being simple to make doesn't alone make it more valuable, so I'd still suggest switching to "appreciated". {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The labor-saving simplicity of construction is precisely what made fabric garments valuable to the women. The entire construction process for full skin garments could take hundreds of hours of hide processing, cutting, planning, and sewing. In comparison, sewing pre-made fabric together saves a ton of work. That's valuable, in the same way that your car is valuable because it saves you the time and energy of walking.
    As I understand it, "valuable" refers to something's worth, not how hard it is to acquire. If something becomes easier to acquire, that tends to make it less valuable, because it pushes the price down. You seem to be using "valued" as a synonym for "appreciated" here, which is a valid sense of the word, but I still think it'd be a little better to just say "appreciated" to eliminate the potential confusion. It's a small thing, though, so no worries if you still prefer "valued". {{u|Sdkb}} talk 19:33, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second dictionary sense of "to value" is "to consider (someone or something) to be important or beneficial," which I think applies here, both in the sense that these items were expensive status symbols, and because they beneficially saved women a bunch of hard work.
  • It is important to note that these new materials... Just say These new materials... It's not our role to say what is or isn't important to note, and it's unneeded wordiness. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree. The previous two paragraphs indicate a lot of changes to the traditional system. It should be made clear to the reader that despite that influx of foreign materials and garments, the Inuit didn't abandon their traditional clothing system. Instead, they adopted what worked for them.
    The relevant link here is MOS:EDITORIAL, which appears to speak pretty specifically to this situation. There are other ways to indicate the "despite" aspect, which I think will still come across clearly to readers. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 19:33, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough, I tweaked it.
  • More tense confusion in the construction section: Women were responsible, then switching to These skills have historically been passed. I'll stop noting specific instances, but this is something that needs fixing throughout the article. This is something that should be given careful consideration: from the fact you chose to work on this article, I'm guessing you have an interest in cultural preservation, but it's also important for neutrality that, when something has become historical (i.e. no longer worn in its original everyday context, or worn only in significantly altered descendant versions), we note so honestly. I anticipate that you'll discuss cultural preservation farther down the page. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I reworded the whole paragraph a bit. How's that?
    Looks good! {{u|Sdkb}} talk 04:15, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Better! {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:28, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed in the process of rewording as above
  • Garments had to be sewn well and properly maintained to maintain the survival of the family and the larger group Awkward wording. I'd suggest changing to Garments had to be sewn well and properly maintained to for the family and the larger group to survive. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wound up flipping the sentence over, I think that works better
  • I'd suggest a wikilink over heat loss, probably to Heat transfer (but you might be able to find something better). That'll make the interdisciplinary physics people happy haha. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure, done
  • Production of clothing was an intensive communal process undertaken by entire families gathered together. This conflicts with the earlier statement that women were entirely responsible for the work. Did the men in the families help out? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reworded to be more clear - every family in a community basically set up into a camp following the hunt. The women sewed their collective asses off while the men butchered the meat and dealt with (and this isn't explicitly in any of my sources so I didn't put it in the article) I assume whatever community business there was that wasn't sewing. Also I happened to find a sort-of estimate of how many seals were needed to clothe a whole family, so I stuck that in since I already had the caribou estimate. Neat!
  • Does Jill Oakes meet WP:NPROF (warranting a redlink)? She doesn't appear to hold a named professorship, which would be the most common route, but maybe she's written books that have been reviewed, creating a GNG path. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure. I honestly hate trying to judge notability by NPROF, I'm so bad with it. I remember DGG saying once upon a time that anyone with a professorship at a major university likely qualified, so I redlinked her just in case.
  • Transitioning to the quote in the Oakes sentence introduces some plurality grammar concerns, and same as above, I'm not sure the material is necessary to quote. I'm guessing you were trying to avoid any plagiarism concerns, but it'd be helpful to hear from a copyright person as to whether a basic list like that would run any risk of copyright violation without the quote marks. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tweaked the sentence and trimmed the quote a bit, but I still think it should be quoted, as it comes directly from her fieldwork.
  • Having the caribou hide picture be from Scandinavia is slightly odd, but if that's the best hide picture available, that's probably a worthwhile tradeoff. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I mean, same issue with the sealskin pic, which is from the German Fur School. I don't have any clear color photos of either type of skin harvested by Inuit specifically, unfortunately.
    Yeah, the pictures we use are fine, then. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:28, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • the latter being a uniquely Inuit development To improve flow, I would move this farther down the paragraph to where you talk about the waterproof stitch. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reworded slightly.
  • wearing clean clothing on a hunt was important, The start of the sentence indicates that we're talking about religious importance specifically here, not general importance. Therefore, no need for the comma after "important". {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reworded slightly.
  • I'm guessing "innitaq" is the plural of "innitait", but I can't be sure. More generally, all the foreign words in the article are italicized, which is good, but there are a lot of them, which makes the prose much harder to read for someone who doesn't speak the Inuit languages. I would try to use English words wherever you reasonably can—garments were laid over the rack near a heat source seems like it'd work fine. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Another thought on foreign words: it'd be nice in some cases to have audio or IPA pronunciations available. For clothing items with their own articles like amauti, a place for that would be at the start of those articles (which is beyond the scope of this FAC), but for others without articles, it might be appropriate to add them here, perhaps in the table. I'm not sure if we're allowed to put pronunciations outside the lead, though, and in any case this isn't something strictly necessary; it'd just be nice since the pronunciations in many cases aren't intuitive to me. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 19:59, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I reworded the innitaq bit. As for pronounciation, Iiiiii don't actually speak Inuktitut and I'm not comfortable with IPA stuff...I could make a go of it if you really think it's important but it's a bit beyond my normal capabilities as an editor.
    No worries, then—we definitely don't want non-Inuit (literally) speaking for Inuit by trying to pronounce their words. Just something to keep in mind if you ever come across PD recordings or meet someone who wants to help. For IPA, I not too long ago had to dive into that for the first time myself; I found that many dictionaries included IPA pronunciations, and it wasn't too hard to translate into {{IPAc-en}}. I'm not having any luck there for the Inuit words in this article, though, unfortunately—nothing on Dictionary.com or sources like this. I think for our purposes here the Inuktitut syllabics are enough, as they're workable for a really dedicated reader who uses the table at the syllabics page. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 17:01, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Betty Kobayashi Issenman is introduced with her full name three times, and with a description the first and third time. I would include her full name and description the first time, and then just her last names, or maybe "Kobayashi Issenman, the Inuit clothing expert". That makes the fact that readers are being reminded of her rather than introduced to her more explicit. Also, the fact that her book, Sinews of Survival, is notable probably means she is as well, and should therefore be redlinked. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fixed the second use of her full name; in the case of "Major principles", I think I'd prefer to keep it like that for the benefit of those mobile readers skip through articles section by section (the horror) and may not have encountered her earlier in the article. Per my comments above, I don't think she actually hits NPROF or NAUTHOR (only one book IMO is not sufficient), so I haven't redlinked her.
    Okay, I'll defer to your preference then. This touches again on the question of repeated info where I think it might be helpful to have a broader discussion at MoS at some point. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 17:01, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Loosed" sounds a bit weird/archaic to me; I'd expect to see "loosened". It might be different in Canadian English, though. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not a Canadianism, but it is synonymous.
    Sounds good. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 17:01, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You give the winter temperature; could you note the typical summer temperature as well? Overall, a little more climate information wouldn't hurt, as the extreme climate is a major influence on the clothing. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't have references for the summer temperatures offhand, and I'm not sure where I would put that...open to suggestions though, assuming I can find something?
    I would put it in this sentence: For the warmer weather of spring and summer, where temperatures average X °C (Y °F) in [region], only a single layer of clothing was necessary. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 17:01, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having done my best at searching, I couldn't find a solid easy-to-cite reference for an average summer temperature. There's this map from 2007 that's built on NOAA data, but I can't cite a user-created map, and I frankly don't understand how to produce useful results from the NOAA Arctic Datasets website, let alone citable ones.
    For something at a pretty general level, USA Today says 40s F. I imagine there's plenty of specific data, but the tricky thing here is that we want a more general take. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 04:15, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That source is brand-placed advertorial content (Google "Leaf Group"), and it gives no indication as to where that estimate came from. I wouldn't call that a RS, let alone a high-quality FAC-qualifying source.
    Ack, I probably should've looked for more than two seconds and/or searched when I'm more awake haha. Second try: https://www.gov.nu.ca/eia/information/nunavut-faqs. Nunavut doesn't exactly overlap with Inuit territory, but is it close enough? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 05:18, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Er, Nunavut is most definitely Inuit territory. The name means "our land" in Inuktitut :) In any case, good find, it led me to the Canadian Climate Stations that the FAQ cites. I've used those instead, citing the lowest and the highest average summer temp given by the stations that meet World Meteorological Organization standards.
    Aaannnd I managed to find a way to stick my foot in my mouth again before we're done haha. Anyways, looks good! {{u|Sdkb}} talk 14:53, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The major principles section contains some repetition of facts elsewhere in the article: garments were individually tailored, work was divided by gender, etc. It's not ideal, but I'm not sure there's really anything to be done about it, as the information is relevant in both places. How Wikipedia articles deal with the fact that some readers jump to different sections rather than reading straight through (relevant also to my comments about Kobayashi Issenman and MOS:REPEATLINK) is something that should probably be considered in a broader forum at some point. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the decorative techniques section, as above, when there are differences between the genders, this article currently discusses the male variant first. This might be worth switching up, and the decorative techniques section might be a good place to do it, as it sounds like women's clothing has more ornamentation than men's. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've switched up the order.
  • The article uses the word "even" a fair amount. In some places, it connotes an element of surprise, which threatens a bit the detached scholarly tone we want to take. I don't object to leaving it in where you want to, though. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Verbal tic, I've trimmed a bunch of them.
  • The sentence where Riewe is introduced looks to me like another instance where we needlessly include in-text attribution and a quote for a basic factual list. Looking at MOS:QUOTE, I'm not sure using quotes this way is strictly against guidance, but it wouldn't be my preference: readers who want attribution can always find it in references, and when the information is not controversial, the important thing is the information itself, not who said it. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Imo this is an interesting enough fact and a specific enough list that I'm not comfortable rewording it, and I'd prefer to keep the quote.
    Fair enough. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 17:01, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clean clothing showing respect for animals during hunting is another repeated fact, but again I'm not sure we can do anything about that. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it's reasonable here in the religious context.
    Sounds good. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 17:01, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I interpret WP:RNPOV to mean that we shouldn't write Generous sharing of the meat from a hunt pleased the animal's spirit directly. Instead, we could say Generous sharing of the meat from a hunt was said to please the animal's spirit. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • When the bear's spirit departed, it took the spirits of the tools with it and used them in the afterlife. Again, this is a religious belief which needs to be attributed to the religion rather than stated directly as fact. I'm guessing this issue will come up a few more times in this section; I won't list out all of them, but the point and suggested remedy is the same. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the above two, I've found this is a pretty common type of phrasing in academic sources dealing with religious beliefs, and I don't think it goes against NPOV to use it here. It would be repetitive to continually be repeating "the Inuit believed," "it was said," etc etc in a section where the context is clearly "what the Inuit believed about their clothes". I think we can trust the reader to understand that we are making a factual statement about what Inuit people believed, not a factual statement about reality.
    There is a bit of a tradeoff between wordiness and precise language here, yeah, but especially for sensitive topics like religion, I think we should err on the side of being precise. "Was said to please" isn't hugely longer than "pleased". I imagine that this question has probably come up before for religion articles—are you aware of any such discussions and what the consensus was? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 17:01, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't have any awareness of previous discussions on it. I still think it's quite clear from context that that it's a statement of fact about a belief rather than a fact about reality, without having to remind the reader of that in every sentence.
  • The position of the amulet on the clothing was in some cases as important as the item itself. It's odd to note how important the position is and then end the section without providing any information about it. If it's so important, shouldn't it be discussed? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blegh. I don't have the source anymore to double check as it was an interlibrary loan, and it will take several weeks to get back as it was from another province and I don't currently have any free ILL slots. The page in question isn't on GBooks and there are no PDFs of the book anywhere. I don't recall it going into specifics about what individual positions meant, but I don't presently have the means to check.
    Due weight is determined by sources, so if you don't recall the book going into specifics, they're presumably not important enough to require adding. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 17:01, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reworded & added a Kobayashi Issenman cite. How's that?
  • In addition to their everyday clothing, many Inuit had a set of ceremonial clothing This contradicts the earlier statement that most people only had one set of clothing, which was made without caveat. The earlier statement should probably be qualified to say only one set of everyday clothing or something like that. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm. Sinews is actually more ambiguous here than I thought. Page 40 says "a rich man, a successful hunter, can have two or more sets of clothing for himself and his family," and talks about how "the traditional style of life demands a set of new clothes for each of the two seasons." I may have misinterpreted that to mean that most people only had one set, especially since apparently under "Construction" I talk about family members having two sets. I'll just remove the "one set" statement entirely.
    It's too bad to not have that sentence, as how many sets of clothing people owned is a very relevant piece of information for this article. If you find coverage of it elsewhere in the future, I'd encourage re-adding something. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 17:01, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Er...but I said that I do mention it? "Especially since apparently under "Construction" I talk about family members having two sets"
    Oops, I missed that. I think we're good here, then. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 04:15, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's some inconsistency in the formatting of captions: " – Royal Ontario Museum" has a dash, whereas ", Greenland National Museum" has a comma. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dash turned into comma
  • Overhunting led to a significant depletion of caribou herds in some areas, and strong opposition to seal hunting from the animal rights movement led to a major decline in the export market for seal pelts, and a corresponding drop in hunting as a primary occupation. I was waiting for this sort of material to come up. Maybe it's just my personal interests, but I'd like to hear a little more. Was the overhunting all from non-Inuit or was some of it from Inuit themselves? Did environmental activists oppose seal hunting just for non-Inuit, or did some of the more extreme groups oppose it for everyone, including Inuit peoples? Were any laws passed that made it more difficult to create traditional skin clothing? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is discussed in detail in the history article; it's a bit too much to get into in the main. By and large it was whitey's fault; the Inuit have historically been pretty good about managing their hunting without overexploitation. Environmental activists generally oppose all seal hunting, and since in Canada most seal hunting is done by Inuit, they were consequently the people who got most fucked over when the bans came down. As for laws, there's a hunting quota in Canada, and you can't hunt whitecoats (baby seals) here at all. Again though, in my opinion this is all a bit detail for the main overview article when there's a subtopic.
    Having that info in the subtopic page sounds fine; thanks for the details! {{u|Sdkb}} talk 17:01, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's unusual to have the history section so late in an article. It seems to work alright enough here, though; I'm not sure moving it up would've reduced the need for repetition much. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The research and historiography section seems a bit overlong—this kind of historiography is probably of significant interest to the researchers writing many of this article's sources, but it's of less interest to Wikipedia's readership of the general public. Especially given that there's a spinoff article, could the coverage here be shortened? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I trimmed a bit of detail about the museums, but the rest is already as trimmed as I can get I think.
    It's good enough now. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 23:43, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find the gallery perfectly acceptable per the WP:Gallery policy. I hope the coordinators do not give weight to Buidhe's oppose above—while it perfectly appropriate to have non-policy based preferences, it is not appropriate to use FAC !votes as leverage to force one's personal preferences on others, and it is especially inappropriate to tangle the issue up with unspecified copyright concerns upon which Buidhe has refused to elaborate. I should disclose that I am not a neutral party on this issue, having recently encountered opposition from Buidhe at my own FAC when I declined to remove a gallery. Buidhe is a respected editor who does a lot of valuable work, but this is a concerning pattern. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • One question about the gallery, though—is there a reason it's split in two? On my display, that leads to five images on the first row, one on the next, five on the next, and one on the last. I wish there were better tuning tools available. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Top row is portrait ish images, bottom is landscape ish; dividing it up was a suggestion from Johnbod. On my screen each one covers exactly one row, so I think this may simply be a not-easily-resolvable screen size issue (see also the sfn column thing below).
  • Having a see also section with only a single link feels a little stubby. Would it be possible to link Yup'ik clothing somewhere in the body instead so that the section could be cleared? Alternatively, it'd seem appropriate to include in the section clothing articles for every major cold-weather culture. Many of them may not have a dedicated article yet, in which case we could use section links. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, seeing the {{Folk costumes}} navbox at the bottom, maybe it'd be better to just add any missing entries to there rather than trying to duplicate the navbox in a see also section. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I cheated and got it into the text under "Accessories". I would have linked it up at the top under "Traditional outfit", but that sentence doesn't specifically call out any one culture (it links to a bunch of broad concept articles) so it didn't feel right. None of the other circumpolar peoples have articles about their clothing except the Yup'ik.
  • Having the references be entirely SFNs is quite nice. As they're quite short, you might want to consider having three columns to reduce the length of the section. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The template scales to your window size automatically - at its normal size, mine shows 3 columns. If I make the window hugelarge to match my ludicrously wide curved monitor, I get 5 columns, and if I squash it I can get it down to one.
  • And more about that last navbox..."folk costumes" feels like a kinda gross label to me, as "costumes" connotes a shallowness that belies the serious, practical elements of Inuit clothing discussed here. Folk costume appears to be located at that title, and moving it would be beyond the scope of this FAC, but it might be worth discussing whether the navbox could switch to using one of the alternative terms the article identifies. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of that is anything I can fix in this FAC though.
    I'm not familiar enough to know, but I've always assumed that FAC reviews can include issues with templates used in an article, as {{Folk costumes}} is here, since readers don't really distinguish between what's a template and what's not. That question might be something to discuss at WT:FAC sometime (if it hasn't already been discussed before), but it's immaterial here, as this isn't something I'd hold up my full support over. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 23:43, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I mean, I think it would be fair to review stuff like issues where the article isn't linked in a navbox that's present in an article, or where a template is malfunctioning or otherwise causing problems, but given that "folk costume" is a) the title of the actual article and b) a legitimate scholarly term and not a label arbitrarily created by Wikipedians, I think trying to change those titles is well beyond the scope of this FAC.
  • It might be worthwhile to create some redirects to this article, such as Inuit fashion. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are some repeated links in the article. Some of them aren't of huge concern—I'm not an MOS:REPEATLINK stickler, having encountered as a reader infinity times as many instances where I wish there was a repeated link as times when I wish there wasn't—but for some very common terms like kayaking it doesn't seem necessary. The main thing I ask is that we be intentional about choosing when a link is repeated. This tool will let you see where they are. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have it, I just let some sneak in by mistake. They're clipped now.
  • Oh, one other thing I just noticed: you may want to use {{refbegin}} and {{refend}} to make the bibliography section reference-sized. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 23:49, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done

Moving to full support. All my major (and many minor) concerns have been adequately addressed. Article is comprehensive, scholarly, and well-referenced, deserving of featured status. As I mentioned above, I do not see the oppose as actionable. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 14:57, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment edit

Aside from everything else, I've now gone through all the comments re. the gallery and WP:Gallery itself and it appears to me that this article's gallery is within image policy. The fact that an example in the policy is fashion-related (Wedding dress) is persuasive -- Inuit clothing has a much smaller gallery that creates even less of an overbalancing issue IMO. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:51, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 7 August 2021 [75].

2017 Africa Cup of Nations Final edit

Nominator(s):  — Amakuru (talk) 09:09, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the FIFA World Cup, football's greatest prize, each continent has its own prestigious tournament for national teams. In Europe we've just completed one, the UEFA Euro 2020. And in Africa, the equivalent competition is the Africa Cup of Nations. This article is about the final of the 2017 edition of that tournament, which featured 7-time winners Egypt against 4-time winners Cameroon. As with similar articles, there are details about how each nation reached the final, as well as some background information and reactions. I look forward to hearing your feedback. Note that I have another FAC currently open at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Coventry City 2–2 Bristol City (1977)/archive1, in which I'm a co-nominator, (and more feedback on that one is certainly welcomed!) while this one's a solo nomination. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 09:12, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Image licensing looks OK (t · c) buidhe 09:17, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the speedy check!  — Amakuru (talk) 09:29, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Jim edit

Generally looks pretty good, but some queries Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:44, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • the CAF (CAF)— Two problems with this; why is it ‘’the’’ CAF? We normally have EUFA, FIFA etc without the definite article. Secondly, it seems very odd to have (CAF) indicated as the abbreviation of CAF, which is already an abbreviation.
    Not sure how it happened, but that's just an error. It was meant to say "the Confederation of African Football (CAF)", and I've now amended it thus. I assume the is appropriate when using the fully spelled-out name? But I do agree it should just be "CAF" elsewhere.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:52, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • they represented the Confederation of African Football (CAF)— still in the lead, we again have (CAF), at least this time as an abbreviation of the full form, but why repeated, and why is the full version left until the second mention, instead of in para 1?
    Fixed.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:52, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In “Background”, we have Confederation of African Football (CAF) again, beginning to look like overkill for an obvious abbreviation.
    I think here it does belong, as we usually treat the lead and the body as separate entities and acronyms are introduced afresh in each. I've now amended it so we have one full title in the lead and this one in the body, with just "CAF" everywhere else.
  • Egypt appeared in their 23rd tournament... Cameroon appeared in — were appearing seems more appropriate to me
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:52, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 1. Is there really nothing better than Twitter for this? I know it’s their official account, but we try to avoid generally unreliable sources if possible. Incidentally, I note that that on that page they don’t put the before Confederation of African Football, let alone CAF.
    I have replaced it with a better one. Thanks Jimfbleak that's all your points for now, happy to look at anything else you find. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 18:52, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks better now, and I can't see any major issues arising from the other two reviewers below, changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:25, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Lee Vilenski edit

I'll begin a review of this article very soon! My reviews tend to focus on prose and MOS issues, especially on the lede, but I will also comment on anything that could be improved. I'll post up some comments below over the next couple days, which you should either respond to, or ask me questions on issues you are unsure of. I'll be claiming points towards the wikicup once this review is over.

Lede
Prose
  • can we link the 1957 event on the first mention? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:40, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:44, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • four groups of four with each team playing the other three group members once in a round-robin format. - could probably be a bit more succinct, maybe "four round-robin groups consisting of four teams. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:40, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:44, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • four quarter-finals, two semi-finals and the final - do we need to specify this? Aren't single-elimimation tournaments always like this? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:40, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No. I've removed that.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:44, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • (3rd among African nations), while Cameroon were 62nd (12th among African nations).[7 - could we maybe say "Cameroon were the 12th highest ranked African team (62nd in the world), as the rankings for Africa are important to this article. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:40, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:44, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a couple duplicate links, such as Gabon. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:40, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The Gabon links are actually different - the first points to Gabon the country, which hosted the event, while the second points to the Gabon national football team. Are there any others?  — Amakuru (talk) 11:44, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not anymore. Although I do wonder if we need to link to the country of Gabon Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:26, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comments

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:59, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'll have a look there very soon, thanks Lee Vilenski. Looking forward to some more comments from you here as and when you can.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:02, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Lee Vilenski: I've looked at your second tranche of points. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 11:44, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support for prose and MOS integrity. Good work. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:26, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by ChrisTheDude edit

  • Echo the comments above that "the CAF (CAF)" looks ridiculous and there is no reason to explain the acronym twice in the lead
    Yep.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:16, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would merge the two-sentence final paragraph of the lead onto the one before
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:16, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the background section, numbers less than 10 should be written as words
    True, although there's always that caveat about "comparable amounts" being written the same way. Since most the numbers are low, I've flipped them all to words, including sixteen, four, two etc.
  • "had won only ever" => "had only ever won"
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:16, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the route to the final section, the little tables make it look like there were first, second and third rounds like in the FA Cup, but there weren't. All those matches should have the round shown as "group"
    Do you mean just "Group", with no number? I've done that for now. Having "Group 1" would seem strange, because that could be the name of an actual group.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:16, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the goal was discounted" - the usual term is "disallowed"
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:16, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overlinking of substitute
    Fixed.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:16, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, in the match section, numbers less than 10 should be written as words
    In this case, wouldn't the number of minutes qualify for comparable values clause, as per MOS:NUM? 2 minutes, 7 minutes, 22 minutes, 59 minutes etc.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:16, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is "attackingly" a word?
    Reworded.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:16, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's what I got on a first pass..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:42, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks @ChrisTheDude:, looking forward to any other points you have.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:16, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:01, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from TRM edit

I reviewed this at GAN with a view to it heading to FAC, so was a little stricter than the normal GAN reviews. Since then the minor tweaks made in response to the comments above have assured me that the article is now suitable to be promoted to featured status. Good work. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 12:04, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

  • The weather given is for the airport quite some distance from the stadium, correct? Any idea how closely the two generally match? Do any of the sources note the weather at the stadium at the time of the match?
    I can't find any source giving the weather at the stadium. And as you say, the cite given is for a location 8km away, and at an unspecified time of day. Is it best to remove the weather in your opinion, or leave as is?  — Amakuru (talk) 18:43, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    What about putting it in the body instead, and providing that context? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:07, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ESPN is a publisher not a website. Ditto CNN, check for others
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:43, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Still issues here - compare for example FNs 25 and 31, which are the same site but differently formatted. (Really there you only need |publisher=CNN, or if you really wanted you could use |website=CNN.com, but you don't need both). Nikkimaria (talk) 02:07, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN6 should use article title
    Fixed.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:35, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN9: what's the purpose of |quote= here?
    This was an oversight, based on an automated tool which provides a quote parameter.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:35, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The About page for AfricanFootball.com seems to be broken - what makes this a high-quality reliable source?
    It is published by Backpage media,[76] which is as far as I can tell a reputable South African media outlet, providing services to agencies and corporates and suchlike. The website certainly seems to be under editorial control. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 12:38, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in when/if publication location is included
    The location is included only in the case of The Guardian (Nigeria), to avoid confusion with the more well-known UK Guardian. Otherwise I'm not using locations.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:43, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN36: publication title formatting doesn't match other instances. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:16, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:43, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nikkimaria: I think I've looked at all these now. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 18:43, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nikkimaria: sorry for slow turnaround, I've been away from home. I've added the weather detail in the body as you suggested, and also tidied up a few of the refs such as CNN, Deutsche Welle and Voice of America, that seemed to need a "publisher" rather than a "website" format. Please let me know if anything further is needed.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:00, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria, how's it looking? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:40, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pass. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:50, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Edwininlondon edit

I'm not particularly familiar with football in Africa, but I'll do a spotcheck. First a few minor comments on the text:

  • is the primary international football --> it should probably say association footbal, just like in the lead
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:21, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • we have sixteen in the lead and 31st in the body. And 9th and seven. Seems a bit inconsistent. Check for more MOS:NUM issues.
    I think this is probably OK myself. MOS:NUMERAL suggests using digits for more than two words, numerals for one word, and either for two words. When it comes to consistency though, it insists only that comparable values are rendered equivalently. Thus the sixteen/four/four is consistent, but the 31st/23rd/18th are also all comparable with each other and unrelated to the sixteen/four/four. The one exception I found was a "seventh" after the 31st/23rd/18th, which I've now changed to 7th. I don't think it would really benefit the article to switch wholesale to "thirty-first" etc. Minute counts within the match are all numerals too. Let me know if this doesn't seem right or there are any blatant errors of consistency.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:21, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Edwininlondon (talk) 12:11, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure if the Evening Standard is FA material. Is there another source saying something similar? Then we can avoid the discussion of whether it is a reliable source in this context.
    As you wish, Eurosport also commented on the state of the pitch so I've switched to that.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:21, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 20:00 WAT --> earlier it said it was 9pm local time
    Ah, good spot. It was 8pm local time.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:21, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • the tournament's best player and best goalkeeper of the tournament --> a bit awkward
    The second "of the tournament" has been removed.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:21, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks:

  • #1 #3 #4 #6 #29 #30 #31 #35 #39 #40 all ok
  • #2 is ok except for it doesn't state that CAF is the organiser
    Added a new source verifying that factlet.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:21, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • #5 is ok except for: does not mention the stadium or Addis Abbeba
    New source added.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:21, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • #36: archive link goes to something completely unrelated and the first link times out
    New archive added.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:33, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • #38 Guardian article does not mention 2017 FIFA Confederations Cup in Russia
    New ref added.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:33, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do a few more later. Edwininlondon (talk) 11:50, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Edwininlondon: thanks for the review, and I've looked at the points so far. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 19:33, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I checked #37 and #38 and all is fine. I support. Nice work. Good to see African football represented on the list of FA articles. Edwininlondon (talk) 12:11, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 7 August 2021 [77].

Accolade (company) edit

Nominator(s): Shooterwalker (talk) 14:52, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a historic video game developer and publisher. They are of major importance in the early game industry, featuring veterans from highly notable peers such as Atari and Activision. They went on to create several notable franchises, especially in sports. Things get shaky in their final years, and the most detailed sources prefer to focus on their golden age. But there are enough reliable sources to explain their decline and overall fate.

I'm nominating this after a few rounds of work and review. The previous FA-nomination(s) failed. I became busy during the first nomination, which was closed with some suggestions I didn't get to at the time. I have since incorporated the feedback, then sought a peer review for even more feedback. I got ahead of myself with the second nomination, but third time is a charm.

The article is comprehensive, well-researched, well-cited, neutral, and stable, using images in compliance with fair use. I feel optimistic that this article is close enough to the Featured article criteria that I can work on any remaining issues through this process. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:52, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image licensing edit

- is appropriate. (t · c) buidhe 14:56, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Politely pinging a few editors who reviewed the first edition.
You'll find that I addressed all of your comments from the first nomination. Happy to keep working on new suggestions, and trying to save time for all of us by not re-treading the same ground again. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:01, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support edit

Despite only having one header, it manages to be highly comprehensive and well-written. Shadowboxer2005 (talk) 10:31, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Panini! edit

Staying true to my promise, Support. Good Job! Panini!🥪 15:04, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Panini!. A bare "Support" doesn't carry much weight. I assume that your support is on the basis of your feedback during the article's first nomination, but if so specifying this and providing a link helps out the coordinators. Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:15, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, right! I've made a comment about this at User talk:Shooterwalker, disappointed in the archiving of the previous nomination. I reassured I would give support based on my initial thoughts and reactions prior. Sorry for not mentioning that! Panini!🥪 19:08, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Gerald Waldo Luis edit

Unique FAC, as it is just one section, but eh, at least it's comprehensive. These comments might help:

Resolved comments from GeraldWL 01:35, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
* "(renamed as Infogrames North America, Inc. in 1999)"-- this is later stated in paragraph 3. Is it needed here?
  • I usually like to have brackets after the game stating its year. For example, Star Control (1990).
  • "and experienced strong sales"-- I don't think "experienced" is the right word. "saw" sounds better.
  • "subsidiary called "Infogrames North America""-- why quotations?
  • "rebranded as Atari SA"-- should this be bolded?
  • "when Hong Kong-based"-- link Hong Kong
  • "Artech also created the flight simulator game"-- flight simulator is the typical devices used by airlines to train pilots. The game version is amateur flight simulator, but the combat one is combat flight simulator.
  • "cost of $80,000"-- which dollar specifically?
  • "series with 3D polygon" --> "series with three-dimensional (3D) polygon"
  • "Accolade expanded the" --> "It expanded the"
  • "This marked the end of Infogrames North America as a separate company and what was left of Accolade as an entity." Just wanna ask clarification regarding the no citation here.
  • "under Atari SA. [48]"-- space between punct and ref.
  • "a California video game" --> "a Californian video game"

In addition, I suggest having a list of games table, like Thatgamecompany does. Considering the history already covers it all, the prose is not needed. After all my comments got resolved, I'll support. GeraldWL 03:33, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The most confusing part of this topic for readers is the corporate stuff. A few notes on those:
  • The "renamed" part in the first sentence is because people do search for Infogrames North America, which is the name of Accolade after it had been changed. That said, if it's enough to have the bolded part in the third paragraph, at the end of its life, I could be talked into removing it. Trying to satisfy a lot of different editorial opinions here.
  • Atari SA is Infogrames Entertainment SA. Inverting the principle above, it's a different corporate entity, and a different article, and thus isn't bolded.
  • There was a consensus that the uncited statement at the end is needed, because it objectively summarizes the other sources without making any novel claims. You could remove this sentence and just leave it at the previous sentence, which says "Infogrames had merged Infogrames North America into Infogrames Inc". But people have a hard time understanding what all these corporate renames and restructurings mean. This last part is added for clarity: it means Accolade was merged, renamed, then slowly dissolved into raw assets for another company. It's gone.
I added some dates, and hopefully people don't have too many different opinions on that. There was previously a list of games that was removed as part of a previous peer review / FA, and split into List of Accolade games. This was after painstakingly formatting the table and citations for FA quality, but it's another area where tastes vary and I'm getting conflicting advice. I appreciate all your comments and hopefully that addresses all of them. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:31, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarifications — and apologies, I did not see that "See also" section. The article looks nice by now; last stuff I would ask is have all the dollars consistent to US$, and add {{Main|Sega v. Accolade|''Sega v. Accolade''}} at the top of "Console and legal challenges (1990–1993)". Once that's resolved, I'll support. GeraldWL 01:12, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerald Waldo Luis: Good suggestions. Should be all done now. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:23, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome! To finalize, I italicized the hatnote and added upright to the image. Glad to support this article. GeraldWL 01:29, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Shooterwalker (talk) 01:30, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your welcome. This is a very unique FAC, and I do learn some things from here, also important since I'm also planning to have several articles (earliest on the line is Living in the Age of Airplanes) to have a FAC at someee point. If you want to and have the time for it, may I suggest reviewing a peer review I just opened for that article? It can help a lot. GeraldWL 01:45, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Link20XX edit

Putting this here as a placeholder, will leave comments soon. In the meantime, if you could leave comments on a peer review of mine, it would be appreciated. Link20XX (talk) 17:07, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alright I gave the article a basic read-through and the only comment I have is admittedly pretty nitpicky. In the section "Console and legal challenges (1990–1993)", the hatnote below the image looks very poor for me as a mobile reader. Could it be moved above the image perhaps? Link20XX (talk) 17:18, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's an easy fix. Done. Anything else? Shooterwalker (talk) 01:06, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. Looks good to me. Happy to Support. Link20XX (talk) 02:52, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Shooterwalker (talk) 02:57, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from nominator edit

I count support from Shadowboxer2005, Gerald Waldo Luis, Panini!, and Link20XX. Panini! had previously reviewed the article at the last FA, and led to several improvements. buidhe has returned to once again review the images and licensing, with support.
I'm paging a few editors from previous reviews who might want to check back in. @Heartfox: previously reviewed this article for accessibility, and @Nikkimaria: previously reviewed the sources, and hoping they can confirm that the article still passes their scrutiny. I'll also page @The Rambling Man: and @Indrian:, as they previously reviewed the article and might want to check back in too. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:10, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@FAC coordinators: ... a few days later, I feel pretty confident this is well on its way, after several review processes, and 4 unanimous supporters on this latest round alone. I don't want to rush this process, and my real hope is to start another FA process and continue improving other articles. Let me know if I would have permission to start in on that. Shooterwalker (talk) 13:24, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It would need a source review to at least be well under way, if not passed, for that I am afraid. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:26, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild: That's a fair requirement. Going to ping @Nikkimaria: one more time, as she reviewed the sources last time and they have not substantially changed. Shooterwalker (talk) 13:29, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Following up with @FAC coordinators: after the much appreciated source review from Nikkimaria. Would this now qualify as a pass, or at least good enough to start another featured article nomination while I wait for further feedback? Shooterwalker (talk) 01:05, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to start another. And thanks for the ping. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:04, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed.

Passed. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:20, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the cost of the lawsuit was a financial strain for the company". The text says it was the impact of the injunction, rather than the actual cost of the lawsuit - which is correct?
  • "The Accolade brand was revived in 2018, when Hong Kong-based holding company Billionsoft acquired their former assets, leading to new Bubsy games published by Tommo". As noted last time around, the text gives a date of 2017 and does not mention new publications (just plans for such)
  • "Accolade credits the Jack Nicklaus license with giving them an edge as a publisher of sports games." Text supports outselling other golf games, but that's narrower than "sports"
  • Accessdates aren't needed for GBooks links
  • FN4: page?
  • FN32 is missing language indication
  • Be consistent in how you're handling "staff" publications. For example FN46 is credited to IGN Staff, but FN51 is not - why?
  • Be consistent in when you include publisher - you've got it in FN53 but not other similar refs. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:29, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Thanks for the review. That should address all the comments
  • Changed the lead and the image captions to be consistent with the article and sources.
  • Adjusted the references as you suggested.
A few editors stepped in to try to assist, so it's possible I missed something. Let me know if there's anything else. Shooterwalker (talk) 13:24, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Still a bit inconsistent wrt staff publications. They're now gone from IGN, but eg FN1 still uses a staff credit. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:58, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: I think this is fixed now, thanks to Gerald Waldo Luis. I checked through all the refs and there should be no more sources credited to staff. Shooterwalker (talk) 12:56, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you again to the coordinators, and to everyone who chimed in with suggested improvements. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:17, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 7 August 2021 [78].

1999 Football League Second Division play-off Final edit

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...), ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:14, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to believe these days that the noisy neighbours in Manchester were ever forced to endure the indignity of relegation to the lower depths of English football, but only two decades ago, they were suffering just that. This article is about the play-off final which secured their return to the second tier, at the expense of the still-not-so-glamourous Gills, one of the last to be hosted at the old Wembley Stadium. It's a co-nomination with ChrisTheDude, and we'll endeavour to address each and every actionable item that's brought up as soon as practicable. Cheers in advance for your time and efforts in reviewing. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:14, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Image licensing looks good to me (t · c) buidhe 11:27, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by WA8MTWAYC edit

WA8MTWAYC thanks so much for taking a look, I've tried to address all your comments, but please don't hesitate to let us know if there's anything else we can do? Cheers. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:16, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
With my comments now addressed, I support this nom. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 16:02, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Lee Vilenski edit

I'll begin a review of this article very soon! My reviews tend to focus on prose and MOS issues, especially on the lede, but I will also comment on anything that could be improved. I'll post up some comments below over the next couple days, which you should either respond to, or ask me questions on issues you are unsure of. I'll be claiming points towards the wikicup once this review is over.

Lede
  • The top two teams of the 1998–99 Football League Second Division season gained automatic promotion to the First Division, while the clubs placed from third to sixth in the table took part in play-off semi-finals; Manchester City ended the season in third position while Gillingham were fourth - long sentence, could be split The top two teams of the 1998–99 Football League Second Division season gained automatic promotion to the First Division, while the clubs placed from third to sixth in the table took part in a play-off competition. Manchester City ended the season in third position while Gillingham were fourth. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:50, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Preston North End and Wigan Athletic were the losing semi-finalists, being defeated by Gillingham and Manchester City respectively. - I feel like it's better to say "in the semi-finals Gillingham defeated Preston NE while..." Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:51, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Match at Wembley - Wembley stadium. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:52, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • equaliser to send the game into extra time. With no further goals being scored, the match was decided by a penalty shoot-out, which City won to gain promotion - I feel like it's worth stating it finished 2-2 and also the scores for the penalties Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:53, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Prose
  • Gillingham goalkeeper Vince Bartram dived - to avoid the links together, we could say "Vince Bartram, the Gillingham goalkeeper". Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:56, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • had played in the top-level Premier League as recently as the 1995–96 season - was it not the Premiership back then? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:01, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's never been called the Premiership other than as part of a sponsored name, which we avoid on WP. Its official (unsponsored) name in 1999 was the FA Premier League, so I have added the initials...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:03, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Asaba was the top scorer for Gillingham with 22 goals - this is directly after a bit about the matches in the season between the two sides. Does make it read like they scored 22 goals in two games. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:02, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the first minute, Dickov's overhead kick struck Ashby's hand in the Gillingham penalty area but referee Halsey did not award a penalty kick - might be worth explaining why not, or at least why he may have given a penalty. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:04, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The only source I can find that mentions this simply says "City should have been awarded a penalty within the first minute when Ashby used his upper arm to knock away Dickov's overhead kick". So no real indication of why a pen wasn't given - possibly the ref didn't see it but the source doesn't say. How would you suggest rewording the sentence based on that? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:06, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Division.[21][16 - reforder Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:06, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comments

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:26, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

source review - pass edit

Will take care of this. Hog Farm Talk 20:29, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sources look reliable enough for what they are citing
  • The sources you would expect for a topic like this are included, nothing stands out to me as missing
  • Mitchell et. al 2013 needs the publishing location
    • @Hog Farm: I looked in the front of my copy of the book and it says "Published by New Holland Publishers, London/Cape Town/Sydney/Auckland" - which location should I put....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:34, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the book sources, is there a reason why publishers with articles are sometimes linked (New Holland Publishers) but not others (SportsBooks Limited)?
    • No reason other than I didn't know that SportsBooks had an article..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:34, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spot checks later. Hog Farm Talk 21:20, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did some random spot checks, no issues with source-text integrity or copyright stuff. Hog Farm Talk 22:03, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support for prose from Shooterwalker edit

I'll take a look at the prose for this article. Expect a review soon. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:12, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lead
  • "Robert Taylor added a second five minutes later." -> we can infer this means a second goal, but since the first goal isn't explicitly a noun, this is less than clear.
Route to the final
  • The first sentence has a lot of subclauses/subphrases that make it difficult to read. If you can't reduce the complexity of the construction, consider rephrasing into two separate sentences.
  • "The teams finishing between third and sixth inclusive" -> "The teams ranked third through sixth"
    • The phrasing "X through Y" is not used in British English -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:22, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "one position and two points ahead of Gillingham" -> "ahead of Gillingham by two points"
  • "With four minutes remaining, a shot by Wigan's Graeme Jones struck the crossbar but the match ended 1–0 and Manchester City progressed to the final 2–1 on aggregate" -> run-on sentence that might be better as two sentences
Match - Background
  • "followed by Taylor" -> add a comma before this, for readability
  • "larger crowd than attended" -> "larger attendance" (or some other simpler construction)
Summary
  • This is my favorite section. It does help that this is the action itself, but I think it also benefits from the use of shorter sentences with simpler constructions, rather than longer sentences with lots of commas and clauses. Excellent writing that's worth emulating in the other sections.
Post-Match
  • The twelve year later comment feels like it breaks the chronology, and might be better stated in the following paragraph that starts in 2017
  • "Speaking in 2018, Morrison, City's captain in 1999, contended that had his team not won the match to clinch promotion out of the Second Division the club would have been in genuine danger of going out of business within a year." -> "City's 1999 captain, Morrison, later recalled in 2018 that the club was at risk of going out of business within a year, if not for their match-winning promotion out of the Second Division."
Final comments from reviewer
  • The prose is generally quite good. With a few revisions the article should be of featured quality when it comes to the prose. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:48, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Shooterwalker: - done other than where noted..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:22, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would recommend looking for a cleaner re-phrasing than "The teams finishing between third and sixth inclusive competed in the play-offs for the third and final promotion place". But the standard for WP:FA is "engaging, professional" writing, and this is clearly met overall. I can support the prose as is. Thanks for your revisions and good job. If you find time, I have a featured article nomination that could also use another set of eyes. Shooterwalker (talk) 11:45, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Z1720 edit

Non-expert prose review.

  • There's a hatnote at the top of "Route to the final" but there's also a wikilink to "1998–99 Football League season" in the first section of the section. Is the hatnote necessary?
  • " Vince Bartram, the Gillingham goalkeeper, dived full-length to keep out a strike from John Macken." I know very little about football, so I don't know what "dived full-length" means. Are you referring to diving full-length across the goal? Can this be phrased more simply?
  • The lede calls it "added time", the body calls it "stoppage time" and the image of Paul Dickov calls it "injury time". Are these all different terms for the same thing? If so, can it be standardised throughout the article to one name?
  • "past his friend and best man," -> "best man at his wedding", I thought this might be a football term before clicking on the link, and the reader should know what everything means without clicking on wikilinks.
  • Hyphens in reference ISBNs need to be standardised: either all use them or all don't.

Those are my thoughts. Please ping when the above are responded to. Z1720 (talk) 01:12, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: - thanks for your review - all done! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:25, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My concerns have been addressed. I can support. Z1720 (talk) 13:13, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 3 August 2021 [79].

The Great Gatsby edit

Nominator(s): — Flask (talk) 19:40, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about The Great Gatsby, the literary masterwork by writer F. Scott Fitzgerald. Nearly a hundred years after its initial publication and commercial failure, the work continues to be one of the most widely read novels of our time. It remains relevant in the United States today due to its themes of class permanence, wealth inequality, and status concerns over immigration. Since its U.S. copyright expired this year, a slew of upcoming media adaptations are reportedly planned; thus, perpetuating the novel's cultural salience in the coming years. Following a haphazard FAC nomination in 2008, this article has been greatly expanded by a number of editors including myself. In the past year alone, many of its sections have been written from scratch while other sections have been extensively revamped and meticulously sourced.

This article has undergone an extensive GAR, a rewrite by the Guild of Copy Editors, and a four-month-long Peer Review. This article would not have reached its current stage without the collaborative efforts of many editors: Jason Quinn and JayHenry developed the article during its formative years and their work enabled the article to achieve GA status in 2013; Hobomok wrote the lead and adaptations section as well as spurred the article's GAR, and Twofingered Typist did a superlative job in copy-editing the prose. Additionally, Peer Review feedback by Buidhe, Eddie891, SandyGeorgia, Urve, and ImaginesTigers was especially helpful. ImaginesTigers, in particular, has been instrumental in shepherding this article from GAR to its FAC nomination. I look forward to reading your criticisms and undertaking your suggested alterations. Please note this is my first FAC nomination so I might make novice mistakes during this process. — Flask (talk) 19:40, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

  • File:F Scott Fitzgerald circa 1920.jpg File:Zelda Fitzgerald circa 1919 Retouched.jpg File:Edith Cummings Chicago 1920.jpg File:EdwardMoran-UnveilingTheStatueofLiberty1886Large.jpg File:Arnold Rothstein Chicago 1919.jpg when was the first publication?
  • File:Plaza Hotel New York City 1908.jpg NYPL actually says this item is copyrighted and it manages the rights [80] It would only be PD if you can show publication before 1926.
  • File:Francis Cugat Gatsby Cover Drafts 1925.jpg Fails NFCC as there is no critical commentary on the drafting process, nor, I would guess, would that be DUE in this article.
  • File:Edmund Wilson.jpg Not PD as "The item you've requested has been digitized but is only available for access at NYPL. Please come visit us to see the item!"
  • The Great Gatsby trailer (1926).webm I would hold off on using this until next year because the argument on copyright notice only applies if you can be 100% certain that you are seeing the entire film including any copyright notices that may have been applied.
  • Other image licensing looks OK

(t · c) buidhe 20:37, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, buidhe. Thank you for your preliminary image review. In the case of several of those images, I will be adding the missing publication dates by tomorrow evening. (The Rothstein one was uploaded by me from a 1919 newspaper article in The Chicago Daily News.) I will also research the others to better determine their copyright status. — Flask (talk) 22:12, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
» File:EdwardMoran-UnveilingTheStatueofLiberty1886Large.jpg is in the public domain. The author, Edward Moran (1829-1901), died 120 years ago, and the painting was exhibited 135 years ago. Furthermore, the painting is held by the Museum of the City of New York. Today, I contacted Lauren Robinson, the Manager of Collections Licensing and Digital Assets at Museum of the City of New York. Within one hour, Robinson replied via e-mail officially confirming the painting is in the public domain:

"Thank you for your interest in the Museum of the City of New York. It is our understanding that the 1886 painting by Edward Moran (1829-1901), Statue of Liberty Enlightening the World (The Unveiling of the Statue of Liberty), is in the public domain according to copyright law in the United States. The Museum uses Cornell University Library Copyright Information Center's resource, Copyright Term and the Public Domain in the United States, to make these determinations. Best wishes..."

Accordingly, I updated the image's license on Wikimedia Commons. I can attach a screenshot of the correspondence if you wish. — Flask (talk) 02:02, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
» File:Arnold Rothstein Chicago 1919.jpg is in the public domain. This photo of Arnold Rothstein was published prior to 1922 in a variety of newspapers amid the Black Sox Scandal. Specifically, the photo was published on the front page of the The Buffalo Enquirer on Wednesday, July 27, 1921. Vol. 77 — No. 296 (Source: Newspapers.com). Accordingly, I updated the image's license on Wikimedia Commons. — Flask (talk) 02:02, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
» File:Plaza Hotel New York City 1908.jpg has been replaced with File:Plaza Hotel New York City Circa 1910.jpg. The latter photo is in the public domain according to the Library of Congress. As explicitly stated on the Library of Congress website: "No known restrictions on publication." — Flask (talk) 02:02, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
» File:Edmund Wilson.jpg is in the collection of the U.S. Library of Congress, and the Library of Congress states it was distributed in 1946 by Doubleday & Company to newspapers and other publications as a publicity photograph. Photos that are freely distributed for publicity purposes fall under fair use. If this first rationale is insufficient, the photo was released without a copyright notice prior to 1977 as an inspection by the Library of Congress in 1996 found "no information on creator or on reproduction rights found with the image." Based on this information, this would be a rationale for public domain status. Consequently, I believe the licensing of the photo on Wikimedia Commons should be updated. I have contacted a Library of Congress specialist for final confirmation. Once I receive this confirmation, I will update the image's license on Wikimedia Commons. Please do not delete the image yet. — Flask (talk) 02:02, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
» UPDATE: File:F Scott Fitzgerald circa 1920.jpg is in the public domain. The original photo was published in The Beautiful and Damned in March 1922 and the U.S. copyright has since expired. See The Beautiful and Damned via Internet Archive or The Beautiful and Damned jacket via Whitmore Rare Books. Accordingly, I updated the image's license on Wikimedia Commons. — Flask (talk) 03:05, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
» UPDATE: File:Zelda Fitzgerald circa 1919 Retouched.jpg — I've removed this photo from the article since I have not received a response from the F. Scott Fitzgerald society, and I cannot seem to find a publication date. — Flask (talk) 23:26, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
» UPDATE: File:The Great Gatsby trailer (1926).webm — I've removed the clip from the article. Today, I contacted the Library of Congress which has a copy of the trailer in their AFI/Jack Tillmany Collection. Although the librarian stated they believe the trailer to be in the public domain, I would have to contact the U.S. Copyright Office and pay $100 to have this information verified. Rather than pay $100, I will just wait six months and re-add the trailer in January 2022 when the copyright for all films of that year has expired. — Flask (talk) 23:26, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
» UPDATE: File:Edith Cummings Chicago 1920.jpg — I've removed this photo from the article and replaced the image with File: Edith Cummings Vogue Photograph December 1923 Retouched.jpg.

, File:Francis Cugat Gatsby Cover Drafts 1925.jpg — I will investigate these files tomorrow. There are thousands of photos of Cummings published in newspapers prior to 1925 so I might replace the image with one of those instead. — Flask (talk) 02:02, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these enquiries! When LOC makes a file not visible as in the Edmund Wilson case, I assume it's considered under copyright or the copyright status is unknown. If they update to make it fully viewable, I'll accept it as freely licensed. Incidentally, if you're uploading files to commons it's best to use the most specific license tag. For example, if it was published before 1926 it's better to use {{PD-1923}} than {{PD-US}}. (t · c) buidhe 09:18, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe: I have now evaluated the remaining photos in the article, verified their publication dates, and updated their corresponding licenses on Commons. After consulting with ImaginesTigers, I expanded the critical commentary of the cover art's evolution and restored the Fair Use image (File:Francis Cugat Gatsby Cover Drafts 1925.jpg). The image specifically illustrates the accompanying critical commentary which discusses the cover drafts. As the cover art is deemed to be among the most celebrated pieces of art in American literature, its visual evolution is of immediate relevance and importance to the article. Nearly every single biography of Fitzgerald discusses those same cover drafts, their provenance, and their evolution. Also, this is the sole Fair Use image to appear in this article. — Flask (talk) 23:53, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Images now look good, although now you risk giving undue weight to the cover art in the article with a lengthy discussion. One possible solution would be splitting to The Great Gatsby cover art and putting the fair use image(s) there. (t · c) buidhe 00:01, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think the article is better for having more information about the cover art. It’s described in as much detail as every other aspect of the novel, and contributes to its overall comprehensiveness. In essence, I disagree that it even approaches undue weight. Flask specifically notes the cover art's significance in every biography of Fitzgerald. I support it remaining in the article as is, though Flask should feel free to expand with an additional article if they think that prudent. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 00:23, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just to give some more context, a quick search online will confirm the cover's significance. See for instance this recent Vox article about how nervous some artists have been about attempting their own cover (given its recent plunging into public domain). The cover's story is pretty engaging, but really not worth an entire article. It’s of appropriate depth and size, I think. Additionally, the cover art impressed Fitzgerald so much that he included its imagery in the novel. The eyes of Dr. T. J. Eckleberg have become one of the novel's most well-known themes (which the subheading doesn't mention). That the green light was added later is significant, too. This article is going to be read by a lot of younger people and students, and its inclusion is well-founded when considered in that light. I don't understand how it could be considered undue weight; it’s a piece of famous cover art, not a fringe theory or pseudoscience (what undue weight is written to safeguard against). Even just the quality and variety of the sourcing indicates that. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 04:08, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe: Thank you for your reply. For practically any other novel, I would agree the inclusion of the cover drafts would be undue. However—as Charles Scribner III (1992) and many Fitzgerald scholars have noted—The Great Gatsby is one of the rare instances in literary history in which a novel's commissioned cover art both preceded a work and directly affected its composition. There is considerable scholarly evidence that many sections of the book—such as the billboard with the eyes of T. J. Eckleburg, the visit to Coney Island, the passages describing Daisy's face floating above the city, the ending scene about the green light at Daisy's dock, etc.—were all incorporated into the novel by Fitzgerald in reaction to viewing Cugat's cover drafts. Hence, the novel is one of the very few great works of literature which was directly influenced by its commissioned cover drafts rather than vice versa. For these reasons, I do not believe the inclusion of the cover drafts to be undue. In fact, I believe it is of vital importance to understanding the novel's development and, again, illustrates a historical anomaly in terms of literature. — Flask (talk) 20:26, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ImaginesTigers edit

I've read this article so many times that I'm not sure what remains. I've given probably a couple of thousand words of feedback at this stage, so you'll have to excuse my brevity with the knowledge that my due diligence has been done! Support. Great work (to all of you, but especially Flask). — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 19:45, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment edit

Approaching the three week mark and only one general support. This nomination needs to attract more attention if it is to convince that a consensus to promote may be forming. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:22, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: Can any Wikipedia editor review a FAC nomination? If so, I could post a neutral message on the article's Talk Page requesting that other editors review the nomination. — Flask (talk) 02:12, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They certainly can. They don't even need to be registered! Although coordinators will weigh comments by what we perceive they bring to the discussion. Feel free to also post a neutrally worded request at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels and on the talk pages of any editors who frequently work in this area or whom you have reason to believe may be interested in reviewing. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:01, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: Hi, Gog. I realise that my review looks a little blunt, but please do consider my support the result of a very long collaborative process. If you have a look at the article's GA nomination, you can see that I reviewed the references very extensively back then (Flask asked for a thorough review given that FAC was the end-goal), then contributed during the PR too, so it isn't just a fly-by support! — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 21:00, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Horsesizedduck edit

Support from me. Haven't looked at it as attentively as I'd like, so can't provide suggestions yet. Regardless, the quality and care throughout the article is undeniable. Horsesizedduck (talk) 01:14, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Horsesizedduck: Thanks for taking the time to have a look! That said, Flask is a first-time FAC nominator, so if you're interested in seeing this promoted, a more thorough review would be invaluable to him and the article. The coordinators are unlikely to weigh a support very highly if it isn't explicit about the nature of the support. Any more comments, when you have the time? — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 17:37, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ImaginesTigers: Absolutely! Just trying to get more familiar with the article before putting forward suggestions. Horsesizedduck (talk) 19:42, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Small Question: what's the deal with the "monster of bitchery" in the gender relations section? I don't remember seeing that expression in the reference, though it is indeed conveyed... Horsesizedduck (talk) 13:36, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

From the ref: "Despite the tendency of critics to view her as a "monster of bitchery," Daisy has her own complex story, her own desires and needs" (p. 253). — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 13:53, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To be more precise about my support: I would confidently say the article fulfills criteria 1a and 1b; the rest may be outside my ability to assess at this moment (though I would be surprised to find any major obstacle). Horsesizedduck (talk) 14:43, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HF edit

Will review, although I've never read the book. Hog Farm Talk 20:48, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: Thanks! It will be interesting to hear your opinion especially in regards to whether the article suffices for those who haven't read the book. — Flask (talk) 20:54, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note a: "Nilsson posits that this period is among the most fascinating eras in U.S. history due to the cultural rebellion by American youth: "Youth in revolt didn't start at Woodstock, it began with Gertrude Stein's Lost Generation"" can probably be trimmed, as not quite on topic.
Done: Trimmed quote. — Flask (talk) 04:07, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "While living on Long Island, the Fitzgeralds' enigmatic neighbor" - is it really best to describe him as a neighbor in unqualified fashion, since scholars are unable to prove the assertion?
Addressed: Rewrote informational note regarding Gerlach to explain why a lack of surviving documentation does not preclude his status as a neighbor. — Flask (talk) 04:07, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Fitzgerald initially preferred titles referencing Trimalchio" - not sure that Trimalchio should be italicized, as names generally aren't italicized
Done: De-italicized Trimalchio. — Flask (talk) 04:07, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The most laudatory review was by Edwin Clark of The New York Times, who felt the novel was a mystical and glamorous tale of the Jazz Age" - this is sourced directly to Clark's review. Is there a secondary source to support "the most laudatory review"?
Addressed: Removed the phrase "most laudatory review" since The London Times review was more laudatory than The New York Times review. — Flask (talk) 04:07, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Inspired by Dan Cody's predatory mining practices," - unclear if Dan Cody is a character in the novel or a real person
Done. Rewrote phrase to be: "Inspired by the predatory mining practices of his fictional mentor Dan Cody" — Flask (talk) 04:07, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and in 2013, Slate released a short symbolic adaptation called The Great Gatsby: The Video Game." - this is sourced only to the website that produced the adaption. Recommend using a secondary source to confirm that this is actually significant
Done. Added a secondary reliable source via Polygon which states it was later turned into a Steam game. — Flask (talk) 04:07, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources look reliable
  • Image licensing looks fine, although I'm not an expert on that.

That's it from me. Hog Farm Talk 02:24, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: Thank you again for your feedback. I have attempted to address each of your points. Please let me know if you have further suggestions! — Flask (talk) 04:07, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support on WP:FACR #1a, 1b, source reliability, 1d, 1e, 2a, 2b, consistent citation style, and 4. Did not check others, and this review comes with the disclaimer that I can't really judge the plot summary as I haven't read the book. (had to read The Scarlet Letter in school instead; would have preferred Flannery O'Connor for American literature) Hog Farm Talk 03:47, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: Thank you for your review and for your support! I, too, am not a fan of The Scarlet Letter. I found Hawthorne's The House of the Seven Gables to be far superior as a work of fiction. Forcing young students to slog through The Scarlet Letter has likely harmed Hawthorne's literary reputation over the decades more than anything else. And, yes, Flannery O'Connor would have been a better choice as a school assignment than Hawthorne. — Flask (talk) 03:16, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hobomok edit

Strong Support from me. While I contributed to the article, my minute additions amount to nothing in comparison to the work Flask has done here. As a whole, the page offers a lucid overview for general enthusiasts, high school students, and beginning scholars. In that way, in my mind, it does exactly what an encyclopedia article should do.

The article covers all general information related to the novel, which is helpful for anyone with a beginning interest in Gatsby or Fitzgerald, and it also goes deeper where necessary. For example, the Critical Analysis section does a superb job providing a review of the major areas of scholarly critique r/t Gatsby over the years, and it provides representative texts for those areas of study. I applaud such a thorough, clear literature review on just one topic, let alone the 4-5 topic areas Flask has put together here. The same could be said for any other section, such as "Writing and Production" or "Historical and Biographical Context," but I won't go long on this--y'all get the idea.

As someone who has taught and studied Gatsby, albeit not intensely, I would be happy to point students to this page so that they might dive into areas that one could not cover in a class session, or as a way to find other avenues of interest for further investigation through reading sections to pique interest and then engaging in some footnote chasing. I can also see this being of use to secondary teachers who might not be so familiar with the critical analyses of the book or its historical context, who could also use the page as a way to further background knowledge while creating lesson plans. In all, this is darn good work and I'm happy to have seen it take shape. Bravo, Flask! --Hobomok (talk) 21:38, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hobomok: Thank you for your kind comments! — Flask (talk) 00:22, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LEvalyn edit

(Update: after the completion of the edits discussed below, I happily support this article for FA status!) ~ L 🌸 (talk) 06:15, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can tell a great deal of work went into this article and it will be a very useful FA for students -- this book gets assigned so much! I have taught this novel a few times, but learned valuable details about its context from this article. The major themes section is, especially, a feat of very informative, concise, and well-sourced writing about literary interpretation. I made a few very minor edits as I read, just little sentence tweaks if there was anything I needed to pause and re-read. Overall the prose is very polished and often quite vivid (though not excessively so for an encyclopedia). I have the following quite small comments as well:

  • Plot summary: the statement that "Gatsby, Daisy, Tom, and he were all Westerners unsuited to Eastern life" doesn't make sense to me. Is this about West Egg vs East Egg? That distinction hasn't been defined by the article.
Fixed. Altered word choice in several sentences and added explanatory note. — Flask (talk) 03:16, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Characters
  • Same confusion, Nick "despairs of... Eastern life and returns to the West" -- is this about the East coast vs the Midwest?
Fixed. — Flask (talk) 03:16, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, why does Meyer Wolfsheim rate a listing in the cast of characters? It says he only appears twice, which is not really a claim to significance. I think either add a sentence explaining his relevance, or remove from the list and let the "Antisemitism" section mention the link between the man and the character.
Fixed. Removed Meyer Wolfsheim from Major Characters and move relevant information to Antisemitism section. — Flask (talk) 03:16, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Writing and production: Given the discussion of the cover art's influence, it would be helpful for the "timeline"-y part of this section to mention when (at what stage in composition) Fitzgerald actually saw the art.
Fixed. Added specific date to Cover Art section. Also, thank you for adding the more specific phrase to the Writing and Production section. — Flask (talk) 03:16, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Major themes: Race and displacement: The last paragraph of this section seems much less informative than the preceding. It says: "Because of such themes, The Great Gatsby arguably captures the perennial American experience as it is a story about change and those who resist it, whether the change comes in the form of a new wave of immigrants, the nouveau riche, or successful minorities. As Americans living in the 1920s to the present are defined by their fluctuating economic and social circumstances, contemporary readers can relate to Gatsby, which has contributed to the novel's enduring popularity." In general, I think this section is not as strong as the two previous -- "Class permanence" does a great job of stating not just that the book is about class but what it says about class, and "Gender relations" does a great job of mapping how and why the book's depiction of gender has been reassessed over time. So rather than just a vague statement that Gatsby is still relatable, I want to know-- is the book considered to have anti-racist tendencies since it aligns racism with its antagonist? If those were Fitzgerald's intentions, how much do they still 'hold up' a hundred years later?
Addressed. Rewrote final paragraph of Race and displacement to answer the question of whether scholars believe Fitzgerald's depiction of the racial and ethnic social conflict still has relevance using the Vogel and Gillespie sources. — Flask (talk) 03:16, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Major themes: Technology and environment: Again you've got me with "the East" -- "In this context, Nick's repudiation of the East represents a futile attempt to withdraw into nature." Here it must be the East coast, right? If so I think the article needs some kind of orientation to this East/West lens of understanding the US. The distinction seems to align with what I'd call "East Coast" and "Midwest" (or maybe "Western frontier"?) but today "East" and "West" on their own evoke Western culture/Eastern World.
Fixed. Altered word choice in several sentences and added explanatory note. — Flask (talk) 03:16, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Major themes: queer readings? I also wonder if there ought to be a section discussing queer interpretations of the novel, since it's a key way I often encounter the novel myself. I'm not sure that the article is actively incomplete without such a section-- it may be that I encounter queer readings of Gatsby so often because I don't study American lit but do study queer lit-- but since I encounter it as a fairly uncontroversial interpretation, it might be a valuable addition. I'd be happy to help write such a section.
  • Adaptations: other media: The jump from radio to games is a little jarring, though I'm not sure how to revise this. The mentions are appropriately short and shouldn't be split into two paragraphs. Perhaps I was surprised because the first sentence makes it sound like the whole paragraph will be a list of many radio adaptations, so I thought the sentence beginning "In 2010..." would be a 2010 radio production. This also may be fine since it's clear if one re-reads it.
Fixed. — Flask (talk) 03:16, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Of all of these, I think only the Eastern/Western thing actually needs to be addressed before the article would actually feel "complete". The other notes would, I think, improve the article, but may also be a matter of personal preference. I will strongly support promotion once the article's references to "East" and "West" are clarified. Thank you for all of your incredible efforts here! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 02:40, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@LEvalyn: Thank you for reviewing the article! I'll be implementing changes tonight based on your feedback. I agree the East vs West part is currently unclear, and I'll likely change West to Midwest for the sake of clarity. — Flask (talk) 21:29, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll toss in to both of you that I really like the idea of a section on queer theory for the novel (I've written one for Dracula), but that I'm not convinced the article needs new content. It'll be up to Flask to determine what amount of the criticism discusses the novel in the way. If it’s a sizeable percentage, then for due weight to be met then it should be included. If it’s minority criticism, I think it’s probably fine to steer clear of it, though. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 21:34, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ImaginesTigers: Thanks for weighing in-- I think you're right that there's a real danger in burdening the article with too much detail. I think it's a strength of the article, for example, that it doesn't have long sections trying to unpack the key images like the eyes, the green light, etc. I did a little looking, and I think the key scholarship goes like so:
  • Fraser, Keath. "Another Reading of The Great Gatsby." ESC: English Studies in Canada 5.3 (1979): 330-343.
  • Wasiolek, Edward. “The Sexual Drama of Nick and Gatsby.” International Fiction Review, vol. 19, no. 1, 1992, pp. 14–22.
  • Kerr, Frances. "Feeling" Half Feminine": Modernism and the Politics of Emotion in The Great Gatsby." American Literature 68.2 (1996): 405-431.
  • Froehlich, Maggie Gordon. "Jordan Baker, gender dissent, and homosexual passing in The Great Gatsby." The Space Between 6.1 (2010): 81-103.
  • Froehlich, Maggie Gordon. "Gatsby's mentors: queer relations between love and money in The Great Gatsby." The Journal of Men’s Studies 19.3 (2011): 209-226.
You will notice two of those are by the same scholar. But the one by Kerr makes me think there is something here: it says "It was in the 1970s that readers first began to address seriously the themes of gender and sexuality in The Great Gatsby; a few critics have pointed out the novel's bizarre homoerotic leitmotif. While many readers now acknowledge some sort of conjunction of gender, sexuality, and homoeroticism in The Great Gatsby, we have yet to explore these issues in a context larger than Fitzgerald's own psychology or the textual world of The Great Gatsby." (406) Kerr cites Wasiolek and Fraser for the "few critics" pointing out the "homoerotic leitmotif".
Most of the RS coverage, I think, will be from the late 90s. There are a lot of more recent hits for non-RS student work, though-- including honors theses and dissertations. So I find myself largely tempted by a section on queer readings because of the student connection, as discussed in Zaino, Karen. "Surfacing Queer Stories in the High School Canon." English Journal 110.1 (2020): 39-45. Zaino specifically discusses teaching Gatsby and how queer readings come up in class. (Zaino cites Wasiolek in support of reading Nick as queer.) Anecdotally, every time I taught this novel, at least one student Nick could be gay.
My current hunch is that queer readings are a minority criticism in published scholarship, but not a discredited criticism, and a common one among student readers. Whether that means it belongs in the encyclopedia, I am not sure. It might be nice to give students some starting places for the scholarship that does exist so they know they're not imagining this line of thinking, but encyclopedias are not just for students. Maybe it could be folded in to the "gender relations" section with a few sentences, and footnotes to these sources? ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:19, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@LEvalyn: Thank you for your detailed response and for your research into potential sources. I think a queer reading section could be quite informative for the average reader, but it would need to be more than a few sentences in order to do proper justice to the interpretation. There is a wealth of information in authoritative biographies of Fitzgerald that could be used for the queer reading section. For example, Fitzgerald dressed as a woman while in college and attempted to seduce men at parties. While writing The Great Gatsby, his wife Zelda accused him of being a closeted homosexual. Soon after Gatsby was published, she accused him of having sexual feelings for Ernest Hemingway. Fitzgerald also had an intimate relationship with his Catholic priest Father Sigourney Fay that several biographers interpret as likely homosexual, and it is revealing that Daisy's last name is a homage to him. There is also the fact that Fitzgerald was interested in women such as Ginevra and Zelda solely in response to other men's interest in them. All of these biographical facts lend credence to a queer reading of Gatsby, especially in regards to Nick's feelings for the title character. My only concern, however, is whether another interpretation section would make the Critical Analysis too long. I shall reflect upon this while implementing your other suggested changes tomorrow. — Flask (talk) 05:50, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again @LEvalyn:. I have thought carefully on the question of adding the queer reading section, and I am still torn. On one hand, I believe it should be added as its own section. On the other hand, the article's size is currently at 122kb. Under Wikipedia's Article size guidelines, we are already far over the suggested length limit and have definitely entered the "Almost certainly should be divided" range. If we decided to add further interpretations, we would have to split the article. This might be something to do further down the road as there are a number of sections that could be split-off and expanded: 1.) Historical influences on The Great Gatsby; 2.) Critical approaches to The Great Gatsby; 3.) Media adaptations of The Great Gatsby, etc. — Flask (talk) 03:16, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, Hamlet is 151kb and was nonetheless promoted as a Featured Article. So, unless other reviewers have objections, I could add the section this weekend. Is there any time limit on this FAC review? — Flask (talk) 03:22, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's fine if that's the decision you make, but I would be careful what you're comparing it to. Hamlet was promoted in 2007. That's a long time ago, and the standards for FA have risen significantly since then. Additionally, it hasn't been reviewed yet over at WP:URFA/2020. (I might do that in a day or two.) Like I said, I don't really think it’s a big deal, but Hamlet might need to come down in size. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 03:33, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I looked more closely, and the article size rule is about readable prose size, which is typically much smaller than the size of the page itself. Using the Wikipedia:Prosesize gadget, it looks like the article is only 43.7kB in readable prose size, which is fine. (The gadget itself says 40kB, but doesn't count the character list; since that part is 583 words / 3714 characters, it adds another 3.7kB.) So, I think there is room in the article for a few more kB of prose. (Hamlet, meanwhile, is at least 68 kB readable prose size.) Looking at readable prose size has persuaded me that a queer themes section, albeit a brief one, ought to be added. If you would like any help with writing it, please let me know! I also appreciate all the other changes you've made so far -- I checked over them and they all look good! The explanatory note and wording changes really clarified the East/West distinctions and everything else is well-addressed too. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 04:36, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@LEvalyn: Thank you. I should have a rough version of the section within the next two days or so after I do further research. I'll likely ask you to copy-edit or to supplement whatever you feel is pertinent or lacking in the section. — Flask (talk) 05:01, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@LEvalyn: I've added two paragraphs on Sexuality and Identity to the Critical Analysis section. If you wish to critique, edit, or supplement those paragraphs, it would be greatly appreciated. I included the biographical details since I believe skeptical or homophobic readers will be less likely to challenge or to vandalize the section if they are first confronted by bibliographical facts about the author which partly underpin certain interpretations. — Flask (talk) 03:22, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Flask: The new section was great! I was nervous about the idea of including biographical context, but I think you handle it well here. You found some great sources. Based on how often I saw Wasiolek cited I am tempted to add him to your footnote if scholars discussing the Nick & Gatsby relationship but the sources you found look great too. I made two minor tweaks to the wording and I think the section is good. Thank you for your research and careful writing in adding this! I am happy now to support this article for FA status. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 06:15, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@LEvalyn: Thank you for your support! I now added Wasiolek citation and cited the appropriate page numbers. — Flask (talk) 18:21, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from DMT Biscuit edit

Lead:

  • I feel like the novel's post-WW2 resurgence could be given more context; a mention of council should suffice, but it is mostly per discretion.
Added. Included more context in lead about post-WW2 resurgence and explicitly mentioned Council on Books in Wartime. — Flask (talk) 04:43, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

H&BC:

  • Although I understand they're not extensively used, I think citations [2] through [6] can be collected in a {{sfnm}} template, particularly becuase all but one come from the same source. I'm sceptical of the need for the quotes, moreso when considering fair use.
Fixed. Deleted most quotations but kept two which recurrently come up: The flapper definition is important as it establishes that—contrary to popular assumption—flappers were not part of the Lost Generation or Wartime Generation. And the sex one is important since it refutes claims by certain Gatsby commentators (such as Otto Friedrich's 1960 essay) that "petting" by flappers didn't involve premarital sex. — Flask (talk) 04:43, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The note immediately after "accustomed" is rather jarring. Just place it up a bit. The sentence could be rewritten to fit better: "...provide for the lifestyle his fiancée had become accustomed to.[27][28][b]
Fixed. Moved all notations to follow punctuation. — Flask (talk) 04:43, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

W&P

  • Same as above: notes [e], [h], [i], [j] [k]. Same proposed solution(s).
Fixed. Moved all notations to follow punctuation. — Flask (talk) 04:43, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Critical Reception

  • Perhaps worth mentioning in the Mencken caption that his criticism was an example of that Fitzgerald resented.
Done. Updated caption. — Flask (talk) 04:43, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • praising the elegance of the writing → praised the writing as elegant, former could be seen as editorializing.
Done. — Flask (talk) 04:43, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "eviscerated" → lambasted, less sensational.
Done. — Flask (talk) 04:43, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "lamented" → despaired, as lamented was used rather recently.
Done. — Flask (talk) 04:43, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "belated" - this does seem like an example of editorializing.
Done. — Flask (talk) 04:43, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Critical analysis

  • For being a short ref, I don't see as to why [173] is repeated in the same sentence.
Fixed. — Flask (talk) 04:43, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's been said that Zelda Fitzgerald embodies the flapper aesthetic; would she not be a more fitting representation, particularly as the present example is a romanticised depiction?
Updated: I altered the image caption to state it is an idealized depiction. I feel the Ellen Pyle illustration is fitting since Fitzgerald's novel is intended to be a romantic idyll and not realistic. Also, it is one of the few illustrations of a flapper drawn by a woman, and I think gender representation is important especially since its for the "Gender relations" section. In regards to including an image of Zelda, this article originally had such an image, but it was removed as it was not verifiably in the pubic domain. The few photos of Zelda verifiably in the public domain on Wikipedia were uploaded by me (i.e., her yearbook photo and the car touring photo). Neither is high quality nor captures the early 1920s flapper aesthetic. There is the Gordon Bryant sketch, but his sketch doesn't capture the flapper aesthetic. Regardless, I think the Pyle illustration is preferable. — Flask (talk) 04:43, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Satisfied with this rationale. DMT Biscuit (talk) 22:12, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "tragedy" - same case as "belated".
Done. — Flask (talk) 04:43, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding the nose of Wolfshiem – interesting statement – I feel like the context of Jewish nose should be mentioned, even if just in passing.
Done. — Flask (talk) 04:43, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The caption doesn't really make it clear if the photo is of Wolfshiem or Rothstein.
Fixed. — Flask (talk) 04:43, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks

  • Seem good.
  • Whilst trying to verify The Australian ref, the link failed to work. Could either be dead or wrongly implemented; either way, check it out. May be worth doing general archiving.
Fixed. — Flask (talk) 04:43, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion Very good, nearing FA certainly. I've dogged on it a relative amount but the writing is, to borrow an archaic Wikipedia term, worthy of being dubbed: "Outstanding prose". DMT biscuit (talk) 21:56, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@DMT biscuit: Thank you for reviewing the article! I'll be implementing your feedback later tonight and/or tomorrow. — Flask (talk) 18:22, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@DMT biscuit: I've now implemented your suggestions. Let me know if you have further feedback! — Flask (talk) 04:43, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm satisfied with the article's current status; support.
@DMT biscuit: Thank you! — Flask (talk) 22:43, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod edit

  • Generally seems very thorough & well-sourced. I think the cover art is exceptionally important here, & the extra emphasis is correct. Also not worried about length at present.
  • Nothing on foreign editions and translations, which I would expect in a FA on a book, or novel anyway.
  • Perhaps more later. Johnbod (talk) 02:45, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnbod: Thank you for reviewing the article. I'll insert some information on foreign editions and translations in the "Revival and reassessment" section tomorrow in my next edits. — Flask (talk) 05:06, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnbod: I've added a sentence about the many foreign editions and the number of language translations to "Revival and reassessment". Please let me know if you have any further suggestions! — Flask (talk) 22:44, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, given the shaky start to the publishing history it would be nice to know when the first UK (English ROW) edition, & those in some major languages, appeared. But not a crucial point & I should be taken as a Support. Johnbod (talk) 14:02, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnbod: Thank you! — Flask (talk) 20:48, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source reivew from Guerillero. edit

Spotchecks were done by DMT Biscuit, above.

Why are these sources High Quality RSes?

  • Carter 2010
Fixed. Replaced Gamezebo source with MSNBC source (Benedetti 2010). — Flask (talk) 04:10, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Replaced web source with 1986 print source (Pitts 1986, p. 127). — Flask (talk) 04:10, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rossi 2020
Fixed. Replaced Internet Archive source with New York Times source (Williams 2021). — Flask (talk) 04:10, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

--Guerillero Parlez Moi 00:08, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Flask: This might be a better source for the radio adaptation. I'd peg Gale as higher-quality than Sparknotes, though lower-quality than something like an Oxford handbook. I tried to a do a ProQuest search for newspaper coverage but didn't find any. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:33, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@LEvalyn: Thank you for the source suggestion! I almost used the Gale source until I found the 1986 book by Pitts. On a side note, the Gale source (published 2019) seemingly derives its information from this Wikipedia article, including the erratum regarding the program's length. — Flask (talk) 04:10, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Flask: Great find with the 1986 book!! And, haha, "might contain unchecked wikipedia material" is probably about right for a "better than Sparknotes" source... very glad you avoided that circular reference. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 04:46, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Guerillero: Thank you for undertaking a review! Let me know if you have any other feedback or suggestions, and I shall endeavor to implement them. — Flask (talk) 04:10, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above --Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:05, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Guerillero: Thank you! — Flask (talk) 20:37, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Featured_log/August_2021&oldid=1041695395"