Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/December 2018

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

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 14:38, 28 December 2018 [1].

Emanuel Moravec edit

Nominator(s): Chetsford (talk) 04:19, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the collaborationist Minister of Education of the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia, the dismembered Czechoslovak state created and occupied by Germany during World War II. Prior to the occupation of the Czech lands, Moravec was widely known as a leading proponent of democracy, and as a celebrated author and journalist. This article recently passed both GA and A-class review. A note on sources ... this article makes use of a handful of Czech and Slovak-language sources, however, there has only been one comprehensive biography about Moravec published in any language (by Jiří Pernes). The article does not use that as a source as it was the subject of a plagiarism scandal and was withdrawn from publication. The allegation was that it was plagiarized from a dissertation and whether or not this dissertation actually resulted in the awarding of a doctorate is unclear; therefore, per WP:SCHOLARSHIP, I don't believe either the book or the dissertation from which it was allegedly copied is a WP:RS. Chetsford (talk) 04:19, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM edit

Before reviewing, I just wanted to clarify, have the Czech language sources identified in the Milhist ACR been consulted? For reference, these are ones used in the Czech wiki article, such as Borovička, Michael, Kolaboranti 1939–1945 Praha: Paseka, 2007; Pasák, Tomáš, Český fašismus 1922–1945 a kolaborace 1939–1945 Praha: Práh, 1999; Uhlíř, Jan Boris, Emanuel Moravec. Český nacionální socialista. In: Historie a vojenství, č. 2, roč. 2006, s. 25 – 39 a č. 3, s. 49 – 63; and Uhlíř, Jan Boris, Protektorát Čechy a Morava v obrazech Praha 2008 and possibly some others. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:10, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, with two exceptions; on further inspection, Protektorát Čechy a Morava v obrazech appeared to be a visual history, or book of photographs; Kolaboranti 1939–1945 I wasn't able to obtain through any means. The others I did consult but found their information to be duplicative of that already in text. Chetsford (talk) 08:04, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If that is the case, then I would strongly suggest citing the material that can be sourced to these publications, even where it is already cited to existing sources, otherwise reviewers and other readers will assume that the Czech sources have not been consulted. This goes to the comprehensiveness criteria. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:15, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, that makes sense. I'll add this in. Chetsford (talk) 08:16, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Peacemaker67 I've added these in now; LMK what you think about how I handled it. For the Magazine of Military History (Czech) I just added a single citation on a one-source sentence to avoid WP:OVERCITE (this is kind of a subject matter extraction of his visual history so is image heavy ... and there are a lot of good ones, I wish we could use some of them). On Czech Fascism and Collaboration I actually included it in a new "Further Reading" section instead as it seems like a pretty nice reference that deals with the whole period (Moravec only gets smattering of mentions sprinkled throughout but, contextually, the volume should be of interest to someone curious about this period). Chetsford (talk) 22:58, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll have another read through, but given I looked at this in detail at Milhist ACR, I doubt there is a lot for me to nitpick about. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:15, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A few things from me:

his political party affiliation is given in the infobox, but I couldn't find it in the body
it is probably worth pointing out that the all ministerial appointments were subject to approval from the Protector anyway. Lemkin Axis Rule in Occupied Europe p. 135 is a reference for this.
it could be mentioned that revision of Czech school textbooks was undertaken, and universities were closed and student leaders arrested and killed or sent to labour camps. Lemkin pp. 138–139 is the reference for these matters.

I reviewed this article in detail during its Milhist A-Class review, and that is all I have from this run through. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:08, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Peacemaker67 - thank you very much, I've made these updates. For #1 (political party) I just deleted it entirely. I'm not actually sure where that came from; I think it was probably a leftover field from the original, stub article, but there's no actual source that confirms Moravec's membership in the National Partnership and it wasn't really a political party in any case so I should probably have notice and removed it long ago. 02:24, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:47, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The way that you phrased the closure of the universities (the nation's universities had been closed) is not ideal in my opinion. Before the war, many Czech universities had a German-language section and a Czech-language section. Only the Czech universities were closed, as Lemkin states. Also, the Protectorate was not exactly a nation. Catrìona (talk) 07:33, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good points, Catrìona. I've revised; LMK if you think it looks okay. Chetsford (talk) 07:56, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Catrìona edit

After reading over this nomination, I don't have any additional comments to make. I believe that Chetsford has addressed concerns that the article might not be comprehensive. It's very well written and consistently referenced to reliable sources, and has been thoroughly picked over already at MILHIST ACR. Catrìona (talk) 23:35, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

Pleased to pick up the Source review. Will try for today, but could be tomorrow. KJP1 (talk) 12:14, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

General

Publishers' locations - I don't think they're a requirement, and you didn't use them for Ames, but I find them helpful.
Blue-linking titles to Google books etc. I personally like these and think they help readers, but I know other editors don't. That said, it's not a bar. One editor also complained I used Google Books, as they're a commercial seller, so I now use Worldcat unless the Google Books link gives a useful snippet. Just a thought.
Source 1 - Do we need both the isbn and the oclc (also 7/12/17/18/21/25/27/34)? Also, I've not seen a review used as it is here, in Lay summary. I rather like it, but I've just not previously seen it. But it also appears as Source 2, which seems overkill.
Source 2 - see Source 1 above.
Source 3 - should this have the date of authorship (8 August 2017) as well as the archive and retrieval dates?
Source 9 - again, does this need a date (November 2007)?
Source 20 - as above, although here I can't see a date on it.
Source 28 - as above but again I see no date.
Source 30 - as above, 13 May 2015.
Source 24 - You've a 10-figure isbn here, and 13 elsewhere. The converter gives me 978-1-58477-901-8.

External links

1 - This has been removed from YouTube for CV.
2 - Would this read better as "...a collection of speeches and broadcasts by Moravec"?
3 - Aside from looking rather like The Addams Family, I'm not sure this gives the reader very much.

That's Batch 1. I'll do a spot-check of the accessible sources against content later.

Thanks very much, KJP1. I've made all these updates with the following notes:

Source 20 is undated.
The condition of this passing A class was that I add the explanatory note and lay summary on source 1 and both OCLCs and ISBNs throughout.

Let me know if I missed anything and thanks again! Chetsford (talk) 07:08, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's just fine, if it's what the Milhists wanted. I'll do the spot check and wrap up later today. KJP1 (talk) 07:44, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much, KJP1! I've updated with the paywall template for your note below. I appreciate the time you took in this very thorough review. Chetsford (talk) 19:46, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Spot check of accessible online sources (non-Czech language)

Sources 2/3/6/9/15/22/23/26/28/29(see below)/36/37/38/41 - all function and all support the content.

Offline sources

All look reputable to me, but having no Czech and not being a specialist in this area leaves me at a certain disadvantage. However, I'm much fortified by the Milhist A class review, which discussed the sourcing extensively and was satisfied.

Queries

Source 16 - I think this needs a "subscription required", or similar. Certainly, I can't access it.
Source 20 - The original is giving me a 404 error but the archive copy works.
Source 29 - A dissertation, but permissible under Wikipedia:SCHOLARSHIP I think. It's certainly been reviewed.

Within my limitations, and mindful of the Milhist review, I'm satisfied the sources are verifiable, comprehensive and support the content. Am therefore pleased to Support myself.

Media review edit

Generally looks good, a couple of comments. FunkMonk (talk) 13:15, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why use such a close crop of the face for the infobox image? As it is fair use, you could use just about any other photo.
How can we be sure the author of this photo[2] was anonymous/unknown?
To supplement FunkMonk's comments: If you have a properly licensed fair-use image of the subject in the article, you can't use an additional non-fair-use image, so the infobox photo needs to go.
File:Plk.Gst.Emanuel.Moravec.(1893-1945).Tablo.Valecna.Skola.1931-1934.gif needs a US license.
I'd like to see more source information on this photo to verify the anonymous author claim. Where was it published and by who?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:57, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sturmvogel 66 and FunkMonk - thanks for the review. I don't have any info on that image and didn't notice it had even been added to the article; I agree with your comments, so have removed it entirely. Also, per your suggestion, I've updated the infobox photo with a less closely cropped version. Let me know if there's anything else and thanks again for taking the time to check on this. Chetsford (talk) 06:23, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sturmvogel 66 and FunkMonk - just wanted to quickly check to see if these fixes were sufficient? Thanks again for the review. Chetsford (talk) 04:05, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Look fine to me. FunkMonk (talk) 04:06, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Me, too.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:00, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Ian edit

Recusing from coord duties... I reviewed, copyedited and supported at MilHist ACR, have looked over changes since then and made a few tweaks to prose. I just have two comments, which relate to the same passage: However, denounced by the Allies and the Czech government-in-exile during World War II as a "Czech Quisling", Moravec has come to be regarded as an "enthusiastic collaborator" with Nazi Germany. This contrasts with other protectorate-era officials like Hácha, who has often been seen as a "tragic figure"...

Firstly, despite the three quotes above being only snippets, they are all loaded terms and should be attributed inline. The passage is cited to three sources so there's no way to easily determine just who uses these words.
- We still don't know who said "Czech Quisling", "enthusiastic collaborator" and "tragic figure". If the first is a commonly used term that both the sources for that statement employ, I'd say leave as is, but if only one author uses it than I think we need to say in-line just who it was -- same goes for the other two terms. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:14, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - This outstanding point seems to have been overlooked, so I've taken it upon myself to attribute "enthusiastic collaborator" and "tragic figure" (in the process correcting the source for the latter). I can see "Czech Quisling" in one of the two sources cited in that sentence (Johnstone), but the other is behind a paywall, so I'll need to rely on Chetsford to check if both use the term, in which case by all means leave the sentence as is, or if only Johnstone uses it, in which case the term should be clearly attributed to him. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:12, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Secondly, although I believe "however" is overused in WP articles, I try to refrain from shooting it on sight. In this case I can see that you want something to contrast the previous paragraph (Czech historian Jiří Pernes has argued...) with this one, but it can be seen as editorialising because it appears it's us (Wikipedia) highlighting the contrast, rather than simply presenting info and letting our readers work it out. It might improve the flow, and allow us to eliminate the "however", by simply making the first paragraph follow this one instead of precede it. Another option is to move that bit to the Biography subsection, which is concerned with the source of that contention.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:49, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Rose - many thanks for the review. These should be both fixed now, but let me know if I've missed anything! Chetsford (talk) 09:29, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Rose - thanks and sorry I misunderstood your comment. The paywalled referenced to "Czech Quisling" is by UPI correspondent Leo Disher in the following form: One of the war's strangest and most deadly personal feuds is between Col. Moravec, No. 1 Czech Quisling, and Col. Moravec, the Czech's No. 1 Quisling Hunter. (In the second instance, Col. Moravec refers to F. Moravec, not E. Moravec.) However, I'm apprehensive about attributing the term "Czech Quisling" it to Leo Disher as it's been widely used by other sources and I don't really have any reason to believe he originated the term. It's also used by Chris Johnston at Radio Prague [3] without taking credit for it (for his actions, he became dubbed "the Czech Quisling), by the Czechoslovak Government-in-Exile [4], in this contemporary journal article by Karel Margry [5], and many other places. I'm unsure, therefore, how to attribute it without presenting it in list form of all the names who have used the term? Chetsford (talk) 22:13, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No that's fine, leave that bit as is -- I just wanted to establish that both sources for the sentence used the term, which they do, and, ideally, that it's a commonly used epithet for him, which it obviously is. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:03, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley edit

"A veteran of World War I, Moravec served in the Austro-Hungarian Army, Czechoslovak Legion, and Russian-backed Serbian forces". I found this confusing. starting with "A veteran of" may imply that you are going on to describe his life after the war. Also, the armies appear to be in the wrong order, as if I read the main text correctly he served in the Serbian forces before the Chech legion, which went on to fight on the side of the White Russians. Also it should be made clear that he changed sides. Maybe "In World War I, Moravec served in the Austro-Hungarian Army, but following capture by the Russians he changed sides to join Russian-backed Serbian forces and then the Czechoslovak Legion, which went on to fight on the side of the White Russians in the Russian Civil War."
"He was subsequently paroled and given command of a machine-gun platoon in the First Serbian Volunteer Division, a unit consisting of former prisoners of war, including Serbs and other Slavs from the countries of the Austro-Hungarian Empire." You should clarify that they were fighting on the Russian side.
"embroiled" This word is POV and should be deleted.
"more hysterical aspects" Also POV. I would say "more extreme aspects"
"Moravec returned to writing with gusto and a darkly reoriented editorial line". I do not know what "darkly" means here.
"Czechia" I think it is better not to introduce another word for Czechoslovakia (assuming that it what is is) in the middle of the article.
"Hácha discussed the proposal with Karl Hermann Frank". You should explain who Frank was.
"a doctoral dissertation on Moravec's life written by a different author". I would name the author.
This is a first rate article apart from the confused account of his service in WWI. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:41, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dudley Miles - thanks very much for the review. I've updated all of these items per your suggestion. On #6 I replaced "Czechia" with "Czech Lands" since it's just referring here to Bohemia, Moravia and Lower Silesia, instead of the entire Czechoslovakia (Bohemia, Moravia, Lower Silesia, and Slovakia). Let me know if I've missed anything! Chetsford (talk) 21:10, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:35, 21 December 2018 (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. --Laser brain (talk) 14:38, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 05:23, 28 December 2018 [6].

Benty Grange helmet edit

Nominator(s): Usernameunique (talk) 07:30, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Benty Grange helmet is unique. Its horn-and-iron construction is like no other Anglo-Saxon helmet; its use of myriad decorative techniques on a single ornamental object is unparalleled by any other Anglo-Saxon object, let alone helmet; and in a syncretic display emblematic of the slow spread of Christianity across pagan Britain, its boar-crest looks down at a cross on the nasel. It would have been a sight to behold in its day.

The helmet may have been discovered 170 years ago, but is sparsely published; the most in-depth treatment was only prepared as part of an effort to study another helmet. This article thus pulls from multiple sources to create what is the most comprehensive take on the helmet available. It passed a good article review in March, has been refined since then, and is ready to be nominated here. Usernameunique (talk) 07:30, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk edit

As usual, this looks interesting, will have a look soon. Note that I ran the citationbot, which did some good things, such as updating isbns, but also removed publishers from journal articles, which you may not be so happy about. I think it is generally discouraged to add publisher for journal articles, which is why the bot removes then. FunkMonk (talk) 15:06, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think it's a losing battle to keep trying to retain journal publishers (someone mentions it every nomination), so no worries there.

The mention of Bos longifrons intrigued me, because it is hard to find any recent literature on this. It appears to be a now defunct name for ancient British cattle, which I think could be specified. Here is a recent source stating "Bos longifrons is a now-defunct term that used to be applied to the small Iron Age cattle kept by the British before and during the Roman period. It is now accepted that all humpless domestic cattle are of a single species, Bos taurus, and that they all descend ultimately from the aurochs, Bos primigenius."[7] Older sources also call it the "Celtic short-horn":[8][9]

Yes, good point. There's also a discussion here about it. See what you think of the edits and footnote that I've made. It's slightly confusing, because Bruce-Mitford 1974 (relating c. 1948 observations) seems to rule out modern cattle in saying that "The horn traces surviving on the helmet were examined at the National History Museum by the Keeper of Zoology, Dr F. C. Fraser, and experiments were carried out by softening and spreading a horn from a shorthorn breed. It was clear that a much bigger horned breed of cattle must have been involved in the construction of the helmet. This was presumably bos longifrons; and there is no need to postulate aurochs. Horn is of fibrous structure and as a protective substance has the advantage of being light and tough. Whalebone (baleen) was ruled out as the substance employed on the helmet." Perhaps Bruce-Mitford is simply saying that longhorn cattle must have been used, and his 1948/1974 understanding was that in 650 AD, the form of longhorn cattle prevalent in the area was bos longifrons.

There seem to be a lot of duplinks, which you can highlight with this script[10], if I haven't mentioned that before.

Thanks, installed it and removed most of them.

"Contemporary watercolour by Llewellynn Jewitt" Contemporary is very vague, why not just mention the year?

Removed "contemporary," and added information to the text. Woodcuts of the watercolors were published in 1849, and though Jewitt probably painted them the year before, close to when the barrow was excavated, nothing I have found says as much. Jewitt may even have participated in the excavation, as he did with others by Bateman, but Bateman had a reputation for failing to credit the contributions of others (even his friends, apparently), so the exact dimensions of Jewitt's involvement are a bit unclear.

It might be good enough to give a publishing date in the caption. Doesn't need to be exactly when it was painted. FunkMonk (talk) 18:31, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It would have to be along the lines of "published as a woodcut in 1849," since I don't know when the first publication of the actual watercolors was (it may not even have been until they were digitized).

Thanks for jumping in and taking a look, FunkMonk. You've managed to highlight a number of issues that I myself have found confusing, thus forcing me to take a deeper look. Hopefully now it's more clear. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:51, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You link nape at second rather than first mention in the description.

Fixed.

"each between 1 and 2 millimetres thick" I guess there isn't really anything to convert this measurement to?

I can't really think of anything—I mentioned this with regards to your nomination of Thalassodromeus, but even as someone used to imperial units, 1–2mm is a lot more intuitive than .04–.08in.

I wonder if dexter and sinister could be explained in parenthesis, seems to be jargon.

Tried mouse-over text, but it didn't work with the links. Generally speaking (especially when there is an explanatory link) I prefer not to use explanatory parentheticals, especially when there isn't (I think) too much jargon in the article to begin with.

Per the "don't make readers chase links"[11] MOS guideline, I would gloss them anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 15:30, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Changed the sentence where dexter and sinister are used the first time to: "It was affixed to the outside of the dexter (wearer's right) side of the brow band, the inside of the sinister (wearer's left) side, and the outside of the nose-to-nape band."

"attached the body to an elliptical bronze plate; both sets depict front legs, with forward-facing knees, whereas the rear legs of actual boars have backward-facing knees." technically, boars have forwards facing knees on the hindlegs as well, what we sometimes call the "knees" here are really the ankles. What does the source say specifically? As you can see here, the actual knee is somewhat hidden in the body[12], which is perhaps why the ankle is called the knee (similar to how it is sometimes incorrectly referred to in birds). Likewise, there are no "knees" on the front legs, rather an elbow and wrist, as in all other limbed animals. But it seems like the wrist is called "knee" in domestic pig terminology (which would be agricultural rather than "proper" anatomical jargon), according to this diagram.[13]

Another point on which I was a bit confused, and may have Googled too quickly. The source says "Artistically, the legs were not very realistic. The animal has been given two sets of 'front' legs (see photo prior to treatment) (Plate 64a). That is to say, the back legs have 'knees' in front instead of at the back." My reading of this is that one mould was used twice, ignoring the slight differences—of which these so-called "knees" are one—between between front and back legs. (As suggested by the replica boar, it may also be that neither of the sets of legs was particularly lifelike, but the front legs were a closer approximation than the back legs.) With all this in mind, how would you phrase it in the article?

As the source doesn't go that much into detail, I'd just keep it as simple as possible, with as little anatomical interpretation as possible (if you can stick to which direction the limbs bend). For example, saying that the knees should bend backwards in the hindlegs is simply incorrect (as again, that's the ankle/heel, due to many four limbed animals walking on their toes). FunkMonk (talk) 18:29, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How does this read? "both sets depict front legs, bent forwards without account for the differences between a boar's fore and hind limbs."

Looks better to me, I would say "anatomical differences" for clarity. FunkMonk (talk) 15:30, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done.

"overned by the Pecsæte, and so the Benty Grange barrow may memorialise a member of this tribe" You could specify that it was supposedly an Anglo Saxon tribe, as I had to go to the page to figure it out.

Done.

"contained two inhumations" Could be explained in parenthesis, I have no idea what that is...

Changed to "burials."

"Approximately six feet to the west" Why spell out numbers here, and no conversion?

Beats me. Changed.

You could present Llewellynn Jewitt further (occupation). Other people mentioned could be presented too.

Done ("artist and antiquarian"), and added brief bios of Herbert Maryon and Françoise Henry as well.

Is there something more specific to the Anglo Saxons than just "pagan" to link to? Anglo-Saxon paganism?

Done.

The infobox has this "warning": ‹ The template Infobox artifact is being considered for merging. › I wonder if it can be replaced with whatever it is going to be meregd with.

The proposal is to merge {{Infobox runestone}} into {{Infobox artefact}}, not the other way around; the latter will survive regardless.

FunkMonk, I think I've responded to everything above. Thanks for the good comments—you've tended to pick out parts of the article that were unclear because I myself was unclear when writing them, helping make a stronger article as a result. --Usernameunique (talk) 08:32, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I placed two more comments above, I should be ready to support when they are addressed. FunkMonk (talk) 22:57, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks FunkMonk, adopted both of those suggestions. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:15, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support - looks good to me now, looking forward to the next helmet! FunkMonk (talk) 23:25, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt edit

Mostly looks in good order, but ...

"It is one of only six known Anglo-Saxon helmets and was discovered before those from Sutton Hoo, York, Wollaston, Shorwell, and Staffordshire." Wouldn't it be simpler to say it was the first to be discovered?

That sentence is trying to name the others, note that the Benty Grange helmet was found first, and note their scarcity. Doing all three without sounding (too) clunky is something I have had some difficultly with. Changed to (now the forth wording, I think): "It is the first Anglo-Saxon helmet to be discovered; only five others, from Sutton Hoo, York, Wollaston, Shorwell, and Staffordshire, have been found since."

"Within this context, the helmet is classified as one of the "crested helmets" used in Northern Europe from the 6th to 11th centuries AD." I'm not quite sure what "within this context" signifies?

Removed.

"and the inside with cloth or leather, although the organic material has since decayed." The latter portion of this doesn't seem to be sourced in the body.

Added ", since decayed" to "The inside of the helmet was most likely originally lined with leather or cloth, since decayed." As for the horn, it is already sourced with "No horn now survives."

"The core of body" is this proper phrasing?

Nope. Now "The core of its body."

"Such protection certainly seems to have been among the armament of the well heeled." Are helmets armament? I might consider losing the "well heeled", not so much because I object to it generally, but because it may come across as a joke, head to foot or some such. Instead use some equivalent.

Changed to "armour." I think I looked it up when I originally wrote it, and saw that a (probably loose) definition of "armament" included military equipment, generally. But you're right, it's a stretch. As for "well heeled," I'm not sure the pun is a problem—wish I could take credit for it!

"At the centre of the barrow was suggested a body, " This sounds a bit vague. Also, the sentence might benefit from being split.

Changed to "Bateman suggested a body once lay at the centre of the barrow." Do you mean turning the semicolon into a period, or splitting the sentence earlier?

"In 1861 Bateman died in his fortieth year" I would state his age rather than have the reader guess whether he was 39 or 40.

Changed to "In 1861 Bateman died at 39."

"other objects from the family; other pieces" I would not use "other" twice so closely together.

Changed to "purchased objects, including the helmet, from the family; other pieces."

"the Benty Grange grave goods." I've never met "grave goods" before. Are you comfortable that the reader will know what is meant without having to rely on context?

Added a link to grave goods, but I do think it's a fairly commonly (or at least intuitively) understood term.

I'm not clear on where we are going with the sentence on Sutton Hoo. Are you sure we need all that information on Bruce-Mitford's background?
"Roman rule of Britain had brought with it the Catholic Church, and the Roman departure in 410 AD had brought about its decline; thereafter Christianity in Britain diverged into distinct and unrecognisable forms, or met the influx of Anglo-Saxons from continental Europe and was replaced with Germanic traditions that had been repressed for the last 400 years." The sentence might benefit from splitting.

Do you mean turning the semicolon into a period, or splitting it more substantially?

"once King Æthelberht of Kent gave them purchase to stay and preach.[108] " I'm not sure what "gave them purchase" means.

It's being used as a noun, "a hold or position on something for applying power advantageously." Does this seem an inappropriate use of the word?

"coming after La Tène examples in the 4th century BC, Gaulish examples three centuries later," unless it is a technical term that can't be altered, I would change one "examples", perhaps to "specimens".

Good point, done.

"on the turn of the millennium" I understand where you go with this, but it may be confusing to the reader.

That phrasing is really just a way of avoiding getting into the debate over when the Gundestrup cauldron was made. The previous sentence, with a reference to Tacitus "writing around the 1st century AD," should hopefully make clear which millennium we are talking about.

"may therefore suggest the post-Roman reintroduction of a Germanic tradition from Europe, rather than the continuation of a tradition in Britain through 400 years of Roman rule.[106]" You could get away without saying "from Europe". The previous sentence makes it clear.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:14, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support all looks good.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:49, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber edit

Taking a look....queries below...

It weighed about 1.441 kg (3.18 lb), as determined by the Weston Park Museum's 1986 replica - surely this means the replica weighed that. As we don't know exactly, it (maybe) should be rewritten as - "Based on the Weston Park Museum's 1986 replica, it has been calculated/estimated to weigh 1.441 kg (3.18 lb)"?

Changed to "It probably weighed about 1.441 kg (3.18 lb), the weight of the Weston Park Museum's 1986 replica."

The silver cross is 3.9 cm (1.5 in) long by 2 cm (0.79 in) wide - should it be 0.8 in?

Done.

The barrow comprises a circular central mound approximately 15 m (49 ft) - should be 50 ft?

Done.

Otherwise reads soundly. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:27, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review, Casliber, made your suggested changes as indicated above. —Usernameunique (talk) 14:40, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review while I am at it... edit

FN 3 - (used 7 times) material cited and faithful to source (source does say lined with sheepskin pad, article says leather or cloth. I guess leather is sheepskin..? also source says "some protection", article says "functional protection" - possibly a little generous. Would modify with "some/a degree of..." or something that says that the protection wasn't particularly good...)

How does just "provided protection" sound, without assigning it a degree of efficacy? It’s all a bit speculative, so maybe less is more here. As to sheepskin/cloth/leather, my memory is that footnote #4, which also supports this sentence, says cloth or leather. As you have pointed out, leather is more general than—but still encapsulates—sheepskin, and due to the speculative nature of this I figured the more general term was safer.

Well, "provided protection" without a qualifier makes it sound like an unequivocal "yes it protects" (as presumably a helmet should), but the "some" impresses (in a way) as damning with faint praise, and hence it is an important qualifier. I really think adding "a degree of" or some adjective indicating partiality is important here. We can ask a third party though (@Wehwalt and FunkMonk:) and if others agree it's sufficient as is I will go with consensus. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:03, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Casliber, reasonable enough. I’ve changed it to "offered some protection." —Usernameunique (talk) 20:36, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FN 48 - material cited and faithful to source
FN 76 - material cited and faithful to source
Earwigs is clear
formatting looks consistent.

Thanks for also providing the source review, Casliber. Responses are above. —Usernameunique (talk) 14:51, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ok I am happy now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:53, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Milburn edit

A quick comment: "The lowland areas of Britain, including the Peak District" The Peak District isn't a lowland area? And I don't know the South West that well, but I don't normally think of Cornwall and Devon as "highland" areas - especially not compared to the Scottish Highlands, Snowdonia or Peak District! Josh Milburn (talk) 19:17, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

J Milburn, that is sourced to Mayr-Harting 1991 (Google Books preview with different pagination available here; see last paragraph on p. 33). The paragraph in question reads:

Besides the question of the Britons living under Anglo-Saxon rule, there is the question of the British kingdoms remaining in the north and west of the island. What of the progress of Christianity in these kingdoms during the period of Saxon invasion and settlement and before the arrival of St. Augustine at Canterbury in 597? This is where the distinction between the Lowland Zone of Britain, with which the present book is mainly concerned, and the Highland Zone comes in. Sir Cyril Fox made this distinction familiar in his The Personality of Britain (1932) (where he included in his definition of the Highland Zone the Pennines and the Peak District of Derbyshire, whereas we confine ourselves here more narrowly to what is roughly present-day Scotland, Wales and Devon and Cornwall). He pointed out that the Lowland Zone was an easy prey to invaders and so to the imposition of new cultures, and that while it was suffering such incursions, the Highland Zone might be able (as the archaeology of its prehistory testifies) to preserve its cultural unity on an older basis and to engage in quite independent activity. This is the real clue to the history of British Christianity in the fifth and six [sic] centuries, and to that of Ireland as well, by reason of the historic role of the Irish Sea as a great Celtic lake.

Do you disagree with this? It seems that there are different understandings of what constitutes an upland or lowland area; perhaps Mayr-Harting considers in the definition whether the geography would allow for a successful defense, although he does not say. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:06, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, very interesting. It's clear from this that Mayr-Harting recognises that his usage is not universal - it still sounds very strange to me to call the Peak Distrist "lowland". I wonder if you could unobtrusively attribute the view/terminology to the author in question? I doubt I'd be the only reader to be puzzled by it! Josh Milburn (talk) 11:24, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Other than the weird highland/lowland thing, this strikes me as a fantastic article. I made a series of edits that should be double-checked. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:34, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note edit

I think we still need an image review. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:54, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All images appear to be used in appropriate places and have ALT text. Copyright wise you may want to specify that the helmet itself is too old to be copyrightable, as the licenses I currently see are about the photo. I presume that the reconstructions (which may have their own copyrights) are old enough to have their copyrights lapsed? https://www.idigsheffield.org.uk/object.asp?ref=Jewitt_S9B is given as a source on one file and is apparently broken. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:12, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the image review, Jo-Jo Eumerus. Fixed the link. What license would you recommend for the helmets? --Usernameunique (talk) 11:49, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

After reading through commons:Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2016/04#Dinosaur skeletons copyrighted? I'd say to leave the current licenses in place. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:56, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks. Ian Rose, looks like the images are taken care of. --Usernameunique (talk) 12:23, 27 December 2018 (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. Ian Rose (talk) 05:23, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 05:10, 28 December 2018 [14].

Thalassodromeus edit

Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 22:11, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is only the second article about a pterosaur to be nominated as FAC (after Istiodactylus). This particular pterosaur is unusual for having one of the largest cranial crests of any animal, and for both its genus and specific names apparently being misnomers. There has been speculation that the only known skull of this animal was lost in the National Museum of Brazil fire (though not confirmed by reliable sources), which will perhaps make the info currently in this article all we'll ever know about it (unless more fossils are found). The article is a GA, has been copy edited, and covers the entire relevant literature, as far as I'm aware. FunkMonk (talk) 22:11, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tony1 edit

Off-topic
NB Insulting and attempting to discredit reviewers are not regarded acceptable strategies at this forum.

1a, lead:

"proportionally-largest"—MOS and the big style guides say no hyphen after -ly adverbs. There's another one further down.

Removed both. FunkMonk (talk) 06:36, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed there are a lot more of these throughout the article (added during copy-edit), will remove soon. FunkMonk (talk) 10:24, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CMOS, and many editors, advise preference for "that" over "which" where there's no preceding comma. There are good reasons for this. Two examples in the opening paragraph, and one in the second paragraph.

Changed. FunkMonk (talk) 06:36, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"and the specific name refers to the Egyptian god Seth due to its crest being supposedly reminiscent of Seth's crown."—consider straighter grammar: "and the specific name refers to the Egyptian god Seth because its crest was supposedly reminiscent of Seth's crown."

Took your suggestion. FunkMonk (talk) 06:36, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the repetition here: "and they are grouped in a clade which has been placed within Tapejaridae (as Thalassodrominae) or within Neoazhdarchia (as Thalassodromidae)"

Do you mean the part in parenthesis? One is a subfamily version of the name (inae suffix), while the other is a family (idae). I've specified this now. FunkMonk (talk) 06:19, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry! I looked three times to see a difference. Need new specs. Tony (talk) 06:43, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Singular–plural clash, in a generally unsatisfactory sentence: "A number of theories have been suggested for the function of the crest of Thalassodromeus (including thermoregulation and display), and it most likely had more than one function."

Changed to the following, any better? "Various theories have been suggested to explain the function of Thalassodromeus's crest (including thermoregulation and display), but it likely had more than one function." FunkMonk (talk) 06:36, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good. Tony (talk) 05:06, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"The crests of thalassodromids appear to have developed late in growth (probably correlated with sexual maturity), and they may have been sexually dimorphic." The crests may have been dimorphic?

You could say so, if there are such differences in the crests, the crests themselves are dimorphic. So it can apply both to the species and the crests. FunkMonk (talk) 06:19, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good. Tony (talk) 05:06, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Singular–plural tension: "Thalassodromeus was originally proposed to have fed like modern skimmer birds, by skimming over the surface of water and dipping its lower jaws to catch prey." Make the skimmer bird singular?

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 06:36, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On second thoughts, I recall I wrote "skimmers" plural because there is no single skimmer species; it is the common name of a genus that containts three species. So I wonder if it is more appropriate to say "skimmers" after all? FunkMonk (talk) 02:02, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of "like a modern skimmer bird", which conveniently dodges the issue but avoids singular–plural tension. Tony (talk) 05:06, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, of course, took your wording. FunkMonk (talk) 08:34, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"This idea was later criticised for a lack of evidence"—remove "a"?

Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 06:36, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"relatively ... relatives".

I'm not sure I follow, but changed "relatives" to "related species" anyhow. FunkMonk (talk) 06:36, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not bad, so far. Tony (talk) 06:11, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks (credit to the copy-editor), I've addressed the issues above. FunkMonk (talk) 06:19, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Very good: thanks, FM. Tony (talk) 06:44, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Description"—just the first para:

"indicating that it was an adult"—you could go with "indicating adulthood", if it works for you.

Nice to be concise, done. FunkMonk (talk) 12:05, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you really want to give British Empire unit conversions, consider using range dashes to reduce the clutter: "Based on related pterosaurs, its wing-span is estimated to have been between 4.2 to 4.5 metres (14 to 15 ft)." But second point: "between ... and" (not "to"). "from ... to". So: "to have been 4.2–4.5 metres (14–15 ft)". Third, you've already covered the provenance of the claim (for WP's narrative) with the "Based on" and the two refs, so why not: "Based on related pterosaurs, its wing-span was 4.2–4.5 metres (14–15 ft)"? Now it's shorter, you could re-organise the text this way: ""Based on related pterosaurs, its wing-span was 4.2–4.5 metres (14–15 ft), making Thalassodromeus the largest known member of its clade, Thalassodromidae. Of similar proportions, its skull was ~~heavier~~ more heavily built than that of its relative Tupuxuara.

Took your version. FunkMonk (talk) 12:05, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you on the look-out for ambiguities? "relatives had unusually short and blocky neck vertebrae and well-developed limbs of almost equal length (excluding the long wing-finger)." So the limbs are of similar length to the neck vertebrae?

Changed to "with well-developed front and hind-limbs that were almost equal in length", is it any clearer? FunkMonk (talk) 12:05, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"The hindlimbs were 80 percent of the forelimb length, unique among pterodactyloids (short-tailed pterosaurs)." The first clause isn't grammatical ("that of" needed). But why not simpler? "The hindlimbs were 20 percent shorter than the forelimbs." What was unique among the pterodactyloids? We talking limbs or lengths, and which ones? Anatomical descriptions (one burden of your chosen topics) require precision.

Added "that of", but since the source says "80 % of", and though I know it means the same, I wonder if it is best to keep the emphasis the same as in the source? I changed the last part to "a unique ratio among pterodactyloids", better? FunkMonk (talk) 12:05, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good size schematic. Tony (talk) 09:17, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, makes it more tangible, seems you could just about look it in the eyes... FunkMonk (talk) 12:05, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All good; but some of these points have generic dimensions that can be applied through the rest of the text. It's a big job for reviewers to bulldoze through the whole thing. Tony (talk) 12:23, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And the comments so far are much appreciated. I wonder if that first paragraph is a bit more unwieldy because of all the numbers. In any case, with such science articles, it is unfortunately always necessary to have "layreaders" plough through the text to see if it is comprehensible. FunkMonk (talk) 12:32, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aim for scientists in other fields, and try to retain intelligent non-scientists as much as possible. People are interested in these monsters. This is why making the prose as straightforward as you can is so important. Do you print it out and use a pen? Tony (talk) 13:35, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't tried that, does it make it easier to spot issues, or how? Doesn't help that my printer only produces annoyingly faint, grey letters (even with new ink)... FunkMonk (talk) 13:42, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just passing by, I always follow these palaeo FAs to learn more about the process and what sort of things to look out for when writing articles myself. But may I ask what "NB Insulting and attempting to discredit reviewers are not regarded acceptable strategies at this forum." is doing as a header for this review? It seems very out of place and against WP:AssumeGoodFaith. It might make sense if the nominator is being intentionally disruptive, but I don't see any of that occuring here. ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 16:44, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is a general statement in response to some arguments in other, unrelated FACs, not necessarily to anything here... Seems there's a bit of drama going on. FunkMonk (talk) 04:36, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed there is.[15] Also, I just noticed that the mural behind the Irritator mount actually depicts Thalassodromeus, which might be worth pointing out in the caption. ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 16:26, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for copyright reasons, it's probably best to pretend the painting isn't there, hehe... As for the drama, well, I'd rather stay out of it... FunkMonk (talk) 17:06, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have a feeling Tony's review won't continue (based on the discussion you linked), perhaps you have more to add, PaleoGeekSquared? FunkMonk (talk) 09:21, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PaleoGeekSquared edit

I'll start my review later today, FunkMonk, since I'll be busy for the next several hours. You've helped me a lot with Irritator already so it's only fair I do something in return. Plus, I'll pick up some knowledge on this animal and pterosaurs in general along the way, which is always fun! ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 15:13, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, yeah, not to mention getting to know more about another animal from the same formation as Irritator. FunkMonk (talk) 15:16, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

Link period and palaeontologists.

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 15:20, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seems a bit inconsistent to use genus name and then specific name, you could change the former to generic name or the latter to species name.

Changed to generic. "Species name" can apparently also refer to the full binomial. FunkMonk (talk) 13:45, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

pointed out that that the crest - "that that".

Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 13:45, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The closest relative of Thalassodromeus was Tupuxuara, and they are grouped in a clade that has been placed within Tapejaridae - Perhaps this could be The closest relative of Thalassodromeus was Tupuxuara; both are grouped in a clade that has been placed within Tapejaridae.

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 15:20, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

by skimming over the surface of water - Again, could be more concise: by skimming over the water's surface.

Took your wording. FunkMonk (talk) 13:45, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

T. oberlii? should be bolded in the lead as well, right now that occurs only in the taxobox.

Yeah, added. I wonder if that issue will ever be solved... Kind of another parallel to the Irritator/Angaturama issue... FunkMonk (talk) 13:45, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And it's in regard to a jaw tip as well. ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 16:55, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk PaleoGeekSquared To my understanding T. oberlii should be not be bolded in the lead as the subject has its own page, Banguela. The title and redirects to the article which are widely accepted names are bolded. As the subject is a genus with multiple species, T. oberlii doesn't fit under the "alternative title for the subject" clause either. Per MOS:BOLDLEAD only Thalassodromeus and T. sethi should be bolded. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 22:12, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the context it is used here, tough, it is as a species of Thalassodromeus, not Banguela. FunkMonk (talk) 10:13, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whether it's being treated as a subset of the topic is irrelevant, the important part is that it has its own page. If the page was called Thalassadromeus oberlii it'd still be the same situation. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 20:03, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I'm not sure it's that simple, and we don't really have any precedents. The problem is, these are two vastly different interpretations, there is no scientific consensus (there are simply no independent reactions to either interpretation), and Wikipedia effectively represents both sides equally by having two separate articles. But when we present the species as part of this genus, I think it should be bolded, because it would not be a separate article if that is the case. But when we describe it as belonging to another genus, it shouldn't be bolded. The only similar case I can think of is Pteranodon vs Geosternbergia, but the former doesn't even list the species in the intro... FunkMonk (talk) 09:59, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looking again, I'm pretty sure that T. sebesensis should be bolded, since it's a topic that's covered entirely within this article and redirects. Sure, it's invalid, but invalid species are still subjects and if it would have its own article had it been given a distinct genus. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 01:45, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since it's a synonym of Kallokibotion, bolding it here wouldn't be appropriate, but perhaps there if the species is ever mentioned in the intro of that article FunkMonk (talk) 10:51, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Description

(the front bones of the snout) - Could also be (the frontmost snout bones).

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 13:31, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

horny (keratinous) - should be keratinous (horny), since this is the format followed in the rest of the article; the technical term going first, with the explanation parenthesised after it.

Swapped. FunkMonk (talk) 15:20, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The upper jaw of T. sethi was primarily composed of premaxillae and maxillae; the suture which formed the border between these bones is not visible. - There is a duplink of premaxillae, might be worth using the "Highlight duplicate links" tool to check for more of these.

Done, seems this was another case of a redirect not showing, so yeah, it seems to be something that needs to be fixed in the script. FunkMonk (talk) 13:31, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The palatal area at the tip of the snout in T. sethi - could be The palatal area at the tip of T. sethi's snout.

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 13:31, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Instances of the ridge of the palate could be replaced with the palatal ridge.

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 13:31, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

were oval-shaped --> were oval.

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 13:31, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

possibly a different genus Link genus on first mention, same thing with species later in the discovery section.

Done. You could argue that linking "species" is WP:overlinking, but I'll let others decide. FunkMonk (talk) 15:20, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Explain mandibular fossae.

Added "depression", I think it's purpose is explained by the latter part of the sentence. FunkMonk (talk) 13:31, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

History of discovery

Link nodule.

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 15:20, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really necessary to link three-dimensional?

Perhaps not, removed. FunkMonk (talk) 13:45, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Link 2002 to 2002 in paleontology.

Added to the taxobox, but I wonder if it might be a bit much to add it to the article body; people will ask why not every single year mentioned is linked likewise. FunkMonk (talk) 15:20, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I usually link only the years when a certain taxon has been named, since most of the earlier "XXXX in paleontology" articles don't have sections on general discoveries or new information on known taxa, just genera or species that were named during that particular year. ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 16:55, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think it'll be bit much here, I usually keep them in the taxobox, and I was even asked to remove the link from the article body once. FunkMonk (talk) 13:31, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Another duplink with holotype specimen, this is the last one I'll point out since the duplink tool should help you see the rest of them.

Strangely, the duplink script doesn't show duplinks for me if the second link is a redirect... Does it do it for you? Perhaps something that could be brought up to the bot operator... FunkMonk (talk) 13:45, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've also had that problem in the past, I'll leave a short message on the op's talk page. ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 16:55, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Same inconsistency with genus name and specific name as in the lead.

Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 13:45, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Link 1998 to 1998 in paleontology.

As above, I'm not sure if we should really link every single year mentioned in a palaeontology article... FunkMonk (talk) 15:20, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Answered above. ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 16:55, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Link concretion.

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 15:20, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Classification

a paraphyletic (unnatural) group - Ah, I could explain paraphyletic this way in Irritator as well, don't know why I didn't think of that.

It's probably the most concise way of explaining an otherwise complex term... FunkMonk (talk) 15:20, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Palaeobiology

hypertrophied --> hypertrophied (enlarged).

Added. FunkMonk (talk) 13:45, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(such as keratin, as in bird beaks) - The wording seems a bit awkward to me, not sure.

Said "such as the keratin in bird beaks" instead. FunkMonk (talk) 15:20, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 16:55, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Both sexual selection and mutual sexual selection link to the same article, probably best to unlink the second one since most people know what "mutual" means.

Removed the second link. FunkMonk (talk) 15:20, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

reconstructingThalassodromeus' fishing method - Apart from the obvious need to separate two words, I feel like Thalassodromeus's would look less awkward in text than Thalassodromeus'.

Whoops, fixed, personally I would just say "method of Thalassodromeus", but I guess the copy editor did this to make it simpler. FunkMonk (talk) 15:20, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

short and tubby. - is "stubby" meant?

The source actually says tubby. The copy editor also changed it to "stubby", but this has a different meaning, so I changed it back. FunkMonk (talk) 13:45, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, didn't realise that was an actual word. ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 16:55, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quetzalcoatlus sp. - Explain with (of uncertain species).

I just removed sp.; the taxonomic intricacies of a completely different genus aren't really relevant here, and once that species is named, we can just add the new name. FunkMonk (talk) 15:20, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 16:55, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Palaeoecology

Link stage to stage (stratigraphy).

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 13:31, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Same thing with geological period.

Was done earlier. FunkMonk (talk) 13:31, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Santana Group is not linked, (remember it now has an article).

Not sure how that happened, now linked. FunkMonk (talk) 13:45, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On a much broader note, this section could benefit from the content that has now been added to its equivalent in Irritator, especially in regards to fauna.

Copied some more taxa from Irritator, but much of the other text seems to be specfically about aquatic predators and aquatic habitats, which are not so relevant for a pterosaur. FunkMonk (talk) 13:31, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image comments

Interestingly, the Thalassodromeus skeletal mount in the taxobox image is exhibited at the same museum (the National Museum of Nature and Science in Tokyo) as that of Irritator, which you could point out in the caption. Yet another mutual feature between both articles!

Oh, and by that I mean the museum name, not the fact that both of them were displayed at the same building, which would obviously count as very trivial info in the article.

Added, seems there might have been a room of Brazilian mounts? FunkMonk (talk) 13:45, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, looks like it was part of an exhibit called "Dinosaurs of Gondwana"[16] ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 16:55, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty nice idea linking restoration to paleoart, I must say!

Maybe something we should do generally, I did it because some FAC reviewers have been unsure what was meant by the term "restoration" in the past... FunkMonk (talk) 23:04, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

genus could be linked on its first caption appearance as well.

Added. FunkMonk (talk) 13:45, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I might add more comments later, but unfortunately I can't do a more in-depth review due to time constraints, so mostly it's just links and minor grammatical and prose concerns. ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 21:51, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, no rush, I'll have a look soon. FunkMonk (talk) 23:04, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All my comments have been answered so Supporting now, though we need more experienced reviewers here. ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 02:36, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, yeah, but you caught a good deal of stuff. FunkMonk (talk) 03:38, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

All images appropriately licensed, except:
The sourcing on File:Thalassodomeus skull.png is unclear and needs to be cleaned up. I believe that the artist uploaded it himself, but it's hard to tell from the info in the summary. And the link to the artist's website isn't up to date.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:10, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, yeah, I think the problem is that he uploaded it without a description template (way back in 2006 when uploading was less refined), so a bot later filled that stuff out with half-gibberish. I have now cleaned it up and added a link to his current website. FunkMonk (talk) 16:43, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:33, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

Page numbers aren't needed for Witton in the Bibliography

Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 22:36, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How does FN7 meet WP:SCHOLARSHIP?

In this case, since it is used to support a very uncontroversial fact which isn't mentioned in other sources (that the fossil was collected over a long period of time), I thought it was ok. But perhaps not? The same author is also cited in the article for a "proper" paper. FunkMonk (talk) 22:36, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FN9: authors are backwards, it appears location has been bundled in with symposium name - check formatting. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:16, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, fixed! FunkMonk (talk) 22:36, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be stalling, I wonder if Casliber has something to say (though I read he was busy, sorry for always bugging you)? For everyone else, hey, there's even a bit of the ancient Egyptian pantheon discussed in here, so give it a shot even if you know nothing about ancient reptiles! FunkMonk (talk) 00:33, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber edit

Taking a look now ,,,,Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:12, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Para 2 of description section has alot of "crest"s in it...but I'm not sure you can do much about that.

Yeah, I think it will be harder to follow if any of them are taken out, though, if I for example say "it" instead, it will be unclear what part of the preceding sentences it refers to... FunkMonk (talk) 22:29, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~The interrelationship of these clades within the larger clade Azhdarchoidea remained controversial~~ ~~- was there really controversy? (i.e. "prolonged public disagreement or heated discussion") or do you just mean "unclear"?~~

How about "contested"? It is a bit more than unclear, there are essentially two camps in pterosaur research that use parallel taxonomic systems, and they never seem to agree on anything... FunkMonk (talk) 16:08, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah ok, that or "disputed" Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:47, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Took "disputed". FunkMonk (talk) 22:29, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reads well ~~otherwise~~ hence Support Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:41, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 22:29, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why this is stalling so hard (too technical?), the last pterosaur FAC didn't get many comments either. I'll ping N Oneemuss who is the only person who commented on the last pterosaur who hasn't commented here. Perhaps RileyBugz or Jimfbleak would be interested, there are a lot of references to birds, and pterosaurs are very bird-like in any case... FunkMonk (talk) 16:35, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk, I'll have a look soonish. I'm in the middle of TFA scheduling at the moment, so it might be a day or two Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:44, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, there should be time enough before it is archived, I hope... FunkMonk (talk) 16:46, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support and comments from Jim edit

I think almost all dinosaur articles are over-technical for my tastes, but I suppose having only bones to work from makes that inevitable, and certainly isn't a reason to oppose an otherwise very comprehensive article. I liked the fact that the size comparison image by Paleogeek that you used didn't have a default male human (and I speak as a default male!). This has been well picked over by other reviewers, but a couple of nitpicks:

Thanks, will fix the issues soon. PaleoGeekSquared did a good job with the size diagram, perhaps the next one should feature a female too? FunkMonk (talk) 17:06, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy that my size comparison has received so many compliments, especially since it's my first attempt at a pterosaur one. As for the human silhouette, I'm growing quite fond of it, and try to make an effort to use more varied and interesting humans for my charts; we don't necessarily have to use the waving Pioneer plaque one all the time. ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 19:26, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Despite what I said above, having unlinked and unexplained "Nasoantorbital" in the opening para is a technical term too far.

The part in parenthesis is supposed to explain all that "(openings that combined the antorbital fenestra and the opening for the bony nostril)". I guess it reads as if it only explains the term fenestra now? Possibly this is confusing because I explaine the components in the opposite order of what "nasoantorbital fenestrae" would imply, perhaps better if I say "openings that combined the opening for the bony nostril with the antorbital fenestra"? FunkMonk (talk) 17:06, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

openings/opening is problematic Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:34, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, seems I explained it simpler under description, "(opening which combined the antorbital fenestra and the bony nostril)", so I just used the same wording in the intro now. FunkMonk (talk) 04:15, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

would have been proficient on the ground. — Perhaps clarify? The text and images variously say or show that it might have waded like a stork in water, or run on land, and one image shows an aerial attack. Was it a stealth hunter or a chaser?

Changed to "efficient at moving on the ground". This is in contrast to some other pterosaurs, which may have been more awkward when walking. FunkMonk (talk) 04:15, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

but the extent of this is unknown.[1][2][5][3][6]— I know it's neater like this, but I don't think we are keen on bundling refs at the end of the para when there are more than a couple. Can you assure me that the content is so intermingled that this is necessary? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:10, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The refs have now been spread out. FunkMonk (talk) 04:15, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The issues should now be addressed, Jimfbleak. FunkMonk (talk) 04:15, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, struck comments from heading Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:32, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Usernameunique edit

Lead

Perhaps a brief explanation of what a pterosaur is would be helpful.

I added "(extinct order of flying reptiles)" to the first mention of the word in the article body. FunkMonk (talk) 04:15, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

around 1.42 metres (4 ft 8 in) long — Maybe just "m" for consistency?

Everything should be abbreviated now. FunkMonk (talk) 04:15, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

4.2 to 4.5 metres (14 to 15 ft). — Same issue.

Same as above. FunkMonk (talk) 04:15, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

and they may have been sexually dimorphic — Perhaps a slight explanation, e.g., "particular to one gender."

I went with "(differing according to sex)". Turns out Darwin had used that exact phrasing when I google this order of words, so it should be fine... FunkMonk (talk) 04:15, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

would have been proficient on the ground — What does this mean?

Changed to "efficient at moving on the ground", per above, does it make more sense? FunkMonk (talk) 04:15, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Description

1.42 metres (4 ft 8 in) ... 4.2–4.5 metres (14–15 ft) — Same as above.

Fixed with the rest. FunkMonk (talk) 04:15, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

4.2–4.5 m (14–15 ft) — Convention seems to use "# to #," not en dashes. Speaking of which, if you care to change them (hardly a big deal if you don't), many of the en dashes used in the article to break up sentences could instead be em dashes.

Not sure if there is a convention as such, but the article should certainly be internally consistent, so added "to". But I don't think I see en dashes used to break up text anywhere? FunkMonk (talk) 01:31, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I meant the convention used in this article, not a broader Wikipedia convention. An example of en dashes is at "different genus – Banguela – which". The em dash is longer: — instead of –. Em dashes are used only twice in the article, once where I changed the wording ("—not by Seth.") and once in the references (footnote #15). No worries if you prefer the en dashes instead of em, just though I’d mention it. —Usernameunique (talk) 20:01, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have no preferences in this regard actually (and usually don't pay much attention to it, I prefer commas), the dashes were added by the copy-editor. But I think I have now added the — everywhere appropriate. FunkMonk (talk) 10:51, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(which were distended by the wing finger) — What does this mean?

That the skin that formed the wings was stretched out by a long finger. I have changed to "extended", does that make it clearer? FunkMonk (talk) 01:31, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(opening which combined the antorbital fenestra and the bony nostril) — If meant to be a layman's explanation of what a "nasoantorbital fenestra" is, using the term "antorbital fenestra" doesn't help much.

Hmmm, it is just a large opning (which is essentially what fenestra means), I've specified where it is located, is that better? "openings that combined the antorbital fenestra in front of the eye with the bony nostril". FunkMonk (talk) 20:56, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1 to 10.5 mm (0.039 to 0.413 in) — This is largely stylistic, but I'm not sure the conversion adds much here. Even from the perspective of one most used to the imperial system, 1mm is a lot easier to wrap my head around than 0.039in.

I see your point. For me, it's more for consistency. But I can remove it if it's important. FunkMonk (talk) 20:50, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

back, (except for the lower part behind the occiput, where it had a thick base) — You should ditch either the first comma, or the parentheses.

Snipped comma. FunkMonk (talk) 20:50, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

650 mm (26 in) ... 200 mm (7.9 in) ... 670 mm (26 in) ... 170 mm (6.7 in) — Why mm to in rather than cm to in? That the numbers are so round also suggests that the precision of measuring hundreds of millimeters is misleading.

Just because that's what the sources do. Veering away from units used by the sources makes me a bit uneasy... But can't say I personally prefer either way. FunkMonk (talk) 20:50, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

History of discovery

a long period of time — How long?

The source doesn't state, sadly, I would also like to know... FunkMonk (talk) 20:50, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

mandibular ramus — Link?

Only links to mandible, so added an explanation instead. FunkMonk (talk) 20:50, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Although the pieces of skull had been divided between museums in South and North America — Why?

Likewise, the sources don't specify, but I believe it might be related to the commercial fossil trade which is a problem in Brazil (the pieces might have been sold to different museums). FunkMonk (talk) 20:50, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In their view — I believe this technically refers to Kellner and Campos, not Martill and Naish.

Changed to "In the view of Martill and Naish". FunkMonk (talk) 20:50, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Their view — And vice versa.

Changed to "Kellner and Campos' view". FunkMonk (talk) 20:50, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

and the new specimen filled in the gap of Kellner and Campos' T. sethi skull reconstruction — I'm a bit confused here. Is this a second conclusion of Veldmeijer et al., or part of their first conclusion? If the former, a "concluded both that ... and also that" might be warranted.

Might be another copy edit snip, I added ", and that the new specimen filled in the gap". FunkMonk (talk) 20:50, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

filled in the gap — Meaning the missing pieces, i.e., the hatched sections in the first image in this section?

Something like that, though it isn't specifically stated that it refers to a diagram. The source says "The importance of the Swiss specimen lies in the fact that it fills in the grey areas imagined by Kellner & Campos (2002) and thus makes the complete reconstruction of the skull of Thalassodromeus possible". You think I should reword it? FunkMonk (talk) 20:50, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rodrigo V. Pêgas, Fabiana R. Costa, and Kellner assigned B. oberlii back to Thalassodromeus recognised it as a distinct species — This doesn't sound right. Is it missing a comma between "Thalassodromeus" and "recognised"?

Seems some of it was snipped during copy edit, changed back to something more similar to the original wording: "assigned B. oberlii back to Thalassodromeus while recognising it as a distinct species, and thereby created the new combination T. oberlii". FunkMonk (talk) 20:50, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Classification

Kellner elaborated on the relationships within Tapejaridae — Should Tapejaridae be italicized?

No, that is only for genus and species names (this one is a family name). Don't ask why! FunkMonk (talk) 20:50, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

it had a large component of soft tissue — What is the "it"?

The crest, specified. FunkMonk (talk) 20:50, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Crest function

which had also been suggested for some dinosaurs. — This is a bit vague.

Added "suggested for the crests of some dinosaurs". FunkMonk (talk) 01:31, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

the heat would have been dumped — Perhaps overly colloquial?

Said "dispelled" instead. FunkMonk (talk) 01:31, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

if the head and crest were moved to the sides while flying. — How would this work?

Rewrote as follows, better? "and they suggested that, when in flight, heat would have been dispelled more effectively if the crest was aligned with the wind, while the head was intentionally moved to the sides". FunkMonk (talk) 01:31, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

the crests of it and its relatives developed by the premaxillary portion growing backwards over the skull roof — This seems a bit off.

Simplified the whole sentence to the following, any better? "In 2006, Martill and Naish found that the crests of Tupuxuara and its relatives developed by the premaxillary portion of the crests growing backwards over the skull-roof". FunkMonk (talk) 01:31, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

interesting, although the model proposed by Martill and Naish was speculative. — Is this a statement about the model (which by its very nature would seem to have to be pretty speculative), or about Kellner and Campos's view of the model? If the latter, this could just be "interesting, if speculative."

The general discussion and the exact model proposed are different things, so reworded it as "Kellner and Campos found Martill and Naish's discussion of cranial crest development interesting, although they found their proposed model speculative". FunkMonk (talk) 01:31, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Diet

[They] found the jaws of Thalassodromeus similar to those of modern skimmers ... with its sideways-compressed jaws, blade-like beak, and protruding lower jaw — "its" technically refers to the jaws of Thalassodromeus, which is problematic because a) you mean to refer to Thalassodromeus, and notwithstanding that, b) since it refers to jaws, plural, "its" should be "their."

Changed to "their", is it enough? FunkMonk (talk) 07:07, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1 kilogram (2.2 lb) — lb abbreviated, but kilogram not.

Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 07:07, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note I just added the following sentence to the diet section: "The aluminium rigging of the Thalassodromeus model was destroyed during the experiment, due to the high and unstable forces exerted on it while high speed skimming, casting further doubt on this feeding-method." FunkMonk (talk) 07:07, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Locomotion

Williams compared it with the spermaceti in the head of the sperm whale, which is supposedly used to change buoyancy — I changed "supposedly" to "believed to be," but then the next sentence implies that there is dispute over how spermaceti is used. Is it just Williams who thinks it is used for bouyancy?

Williams just say they are "supposed" to have this function, so he's not the one who suggested it, he must just have read it somewhere (he's not a biologist). And with many such things, there are differing views on it, so I wonder if saying "supposedly" would still be the best option? I tried with "stating it is supposedly used to", to make it clear it is his claim. FunkMonk (talk) 10:51, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Palaeoecology

What's the standard for including red links? For instance Anhanguera isn't in red text, but Euraxemys is.

Any subject deserving an article should be redlinked to encourage its creation. And in this case, every genus and family warrants an article. FunkMonk (talk) 10:51, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to have to do this in bits and pieces, but my start is above. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:02, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll start fixing stuff soon. FunkMonk (talk) 10:13, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Having just read your helmet nomination, it struck my how similar the process of palaeontological reconstruction from bits and pieces is to the archaeological equivalent... FunkMonk (talk) 20:50, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Usernameunique, this has been open almost two months, and seems to have consensus to promote but I don't want to curtail your review if you've more to add and can return fairly soon -- how's it looking for you? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:58, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Rose, I’ve finished the review, and added my support; the comments that remain are not substantive.

Another good article, FunkMonk, and a pleasure to read. I too was struck by the similarities between this article and the one on the Benty Grange helmet. Both take small objects, be they partial skulls or a few strips of rusted iron, and use the available evidence to tell much larger stories. It recalls the comic in which the first panel depicts an archaeologist uncovering a small artifact, and the second shows a life-size village with the caption "reconstruction of a prehistoric village based on archaeological evidence." Although the punchline is as the expense of these deductions, it is fascinating to see how so much can be read into so little. —Usernameunique (talk) 01:24, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The last issues should now be addressed. Thanks for comments and support! Yeah, it is also really interesting when palaeontology and archaeology intertwines, which is one of the things that made woolly mammoth fun to write about. I hope cave lion and woolly rhinoceros can get the treatment too one day... FunkMonk (talk) 10:51, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Lusotitan edit

The classification section feels below the standard of the rest of the article:

The sources don't help much in this regard, though, and taxa named this recently usually don't have very interesting taxonomic histories, only "these author placed it here due to these features, while those others placed it here because of some other features." Nothing dramatic like "this was once thought to belong to an entirely different order." FunkMonk (talk) 10:51, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I won't reply to all the replies individually, as it seems you and me just have very conflicting ideas on how to make a classification section. I feel that your insistence to make it chronological makes it confusing, misleading, and just generally very muddled, but if you disagree I cannot force you to make changes. I will, however, again insist on my cladograms - having the visual aids reflect the text is, I feel, very important. Some or even many readers were rely most on the visual info and only lightly look at the text, especially in a classification section. Just including the one idea as a cladogram, in my opinion, all on its own vastly biases the section in favor of it over the others.

Well, someone's gotta make it then... But I'm not opposed to it once it's done. FunkMonk (talk) 18:13, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The classification of thalassodromids as a distinct family or subfamily of Tapejaridae remains controversial, as is noted in the text. Despite this, only one cladogram is shown, favoring the latter arrangement. I think it'd be more neutral to show trees demonstrating both (like is done in the Thalassodromidae article), especially since many readers will likely only skim the text and just look at the tree. I'd recommend using two side-by-side trees, moving the image of Tupuxuara to the top of section to make room for this.

Hmm, pterosaur taxonomy is a gigantic mess, with parallel systems supported by different groups of researchers. If we should really be neutral, we would have to show three different cladograms (including the one with Dsungaripteromorpha). Personally, I think it is a bit superfluous if the alternatives are explained in the text, as here. Admittedly, it may seem arbitrary that the one shown here was chosen, but it shows the Tapejaridae grouping, which seems to be slightly more prevalent than the other systems. FunkMonk (talk) 10:51, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The first paragraph of the classification section is also unrepresentative; it starts on the tapejarid idea, introduces the other arrangement, and then ends once again on the tapejarid arrangement. One option is to give both theories their own paragraphs, talking the support for each and what authors and studies have supported it (a reading of the section as current seems to favor the placement in Tapejaridae; just adding some other cases of recent support for the Thalassodromidae classification such as in Witton's book would aid in making it feel more balanced). More easily implemented would be merely started the paragraph with a sentence saying the issue has been controversial, citing the 2018 paper. This makes the topic sentence of the paragraph that there are completing ideas instead of "it's traditionally been a tapejarid". The latter is true, but the former is more representative since this paragraph takes on most of the weight of explaining the issue of the two ideas.

It presents the studies chronologically (like I think historical sections always should); jumping back and forth regardless of chronology would make it harder to understand, I think. Better to show it in the actual succession, as knowledge accumulated, it is more neutral as well. I think Witton muddles it up a bit in his description of the situation, since he is so personally involved in it, that approach would leave most laymen baffled. FunkMonk (talk) 10:51, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, keep it chronological if you want too (though I disagree), but my second suggestion was about the paragraph having a topic sentence. You can have an overviewing topic sentence and still keep the rest of the paragraph chronological.

It is a mischaracterisation to say the text currently says "it has traditionally been classified as a tapejartid". I have now added an introductory sentence, but I personally don't think it adds much, as it becomes clear early on in the paragraph that there are competing systems. As for citing Witton's book, he makes no new claims regarding classification in it, he already took Unwin's side in his 2009 paper (as cited already), so it would be misleading to cite him twice on this. In short, there is a Brazilian system of pterosaur systematics championed by Kellner, and a British system championed by Unwin, but we can't really state this outright. FunkMonk (talk) 19:42, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

had received different names from different researchers (Thalassodrominae and Tupuxuaridae) - this list should include the name Thalassodromidae. Excluding makes it seem like the "correct" one but its on even ground with Thalassodrominae, and the wording would call for it to be included here anyways.

Again, it is chronologically presented here, Thalassodromidae wasn't used at that point, only coined by Witton years later (which is exactly how the relevant paragraph presents it): "Witton further converted the subfamily name Thalassodrominae into the family name Thalassodromidae". FunkMonk (talk) 10:51, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, then change the wording. The sentence as current just states that different names have been applied over time. Change it to say that originally, there were two competing names. The current wording leaves no indication it's supposed just be about what names were used at the start of the chronology. Also, I still feel it should be re-iterated very clearly why the name kept changing. For somebody who knows taxonomy it's evident from paragraph one, but general readers have little to no understanding of taxonomy and may fail to make the connection.

I'm not sure I know what you mean by "current wording leaves no indication it's supposed just be about what names were used at the start of the chronology". The name didn't keep changing from Thalassodrominae to Tupuxuaridae; as the text states, different researchers just used different names for the same clade in parallel, for no good reason. I have added who coined the alternate name. FunkMonk (talk) 18:13, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neoazdarchia is suddenly used but never defined, so to a general reader it means nothing. It doesn't have its own page like Tapejaridae, which is more clearly "this is a family of pterosaurs", so it doesn't really pass like this as effectively. I'd give a brief explanation in parentheses.

Added a new sentence "This clade (Tupuxuara and Azhdarchidae) had been named Neoazhdarchia by palaeontologist David Unwin in 2003, an arrangement Martill and Naish concurred with." I also added some clade definitions. FunkMonk (talk) 10:51, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Paragraph two is mostly about the nomenclature of the group, but the last sentence is more directly about the placement, something that seems more at home in the first paragraph. This isn't a huge deal, but having different paragraphs having clear topics is good organization (the history section has a perfect handle on this, for comparison).

Well, chronology again, it is not grouped by topic. FunkMonk (talk) 10:51, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By this logic your history section should have the comment about a 2018 study touching on the Banguela issue after the T. sebesensis discussion. I think this'd be a terrible change, but if you insist on historical sections being firmly chronological, why aren't you consistent about it?

Each species is treated chronologically there, so I don't think its comparable. FunkMonk (talk) 18:13, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking about the nomenclature part, it's awkward. The first half just deals with Thalassodrominae and Tupuxuaridae, and only later introduces Thalassadromidae. Why? It's not like the first sentence says "it had" as if this is "originally, there were these two, then a third came into play". It just says different authors used different names, so all three should be listed. Also, since Tupuxuaridae is being discussed, it's not like it's just shoving the "separate family" idea aside at first. I'd suggest listing all three names in the first sentence. Also, it's sort of explained already in the first paragraph, but I feel it should be more clear why we keep switching between a family level and subfamily name.

As mentioned earlier, this is written chronologically, so this order is what makes most sense in this regard. FunkMonk (talk) 10:51, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A 2011 analysis by palaeontologist Felipe Pinheiro and colleagues upheld the grouping of the clades Tapejarinae and Thalassodrominae in Tapejaridae - err, I don't believe anybody was ever arguing that Tapejarinae was anywhere else. If it was, you'd have to establish that before you can say the placement was "upheld".

Tapejaridae is not always considered a distinct family (such as when Neoazhdarchia is used), so it goes for both of them. The section already established this with for example "Martill and Naish found Tapejaridae a paraphyletic (unnatural) group". FunkMonk (talk) 10:51, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A 2014 study by palaeontologist Brian Andres and colleagues instead found thalassodromids to group with dsungaripterids, forming the clade Dsungaripteromorpha with azhdarchids. - off a skim the cited paper does not anywhere include the term Dsungaripteromopha (or Dsungaripteridae, though the group is indeed in that spot...), and additionally the wording here makes it sound like Azdarchidae is within Dsungaripteromorpha, when based off the Azhdarchoidea page, common sense, and the use of Neoazdarchia for that node in their paper, obviously isn't the case.

It is defined in the supplementary material.[17] As far as I know, supp material is not supposed to be cited separately. But any ideas how to do it are welcome. Rephrased sentence to "forming the clade Dsungaripteromorpha within Neoazhdarchia". FunkMonk (talk) 10:51, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unrelated to classification, but the "diet" section should be "diet and feeding strategies", since it focuses in large part on the biomechanics of its feeding and not just what it fed on.

Changed to "Feeding and diet", as in most other such sections. FunkMonk (talk) 10:51, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I feel some review of the classification section would be a very good idea. I can provide smaller comments about the rest of the sections if you want it, but there doesn't seem to be anything as important to pick apart there. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 02:20, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Any further comments are always welcome, I'm not personally in a rush to get this promoted, but it seems the coordinators might feel differently... FunkMonk (talk) 10:51, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we can pass it and then discuss it on the talk page more within WP:PALEO, perhaps with a peer review at some point. Also, I've refrained my support - looking at the section again, I feel it is too poor to express support for a pass. I merely will not oppose to impede the passing. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 16:41, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be a matter of taste. Well alright, but have a look at other featured classification sections first, this one is hardly unusual. FunkMonk (talk) 18:13, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, the paragraph on the Dsungaripterid placement could be expanded by discussing features that unite the group and *why* it was found, and that would be enough to satisfy Lusotitan that the classification section is no longer one-sided? IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 17:16, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add features for that and the grouping with chaoyangopterids in the next edit I do which will also add "captions" to the two cladograms. FunkMonk (talk) 17:23, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seems they were both node based rather than character based, so their definitions don't add much, but included it for Dsungaripteromorpha anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 18:17, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- Hmm, there's plenty of support for promotion here, but I find the suggestion of doing some serious reconstruction of an entire section, perhaps with a PR to follow, pretty dubious. FAs are certainly not set in stone, and can be promoted with some minor work remaining, but the bronze star does generally indicate consensus regarding the main aspects of an article. In theory, this article could go on the main page once it's promoted, yet it appears that at least one reviewer doesn't believe it would be ready for that. Normally if there are fundamental concerns about an article that's been under review as long as this one has, it'd be archived and rework done away from FAC, then be renominated so that everyone who's commented previously can express their opinion on the finished product. Have to come back to this one... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:13, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, though, I think it's a pretty arbitrary issue. One editor prefers writing the classification section one way (by "topic", though never in an actual FAC), I prefer to write it another (chronologically). The way used here has been used for many other FACs, and I see no compelling reason to change it here. Perhaps it would be an idea to ping the supporters to see if they prefer either way. FunkMonk (talk) 09:43, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have made some adjustments, though, which Lusotitan can evaluate. FunkMonk (talk) 10:38, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Rose & FunkMonk, to be clear, the sticking point should be whether remaining criticism justifies archiving a nomination, not whether remaining criticism remains. Here, the criticism is both limited to a single section—one of the shortest in the article—and pertains to an analysis-based (as opposed to facts-based) section, which is exactly where one would expect to see the most disagreement. Lusotitan's comments, as I read them, are primarily concerned with the way information is presented, rather than the information itself. Similarly, the suggested peer review seems less about the Thalassodromeus article specifically, than about how classification sections are structured generally; if anything, a request for consensus would be more appropriate. I think this article is better for Lusotitan's comments—having a lead sentence, in particular, suggests to readers how they should interpret the information that follows—and I understand the preference for topic-based rather than chronology-based descriptions. This strikes me as a place where reasonable minds can and will disagree, however, not a place where disagreement should be an obstacle to promotion. --Usernameunique (talk) 10:49, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, considering how long this nomination stalled during this nomination because of lack of reviewers, I doubt it will save much future time to archive now anyway. Better to just get it over with. FunkMonk (talk) 17:23, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy with the the classification section now. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 18:29, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, as before, (I would say) feel free to comment on other parts of the article, though it seems the coordinators are eager to get this closed. FunkMonk (talk) 02:21, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everyone -- nothing like talk of archiving to concentrate the mind, eh? ;-) Seriously though, wasn't a threat, more a case of me thinking out loud... But yes, FM, two months should certainly be long enough to reach consensus to promote and I feel comfortable that we have that now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:16, 28 December 2018 (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. Ian Rose (talk) 05:10, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 11:55, 27 December 2018 [18].

Death of Cleopatra edit

Nominator(s): Pericles of Athens^Talk 14:13, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I managed to raise the article Cleopatra to FA status earlier this year and, in my humble estimation, this current GA-status article deserves to sit on the same mantelpiece. It is much shorter than the main article, but still manages to cover all the relevant topics with a decent amount of detail. The images used in the article are all highly illustrative of the topic and either public domain or otherwise freely and properly sourced. For those who love history, the arts, and popular culture, and how they all intertwine, this should be an entertaining read for you, especially towards the end. Enjoy! Pericles of Athens^Talk 14:13, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Mr rnddude edit

History? of course. I'm eyeing up a few articles to review, but as this one hasn't received any yet, I'll start with it.

Further reading & References

There are quite a few "errors" showing up for me:

"Inconsistent use of Publisher Location (26 with; 11 without)" - Needs consistency ~~I believe I've dealt with it~~ Nvm, it introduced new mostly invisible errors.
"Missing identifier" for sources: Olga Ellia (1955) - ISSN, JSTOR, etc; Plutarch (1920) - OCLC; Bunch-a-news sites that probably don't have them so I'm ignoring 'em.
Mati Milstein (30 May 2008) - link does not work

Some p/pp errors for citations 16, 59, 60, 90, 91, 104, 129, and 139
Citations 112 and 115 has "hyphens in pg. range" which should be an endash
Citation 105 (Varner, 2004) has a harv error, it doesn't link to anything because it's missing from the references. I suspect you're looking for: {{cite book |last=Varner |first=Eric |year=2004 |title=Mutilation and transformation: damnatio memoriae and Roman imperial portraiture |publisher=Brill Academic |isbn=90-04-13577-4}}. Be aware though that this is missing location as well, though should probably be location=Leiden, Boston if I know anything about Brill.

Ok that's the basic errors noted. I'll get into the reading ~~now~~ tomorrow actually. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:58, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr rnddude: Hello! I will try to answer all of your questions:

"Inconsistent use of Publisher Location (26 with; 11 without)": I looked through this carefully, and it appears that the only references missing location details are news articles and journal articles. I'm not obligated to present that information, though, which is only necessary for published books as far as I know. I've never had this complaint before, to be honest, that journal articles are missing publication locations. Usually a DOI (digital object identifier) will suffice in this case, or even just a JSTOR link after the name of the particular journal is given.
"Missing identifier": I've looked tirelessly for these and cannot find them. For that matter, Tufts University's Perseus Digital Library quotes Plutarch's Lives translated by Perrin and published by Harvard University Press in 1920, but ultimately I'm citing the online source, NOT Perrin's book directly. As for Elia's journal article, I'm sorry, but apparently it is so obscure that a DOI, JSTOR link, ISSN or other identifier simply cannot be found. If you can find it, by all means please add it to the article, but I think it is a fruitless endeavor and something as minor as that certainly shouldn't hold up an FA nomination.
Mati Milstein: this is so bizarre. I've never seen the National Geographic take down an online article. It apparently no longer exists! Well, I've seen it quoted in its entirety in someone's 2008 blog, but aside from that it doesn't exist anywhere else online anymore. I'm dumbfounded, really, but in the meantime I have gotten rid of that source and any material related to it. Such a shame. The Antony and Cleopatra's tomb section could use a bit more meat to it now that some information is missing. Strangely, I cannot find any other article online where Mary Beard is quoted or paraphrased as expressing her doubts about Taposiris Magna.
"Some p/pp errors": I'm happy to announce that I have fixed all of these now!
"hyphens in pg. range": I fixed these as well.
"Citation 105 (Varner, 2004) has a harv error": good catch! I have added Varner to the article. I'm not sure how I missed that one. Pericles of Athens^Talk 01:20, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't able to get to this earlier, dealing with my own FAC.
For all intents and purposes, you're not obligated to do anything. I dealt with five of the eleven publisher locations myself, and those were for books (Refer here). The six that are currently giving me red text are all due to the use of citation rather than cite web/news/journal/etc templates. More specifically, you're using the "publisher" (which automatically requests location) instead of "periodical" parameter (for journal, newspaper, magazine, periodical, website per template documentation). I've replaced the parameter and hopefully fixes it.
The OCLC for Elia's article can be found here (reprinted 1956), the ISSN for the journal it was originally printed in here. WorldCat usually has something related to the publication.
Thanks for dealing with the other issues, and sorry about the NatGeo article. I'll try to get some time for the prose tomorrow or the day after. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:52, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr rnddude: hello again! Thanks for responding. Yeah, the NatGeo article is a mystery to me. I actually came across that page on WorldCat for Olga Elia, but since it was 1956 instead of 1955 I moved on. I've decided to use it instead, since it's just a republication, and have amended the dates for the source and citations in the article. I also added the OCLC number for Elia (1956). I'm very glad to hear you were able to solve the other issue about periodicals. Please let me know if there are any other technical issues that need fixing. I am eager to see your review of the prose, but I will wait patiently for that. Take all the time you need! Regards, Pericles of Athens^Talk 01:05, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr rnddude: hello again. It's been roughly a week since you responded here. Are you still interested in reviewing the article? If so I look forward to your continued input and advice. Regards. Pericles of Athens^Talk 07:34, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PericlesofAthens - My apologies for not getting back to it sooner; yes, I am still interested. I've had random things popping up all over the place that have been distracting me on Wiki – like Roses of Heliogabalus which had me suddenly scanning Herodian's history last night looking for his descriptions of Elagabalus to settle the question of "who in the picture is Heliogabalus". I've mostly been letting Ceoil handle their review since there's some restructuring of the article going on. I'll touch on it tonight. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:44, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

Note 6 - Hmm... Maloney certainly didn't say of their own account that they were conflating Plutarch's musings with Olympos' report, but I don't have access to Roller 2010 p.149, only 148. Does Roller bring up Maloney's report and make the comment about conflation? or is that your evaluation? I do appreciate the difficulty of coming across two contradictory statements and knowing full well that one is correct and the other wrong, such as I did here; but I'm checking for OR reasons.
You have instances of 1st-century BC an 1st century BC. Either with or without the dash, but consistent throughout.

Modern era

Why does "non-white" link to white people? or perhaps more pertinently, why is this a link at all? This article has a serious sea-of-blue (I mean overlinking) problem. The very first sentence of Prelude has 10 links alone. In fact, I'll start with that.

Overlinking problem:

Lede:

"Historians" does not need to be linked, and yes I'm aware it links to historiography, but you already have both Greek historiography and Roman historiography linked in the previous sentence. If the reader didn't read either of those two links, they aren't suddenly going to start reading the third; and if they read all three then by the time their finished they will have been too exhausted to read your article.
Cause of death does not need to be linked.
Why is "three of her children" linked to Reign of Cleopatra? it's just unnecessary.
Why is "Ptolemy XV" a link when it simply redirects to Caesarion? just to prove the point that Ptolemy XV is Caesarion?
Why are links for "eroticism", "sexuality" (linked to History of human sexuality) and "works" (linked to Erotic art) necessary?
Why is "cinema" linked?
Why are Pompeii, Cleopatra VII and Caesarion linked again in the caption of the image of the lede?

You can also delink "poisoned", "toxic", "snakebite", "primary source", and probably "province", "prose" and "poetry" as these are commonly understood terms, although the last three link to at least tangentially relevant articles.

Prelude

My poor eyes, assaulted by so much blue. "[P]laced under house arrest" does not need to link to Sicilian revolt which makes zero mention of a house arrest.
"[P]haraoh" <- I write articles on ancient Egyptian pyramids. I have never felt the need to link the reader to "pharaoh". Refer Pyramid of Neferirkare, Pyramid of Nyuserre, Pyramid of Unas and Pyramid of Djedkare Isesi. Why? because if you're reading about the pyramids you know what a goddamn pharaoh is. Gah.
"Roman territory" linked to "borders of the Roman empire". Why? Same question for "Roman citizen".
Following their defeat in the naval Battle of Actium at the Ambracian Gulf of Greece in 31 BC, Cleopatra and Antony retreated back to Egypt to recuperate and prepare for an assault by Octavian, whose forces grew larger with the surrender of many of Antony's officers and soldiers in Greece <- First you link Greece to "Greece in the Roman Era" and then in the same sentence you link it to "History of Greeece". You don't need either link.

Suicide of Antony and Cleopatra

"figs" linked to Common fig. <- I'm just... done. Why? what relevance does the fig have to anything?

You have enough work for the moment getting rid of the many links that are utterly unnecessary. There are a couple dozen other links I haven't mentioned, but that are possibly unnecessary as well. I'll get back to the prose tomorrow, it's midnight here. As a final note, links compete for reader attention, and many links are never clicked. On top of that, some of your links do not link to the articles one would expect them to, and that further reduces the chance of them being useful (e.g. Octavian links to Early life of Augustus instead of just Augustus). The lede for example currently has 62 article links. Two-thirds, according to WP:OL, of links are never clicked (~41/62), and the most of the rest are likely only to received occasional clicks. I could identify 22 (coincidentally ~35% or just over a third) potentially useful links. Fewer when you account that Octavian (second mention) and Augustus link to the same article, as do Caeserion and Ptolemy XV. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:56, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully Mr Pericles wont mind, but have started an audit, mostly of duplicate links, but certain other liberties have been taken. Am taking the approcah that some links are of more value than others, but the better ones will be drowned out if there are too many. Also, I dont believe we should link relatively common terms for non en speakers - most browsers contain hover over dictionary type things (I use this a lot when viewing on tablet esp.) Ceoil (talk) 19:22, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr rnddude and Ceoil: Thanks Ceoil for doing that, although I restored a few links that I think are still essential, like Battle of Actium, an incredibly relevant/high value link that is not a duplicate in the main prose body of text (that excludes any and all links in the lead section). You two will be happy to know I've removed the majority of links suggested above for removal. That being said, I do think "Roman citizenship" is still a useful link. Antony's status as a Roman citizen was the major reason why Cleopatra's military aid given to him was seen as unlawful by the Roman Senate and hence grounds for war. Readers should have access to further information about what Roman citizenship entailed. You are right, though, that "Borders of the Roman Empire" is excessive, and common fig is certainly excessive. LOL. Not sure why I felt the need to link that one. Is your only major concern with links? These are easy enough for me to remove, especially with the help of Ceoil. The linking issue aside, I will wait patiently for your review of the prose. Pericles of Athens^Talk 21:51, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. If you feeling under pressure, note that neither of us has found or raised any substantive or fundamental issues with the page; this is all just now presentation stuff. Ceoil (talk) 21:54, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ceoil: Well that's a relief! I will continue to peck at the article to see if there are other links that can and should be removed. Regards, Pericles of Athens^Talk 21:59, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr rnddude: as for the Maloney footnote thing, I have reworded that to include only his claims about Olympos. I think Roller's input is enough to just completely demolish whatever claim Maloney was making about Olympos (as it was Plutarch who quoted Olympos and only then related the tale of the asp), but I suppose I'm not allowed to directly compare scholarly sources like that, not unless they're talking about each other directly. Regards, Pericles of Athens^Talk 21:55, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prose:

Modern era

but a restoration and cleaning of the sculpture <- a isn't necessary here.

Medieval, Renaissance, and Baroque periods

brings the two asps to Cleopatra <- the isn't necessary here.
The Sleeping Ariadne ... inspired the composition of Renaissance literature <- I don't think you meant to imply that this one statue inspired Renaissance literature, or its composition.
However, Chaucer's depiction of her suicide included a pit of serpents rather than the Roman tale of the asps <- I fail to see what "however" does for this sentence.

Tomb of Antony and Cleopatra

Dominican archaeologist Kathleen Martinez... <- I was asked myself what the purpose of noting the ethnicity of individuals was supposed to convey at my FA. Basically, relevance?

Aftermath

However, Caesarion would reign as Ptolemy XV <- does not contradict or contrast against previously given information, so does not need a "however". Change would reign to reigned.
This was done after the advice given by the can be tightened to This was done following the advice of

Ceoil is correct to note that so far, all concerns are easily addressable grievances. You still have a number of duplinks and many unnecessary links, but the prose (which is more important) is quite strong. There are a few very long sentences in the Depictions in art and literature section, but I haven't been able to come up with a way to tighten or split them into more manageable pieces. I'm about two thirds of the way through the article (in reverse) and will get back to this later. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:42, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr rnddude: hello! Thanks for coming back. You'll be happy to know that I've addressed each and every one of your immediate concerns listed here, but I am also at a loss in deciding how to split apart some of the longer sentences in the article. I'll try to work on that. In the meantime, Ceoil and I have removed a ton of extraneous links from the article and I believe we eradicated any and all duplicate links in the main body of prose. Once again, removing "duplicate" links from image captions or footnotes (as you did with Ancient Macedonians, confusing it for a duplicate link in the main prose text) is a personal preference, not a rule of the MOS. I'm happy to remove further links at your request, but at this point I think the most egregious examples have been removed. I'm glad that you deem the prose to be sufficient enough for an FA quality article. I am happy and eager to address any further issues you have with sections you haven't gone over yet. Pericles of Athens^Talk 17:27, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some more work:

Cause of Death

According to Gregory Tsoucalas and Markos Sgantzos <- who and who? make sure the reader knows who people are, and why you're referring to them. Same with Maloney in the previous paragraph; who might equally be the longest serving member of the ALP, an engineer, and a Chief Economist for the WBG, as he might be a historian.
In her Murder of Cleopatra: History's Greatest Cold Case (2013) <- either "her work/book/dissertation/etc" or just "in Murder of Cleopatra.
and or <- and/or isn't it? though I'm not sure "and" is needed here. i.e. Cleopatra's personal physician Olympos, cited by Plutarch, mentioned neither a cause of death nor an asp bite or Egyptian cobra.

Date of death

There is no surviving records <- plural, should be "There are no surviving records"
You give full names of Duane W. Roller and James Grout both in this section and the next.

Suicide of Antony and Cleopatra

However, Cleopatra was able to deceive him and kill herself nevertheless - I don't think that both "however" and "nevertheless" are needed here. You could have written "Nevertheless, Cleopatra was able to deceive him and kill herself."
On arrival, in haste, <- the two comments pertain to the same action "breaking down the door", i.e. On arrival and in haste, the servant broke down her door...
Plutarch states that when she was found, her handmaiden Iras was dying at her feet and handmaiden Charmion adjusted Cleopatra's diademed crown before she herself fell - Can be tightened to "Plutarch states that she was found with her handmaidens Iras, dying at her feet, and Charmion, adjusting her diadem before she herself fell". Diademed isn't a word, and diadem means jewelled crown. Replace "diademed crown" with just "diadem".
she decided to avoid this humiliation and take her own life at age 39 - "decided" past tense, "take" present tense. Inconsistent. Should be "and took her own life". At age 39 can also be "aged 39", if you want it tighter, though entirely optional.
Plutarch elaborates how Cleopatra approached her suicide in an almost ritual process, preceded by bathing and then a fine meal including figs brought to her in a basket. - A bit of a wonky sentence. Is Plutarch's elaboration that she approached her suicide ritualistically, or does he elaborate on the ritual process itself? Equally, does the bathing and meal precede the suicide or the rituals? I suspect that the bath and meal are the "ritual process" being referred to.
Antony was still alive as he was carried into the tomb of Cleopatra - Antony was still alive as he was carried into Cleopatra's tomb.

Lede

The death of Cleopatra has been depicted in various works of art in ancient, medieval, early modern, and modern times - So... throughout history. Why not just say that? rather than listing every period since her death.
Cleopatra's death has also involved themes of eroticism and sexuality - Her death did? or its presentation in art has? possibly replace "has also involved" with "has evoked".

That's everything I've caught in my first pass. I'll look at it again in a few days to determine if a second pass is needed. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:29, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr rnddude: hello! These are all very good criticisms and suggestions, so I have amended the article per your advice. I hope you view these recent changes and improvements as being sufficient enough to lift this article up to FA quality. Regards, Pericles of Athens^Talk 23:58, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Second pass

Although Antony was able to score a small victory over Octavian's tired troops as they approached Alexandria's hippodrome on 1 August 30 BC, Antony's naval fleet and cavalry defected to Octavian soon afterwards. - I think that second mention of "Antony" could be changed to "his". It just reads a little repetitively.
Cleopatra was allowed to embalm Antony's body before she was forcefully escorted to the palace and eventually met with Octavian .. - perhaps "where she eventually" rather than "and eventually".
which would seem to corroborate with Plutarch's account - not sure why "with" instead of just "corroborate Plutarch's account".
Other historians such as Florus and Velleius Paterculus supported the asp bite version - I think it might be helpful to put "contemporary" in here (Other contemporary historians) to distinguish them from modern historians.
In a miniature of a 1409 AD illuminated manuscript of the 14th-century AD poet Giovanni Boccaccio's Des cas de nobles hommes et femmes, the Boucicaut Master depicted Cleopatra and Antony lying together in a Gothic-style tomb, with a snake near Cleopatra's chest and a bloody sword through Antony's chest. - This sentence is convoluted.
However, they were countered by the 14th-century poet Geoffrey Chaucer, who offered a positive view of Cleopatra. - I'm a bit sensitive to the use of "however" where it's not strictly necessary. E.g. "The 14th-century poet Geoffrey Chaucer offers a positive view of Cleopatra, countering the typically negative depictions" or "The 14th-century poet Geoffrey Chaucer counters these depictions, offering a positive view of Cleopatra instead."
Chaucer's depiction of her suicide - Given that the previous to sentences begin with "Chaucer", you may write "his" here.
The 17th-century Baroque painter Guido Reni depicted Cleopatra's death by asp bite, although the snake depicted is tiny compared to a real Egyptian cobra - Two instances of depicted in one sentence. Perhaps "albeit with a snake that is tiny compared ..."

That's all I have. The prose is in good shape otherwise, and there a lot less blue. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:24, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr rnddude: I have once again addressed your concerns by rewording various passages in the article. The trickiest one is that sentence about Boccaccio and the Boucicaut Master. I agree, it's a bit tangled, but I tried my best to untangle it for our readers. It is still far from being perfect, but I hope you are at least satisfied with the newer version. I can't think of any better ways to rewrite it, to be honest. I'm all ears for suggestions on how to reword it or even break it into two sentences, if you deem it necessary. Pericles of Athens^Talk 07:20, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PericlesofAthens looks good. The reworked sentence is clearer to me now. Updated to support. Just one minor question, perhaps I've misunderstood. My understanding of before she was forcefully escorted to the palace and where she eventually met with Octavian is that Cleopatra met with Octavian in the palace. If so drop "and". If not, then stick with "and eventually" and drop "where she". Sorry if I misunderstood the meaning. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:53, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr rnddude: Excellent! Thank you for your lengthy review and support. I have removed the "and" in the sentence above, since Cleopatra eventually did meet Octavian in the palace. It has been a pleasure working with you. The article has been substantially improved as a result. Regards, Pericles of Athens^Talk 08:11, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Ceoil edit

Some modern scholars speculate that she was murdered, while others doubt the validity of the accounts involving snakebites as the cause of death. Some academics hypothesize - Not sure that "While" is best here, as the views are not contracdactory. Two sentences starting with "some"
Still reading through Ceoil (talk) 17:21, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ceoil: hello! Thanks for starting your review of the article. As you can already see, I have reworded the sentence you selected above. Regards. Pericles of Athens^Talk 01:23, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can we use another variation of "accounts" every so often...maybe things like "In the accounts of" could be "According to" etc
Dont like "either an implement or toxic ointment" - "Implement" is vague; I immediately though stabbing device but could also be some form of poison contraption, but from rest of the lead dunno know if am right or wrong
Some academics hypothesize that her Roman political rival Octavian allowed her to commit suicide in the manner of her choosing - Should it be *forced* rather than *allowed*, then ...re in "a manner of her choosing" is of course is all very romantic, which should again be re-emphasised or contextualised.
By committing suicide, she avoided - "Her suicide avoided.."
in a Roman triumph celebrating the military victories of Octavian, who would become Rome's first emperor and known as Augustus - small tense issue here (the sudden shift into "who would").
I'd put the "The location of Cleopatra's tomb..." sentence in the opening paragraph. You put it very well, and many readers will be immediately hooked.
The death of Cleopatra has been depicted in various works of art - "Cleopatra's death"; "various" should be "many", add something like 'over the centuries'. I wouldnt blue link any of " visual, literary, and performing arts".
The exact date of Cleopatra's death was unknown for a long time, since there is no surviving record of even the approximate date.[3] - this is circular, and reads a bit like the approx date was unknown as the exact date was unknown. Maybe begin with "As there are no surviving record...."
The sentence beginning Antony's divorce of Octavia, Octavian's public revelation of Antony's will outlining Cleopatra's ambitions for Roman territory in the Donations of Alexandria and her continued illegal... is hard work. Can you break down into shorter sentences / digestible bits. Ceoil (talk) 03:39, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overall there is a lot of blue links, which again make for heavy reading. Similarly, as said in an edit summary, the "Dating" section is a listy list names of fancy people making claims for one date or the other, with out any examination or mention of the basis for their arguments.
Fascinating and informed stuff. More later. Ceoil (talk) 02:13, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ceoil: thanks for coming back and for your copy-edits to the article! I will try to address each of your points. Pericles of Athens^Talk 03:51, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per your advice, I have removed two instances of "accounts" and replaced them with "according to" and "ancient reports", respectively.
I have clarified that the "implement" was likely a hairpin.
That little part about Cleopatra being forced to commit suicide rather than just being allowed to do so has been reworded. Good call!
I have also reworded the part about her avoiding humiliation of a triumph by committing suicide.
It could be due to my lack of sleep as of late, but I don't understand the problem you have with the phrase "who would become Rome's first emperor". You are welcome to amend it however you like if you view it as a problem worth fixing.
Per your suggestion, I moved the sentence about Cleopatra's tomb to the end of the first paragraph, which involved a bit of editing since I had to de-link Mark Antony's name in the second paragraph and link it in the first, along with noting in the first paragraph (instead of the second) that he was her husband.
I completely disagree about your choice of wording for the first sentence of the third paragraph, although I did remove the excessive links for visual and literary arts as you suggested. It isn't necessary to say "over the centuries" since that is already implied by saying artworks were ancient, medieval, early modern, and modern. Replacing "various" with "many" also potentially opens up the door to criticism from other editors/reviewers who might be concerned that it implies a certain number I should be providing. LOL. In my view, your suggestion also seems awfully close to violating WP:WEASEL, although I could be wrong.

It was probably easier to make this reply less personally insulting. Done here. Ceoil (talk) 03:56, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ceoil: Wait, what? I wasn't trying to "personally" insult you at any point. I was simply disagreeing with your suggested wording. I'm not sure how that's tantamount to an insult, but you are free to do as you like. I enjoyed your review thus far. It would be a shame for you to leave it now, since your input is valued, I assure you. Pericles of Athens^Talk 04:04, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I misunderstood, and see you have a point. Will happily resume so....Ceoil (talk) 13:02, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You might be happy to see that I've substantially reworded the "dating" section, although not exactly with the suggested language you offered above. Per your edit summary, I realize that it might seem a bit heavy on listing scholars rather than presenting arguments for the date of Cleo's death. However, that's because most of these sources don't bother to explain it or dwell on it for very long, unlike Skeat, who wrote a substantial article devoted to the topic. There's honestly not much more I'd like to present about it, either, since it's an arcane and mundane topic of ancient historiography that readers can learn more about by investigating the cited sources (if they want to bore themselves to death, LOL). I certainly don't see the need to go off on a tangent here when there are a bunch of other topics involving Cleo's death that deserve more coverage and represent a greater weight of overall material discussed by historians. Pericles of Athens^Talk 03:51, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That seems fair enough. But as a suggestion could it be merged into the end of the "Prelude" section. I say this from a clueless reader POV; some might be turned off that the first section of the body is so dry. Ceoil (talk) 13:12, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ceoil: hello again! I see what you mean, it's kind of a buzzkill, whereas the Prelude is more enticing as a first section. That said, I don't think it belongs to the Prelude section at all. Therefore, I've decided to move the entire dating section down between the sections "Suicide of Antony and Cleopatra" and "Cause of death", renaming it "Date of death". I think it's current placement in the article is much more logical. Thanks for the suggestion! Pericles of Athens^Talk 15:52, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes agree with the choice! Peace in our time:) Ceoil (talk) 15:53, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can the Aftermath sect be broken in to two paragraphs; also is it necessary to link Egypt (Roman province) so deep into the article, esp as Roman province is linked just after in the same sentence.
Cleopatra attempted to have Caesarion sent away to Upper Egypt - attempted to send?
their daughter Cleopatra Selene II eventually marrying Juba II - funny tense shift; married
The site of the mausoleum of Cleopatra and Mark Antony is uncertain.[45] However, the Egyptian Antiquities Service believes - drop "however"
The story of Cleopatra's suicide by snakebite was often depicted in Medieval and Renaissance art, as well as Medieval and Renaissance literature. - 'Medieval' is blue twice in this sentence.
Have delinked bits and pieces; other suggestions: eyewitness, painting (roman art is linked in the Further information thing just above), melodrama, France, knight, Italian Renaissance (as Renaissance art already linked), eroticism (as we just had eroticize). Ceoil (talk) 01:39, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil hello! Thanks once again for taking the time to review the article. Allow me to summarize my latest edits amending the article per your suggestions: Pericles of Athens^Talk 04:47, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I broke apart the large single paragraph in the Aftermath section, but I don't think we should remove the Roman Egypt link, since it is linked only once in the lead section and once in the main prose body of text.
The phrase "attempted to" has been removed. I also reworded the sentence a bit after that.
The phrase "marrying Juba II" has been changed to "married Juba II", although I had to reword the sentence a bit to make it sound sufficient.
As you have recommended, I removed that one instance of "however" in the sentence quoted above.
Per your advice, I moved both "Medieval literature" and "Renaissance literature" to different paragraphs in that section, so that they wouldn't be in the same sentence where "Medieval art" and "Renaissance art" are linked.
Instead of removing "Roman art", which I find to be just as valuable a link as Medieval or Renaissance art, I moved some links around and removed another instead, for the article "Conservation issues of Pompeii and Herculaneum". LOL. I'm not sure how I thought that was relevant to my article. I must have been in a link-happy mood that day.
You will see that I removed most of the links you suggested, although I do think some of our readers might find the link for "melodrama" to be useful, especially for some of our readers who very young, aren't native speakers of English, or are simply uneducated about the arts. It seems obvious to me what melodrama means, but like George Carlin once said (and to put it bluntly): "think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that." LOL. Pericles of Athens^Talk 04:47, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I look forward to the rest of your review! It looks like you've blazed through most of the sections thus far, or have you already read and sized up the section called "Modern era"? If so, please do let me know if there's anything in that section that you think needs fixing, rearranging, or removing. Regards. Pericles of Athens^Talk 05:22, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Have read the modern period fully, and have few complaints. Giving one last look over; should be able to close out tonight. Ceoil (talk) 19:26, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cleopatra VII of Ptolemaic Egypt, a pharaoh of Macedonian Greek descent ruling from Alexandria - had a hard time parsing this. Put a comma after "descent" maybe
the body of Antony - Antony's body
According to Cassius Dio, although small punctures on Cleopatra's arm were found, he echoed the claim by Plutarch that nobody knew the true cause of her death - "According to" isn't right here; overall this sentence needs work
Why does Egypt became a province of the newly-established Roman Empire, with Octavian renamed in 27 BC as Augustus, the first Roman emperor need 3 refs and a note.
Overall, and especially considering this is well covered ground, the citation density is a bit heavy. Too many straight forward claims and three, four refs...like the linking thing above, this impairs readability, imo. Ceoil (talk) 20:58, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Who is Patricia (Pat) Southern

Ceoil (talk) 20:52, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ceoil: hello! Thanks for replying once again. I saw that you recently removed a bunch of links from the article, most of which I agree with and am happy that you deleted them. However, I restored a few high value links as they were not duplicate links as you claimed in your edit summary, because some links were the first and only instances in the main prose body of text. A duplicate link found in the lead section of the article is irrelevant. In either case, moving on to your points above:

Per your suggestion, I have placed a comma in the sentence above after the word "descent".
I reworded the sentence about Cassius Dio and puncture wounds, although I don't see how to improve it beyond what I've just done. Any suggestions?
That particular passage requires different refs because of different ideas presented by sources, and a footnote for further information for anyone who wants to know exactly what happened to Egypt right after the reign of Cleopatra. It was not just any Roman province. Augustus ruled it directly, appointing his own equestrian governor that answered only to him, and Roman senators were completely forbidden to even step foot in the country. This followed a perennial fear of the Romans that the enormous potential for gaining wealth in Egypt would corrupt any Roman governor sent there to administer the province. It's partially the reason why they didn't annex the country after the assassination of Ptolemy XI Alexander II (who literally willed the country to the Romans as collateral for loans), handing it over to Ptolemy XII Auletes instead and giving Roman Cyprus to his brother, Ptolemy of Cyprus.
I'm not sure what to say about the amount of citations in the article, other than to say three is the limit for each sentence and I do not stray from that rule. In many cases multiple citations exist because multiple ideas from various sources are presented in a single sentence. It would be a nightmare to try and untangle that now, for the sake of reducing the amount of citations. Multiple citations also demonstrate scholarly consensus and add authority to each sentence that has them.
A link has been provided to the page on Patricia Southern, for any of our readers who would like to know more about her. Is there a problem with her credentials, in your view? Pericles of Athens^Talk 21:28, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that its proper to re-link in captions. Note the reason for removal in most instances is readability, not MOS or anything mind-bendingly stupid like that. Screen reading is tiring enough, and far more difficult than book reading, precisely for reasons like seas of blue. Re Southern, I meant that in most other places you say things like, "the English historian Patricia Southern". Ceoil (talk) 21:33, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ps, to be clear, I love the article, and especially the images and sections on art. I am strongly leaning support, in case you thinking I'm being too much of a grumbling pain in the Ceoil (talk) 21:37, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

pps, i don't buy that multiple sources "demonstrate scholarly consensus and add authority"; quite the opposite, I think they indicate that the claim is problematic, and re typically a red flag. Pretty sure this is one of User:Johnbod's truisms of wiki. Update; found it, its actually his fundamental law: "5 refs on a line is almost always a sure sign of trouble". I think that scales in both directions. Ceoil (talk) 21:42, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ceoil: I added "the English historian" before "Patricia Southern" as you've suggested. Also yes, I would say five citations is really pushing it and in places where I have more than three sources provided, additional ones are placed in a footnote for anyone who wants to investigate further sources on any given issue. As for links in captions, feel free to remove more if you like, but keep in mind I am generally annoyed with articles that contain image captions without any links whatsoever. I guess "different strokes for different folks" applies here, since I am generally not bothered by blue links, IMHO. Since it bothers you and other readers, I will do my best to remove further extraneous links from the article. Pericles of Athens^Talk 22:07, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Grand, and its not a hill I would die on, but I notice overall, you are making it too easy for the reader - linking simple terms like "film", linking proper nouns multiple times, including ever sources ever in the citations, etc. For myself, and especially for a broad overview, find that slightly like being talked down to. Re multiple sources for each statement; again this is an overview of very well covered ground, you are hardly weaving complex arguments together. If a sentence requires three refs because it is weaving different claims from three sources, then the sentence is too long (there are a few of these). Ceoil (talk) 22:15, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are some egs of dated language, perhaps betraying the age of the source material, eg "It was this same Proculeius" Ceoil (talk) 22:46, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ceoil: Good point; I reworded that part about Proculeius. As for the excessive amounts of citations for certain sentences, I have started to address this by recently breaking apart one sentence, but to be honest this is a herculean task. In order to properly parse everything, it would probably require an additional trip to the library, and I just don't have that kind of spare time for a Wikipedia article anymore. It's also incredibly difficult to demonstrate what a variety of sources say on the matter without attributing any little statement to the wrong source or page numbers.

For instance, the sentence: "Antony's divorce from Octavia, Octavian's public revelation of Antony's will outlining Cleopatra's ambitions for Roman territory in the Donations of Alexandria and her continued illegal military support for a Roman citizen currently without an elected office convinced the Roman Senate, now under Octavian's control,[22][23][24] to declare war on Cleopatra.[25][26][27]" Notice how there are two different sets of citations here, one for the claim that Octavian controlled the Roman Senate by this point, and another set of citations for the claim that Rome was declaring war on Cleopatra, not necessarily against Antony (since the Romans were sick and tired of civil wars among Roman aristocrats by this point, but they always had time to beat the snot out of foreigners who looked at them funny).

For the life of me I cannot see how to explain these two separate but critical ideas in different sentences without getting overly wordy and going off on a tangent...a tangent that other reviewers here in the FAC process could then complain about in turn. I'd rather avoid that. Do you have any suggestions? Because I am at a loss here, and this is just one example of something I'd rather not tear apart for the sake of having less citations per sentence. To be fair to myself, though, this is only one of two sentences in the entire article that has six different citations altogether. Once you get towards the end of the article it's usually just one citation per sentence. Pericles of Athens^Talk 23:49, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NP. This isn't the first article of yours that I've read, and as said above, not a hill worth dying on, in fact low on my priority list in the context of an article of this quality. Plus in matters of style or preference, will always give weight to the primary author if they give thoughtful consideration (check) and seem to know what they are doing (check). I agree that it would be a burden to change the citation style now, and in the scheme of things to worry about in 2018, not worth it. Was a pleasure to review this and engage with you. I trust you will continue to trim the links where appropriate, other than that Support; a fascinating read, skillfully told, and another feather for your bow. Ceoil (talk) 00:03, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ceoil: thanks for your support and all your help in improving the article! It looks much better as a result. Regards, Pericles of Athens^Talk 01:04, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My advice re the refs is, do an audit where you check the most innocuous claims, and trim back to the most reputable historian.

"...Mark Antony, who committed suicide by stabbing, to be buried together properly" - Surely there is a better word than properly? With full religious or ceremonial honours or something I presume. Killed himself with a knife is better than "suicide by stabbing". Ceoil (talk) 00:52, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I changed "committed suicide by stabbing" to "stabbed himself with a sword", as the article explains. I'm not sure how to replace "properly" here, though I think it reads fine the way it is. Thanks for all of your input! Regards. Pericles of Athens^Talk 01:04, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It reads to me like laandan slang, buried "all proper and like". These is surely a better way. Ceoil (talk) 01:06, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. I've never heard of that before, probably because I'm American. I was thinking more along the lines of the common phrase "a proper burial", which we hear often enough in English, no matter which country you're from. Pericles of Athens^Talk 01:23, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I understand now, but genuinely never heard the exact phrase "a proper burial" before in context, but that's fine; thick paddy here and I deffer. Usually when I hear the word "proper" it means I have to wear a tie. Ceoil (talk) 01:45, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Hawkeye7 edit

Looks really good.

What's a hemiobol?
Link Artifact (archaeology)

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:22, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7: Hello! Thanks for the support. To answer your question, a hemiobol is a minor type of silver drachma worth 2 tetartemorion coins (0.36 grams of silver). I'll try to answer your other questions below very shortly. Pericles of Athens^Talk 23:10, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest linking. I'll try and work it into a conversation. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:17, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see one place where the word "artifact" is mentioned, but I'm not sure if it's entirely relevant to the article you want to link. Pericles of Athens^Talk 00:12, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. My spell checker raised an alarm, but I'm convinced that it is merely an American (mis)spelling. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:42, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

All these are correctly licensed:

File:Roman Wall painting from the House of Giuseppe II, Pompeii, 1st century AD, death of Sophonisba, but more likely Cleopatra VII of Egypt consuming poison.jpg, File:Cleopatra VII Philopator, engraving by Élisabeth Sophie Chéron after a Hellenistic medallion, published c. 1736.jpg, File:Cleopatra VII, steel engraving of the encaustic painting found at Hadrian's Villa in 1818.jpg, File:Venus and Cupid from the House of Marcus Fabius Rufus at Pompeii, most likely a depiction of Cleopatra VII (2).jpg, File:Venus and Cupid from the House of Marcus Fabius Rufus at Pompeii, most likely a depiction of Cleopatra VII (5).jpg, File:Retrato femenino (26771127162).jpg, File:Tomb of Cleopatra and Mark Antony, illuminated manuscript of Boccaccio, miniature by the Boucicaut master, 1409 AD (cropped).jpg, File:Woodcut illustration of Cleopatra and Mark Antony - Penn Provenance Project.jpg, File:Cleopatra - Michelangelo Buonarroti.png, File:Michele di ridolfo (scuola), suicidio di cleopatra, 1560 ca. 02.JPG, File:Guido Reni - Cleopatra - WGA19301.jpg - 2-D photograph of PD artwork

File:Bust of Cleopatra VII - Altes Museum - Berlin - Germany 2017.jpg, File:Cleopatra Tetradrachm Antiochia.jpg, File:Alessandro Turchi - The death of Cleopatra.jpg, File:Guido Cagnacci 003.jpg, File:Death of Cleopatra by Rixens.jpg, File:The Death of Cleopatra by Juan Luna1881.jpg, File:The Death of Cleopatra arthur.jpg, File:Robert Strange - Cleopatra.jpg, File:Lille PdBA gauthier cleopatre 2.JPG - CC 4.0 of PD 3-D artwork
File:Cleopatra VII, dalla via appia tra ariccia e genzano, 40-30 ac ca. 01.JPG - CC 3.0 of PD 3-D artwork
File:Esquiline Venus Musei Capitolini MC1141 n1.jpg - CC 2.5 of PD 3-D artwork
File:The Death of Cleopatra.JPG - CC 1.0 of PD 3-D artwork
File:0010-Cleopatra-03.jpg, File:Adam Lenckhardt - Cleopatra - Walters 71416 - Right.jpg - PD, licensed by OTRS

Some anomalies:

File:Cleopatra Bertin Louvre RF3717.jpg - Wikipedian attempts to put image into PD, but US does not accept this.
File:Cleopatra, Jan Muller, after Adriaen de Vries, c.1598.jpg, File:The suicide of Cleopatra; the asp is wriggling up the left a Wellcome V0041560.jpg, File:Anne seymour damer antony and cleopatra.JPG, - Need {{PD-Art-100}} tag
Who took File:Marcus Antonius marble bust in the Vatican Museums.jpg?

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:57, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7: hi once again!

As you've suggested, I added the "PD-Art-100" tag to the aforementioned three images, as well as the "PD-US" tag for good measure. Obviously they are all public domain given the age of each one of those prints.
As for the Cleopatra by Bertin in the Louvre, you are mistaken. Once the photographer releases his photograph into the public domain, it is public domain, full stop. The "first publication occurred prior to January 1, 1923" clause concerning expiration here still applies, because the sculpted artwork in the photograph was created by Bertin in or before 1697. Therefore both the photograph AND the original artwork are public domain.
The sculpture is PD, yes. But for a 3-D subject, US law requires that it also be released by the photographer as well. For PD in a foreign country, it has been in the PD in 1996. And the photograph was made in 1985, not 1923. Therefore, Americans refuse to accept it as PD. Which is why we ask Wikipedians to license under CC. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:34, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Hawkeye7: Hmm...I could be wrong, but I think you're actually wrong about 1985, the date when the artwork was purchased, not necessarily when the photo was taken. It seems the photo was both uploaded AND taken in 2006 by "Marie-Lan Nguyen" (i.e. User:Jastrow), who seems to have snapped the photo of the sculpture in the Louvre in that year, not 1985. Therefore, Ms. Nguyen had the right to release her own photo into the public domain, which happens to have a priceless Baroque period sculpture depicting Cleopatra's suicide as its chief focus. She does this sort of thing regularly for Wikimedia Commons, taking photos in museums, and as far as I know none of her other photos are in a copyright dispute per US law. Pericles of Athens^Talk 00:19, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You're right; I was looking at the wrong line. It was taken in 2006. I presume that in France you have the right to alter the copyright term on your own work; in many countries you are not. But the problem remains. The US does not accept the principle of the shorter term, so only images that were in the PD in 1996 are eligible. As far as the US is concerned, the image is copyrighted until 2101. A decision was taken not to delete such images from Commons.[19] If Jastrow could put it out under a CC licence, that would be ideal. Otherwise, meh. It's not like anyone is going to complain. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:24, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Hawkeye7: Hah! Thanks for the link. I was totally unaware any of that was going on. Fascinating. In either case I could contact Jastrow, but it does seem like a minor issue. I don't think any authorities in either France or the USA are going to be breaking down my doors with a battering ram, flashbang grenade, and special ops team over this. LOL. If you would like to leave a message on her talk page, by all means, be my guest! I'm sure she would comply. Pericles of Athens^Talk 03:59, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to the Marcus Antonius bust in the Vatican, as the source page explains, that photo was taken in 2008 by Sergey Sosnovskiy, who released it under a CC BY-SA 4.0 license, meaning it is freely licensed for use on Wikipedia. The public domain tags on that image are placed there because of the original artwork that was photographed, i.e. the ancient Roman bust of Mark Antony dating to the 1st century AD. I hope this clears everything up! Pericles of Athens^Talk 23:23, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

I should get to this today or tomorrow. My FAC, for Working Group, still needs a source review. Catrìona (talk) 09:22, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Web sources: All appear to be from mainstream, reliable websites. I did have some concern over "Remezcla.com", but since the article, according to the source, was written developed in partnership with National Geographic I think this qualifies as a RS.
Print sources: These all appear to be written by experts and/or published by mainstream or university presses. Assuming reliability. ISBNs and OCLCs provided in a consistent format. I would encourage not linking to Google Books or other paywalled sources, but that's not a requirement.
No spot checks done because the nominator appears to be a previous FA submitter.
A quick English search in Google Scholar revealed additional sources. I have not checked full text so I am not sure if they provide additional relevant information for the article text, or whether they would be helpful in the "Further reading" section.

Griffiths, J. Gwyn (1961). "The Death of Cleopatra VII". The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology. 47 (1): 113–133. doi:10.1177/030751336104700113.

Related correspondence: Baldwin, B. (1964). "The Death of Cleopatra VII". The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology. 50 (1): 181–182. doi:10.1177/030751336405000124., Griffiths, J. Gwyn (1965). "The death of Cleopatra VII: A rejoinder and a postscript". The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology. 51 (1): 209–211. doi:10.1177/030751336505100126.

Richardson, Mary (1995). "Edmonia Lewis' "The Death of Cleopatra": Myth and Identity". The International Review of African American Art. 12 (2).
Jarcho, Saul (1969). "THE CORRESPONDENCE OF MORGAGNI AND LANCISI ON THE DEATH OF CLEOPATRA". Bulletin of the History of Medicine. 43 (4): 299–325. JSTOR 44449955.
Cilliers, L.; Retief, F. P. (1 January 2006). "The death of Cleopatra". Acta Theologica. 26 (2): 79–88. doi:10.4314/actat.v26i2.52563. ISSN 2309-9089. (free full text)
Orland, Ralph M.; Orland, Frank J.; Orland, Phyllis T.M. (1990). "Psychiatric Assessment of Cleopatra – A Challenging Evaluation". Psychopathology. 23 (3): 169–175. doi:10.1159/000284655.

Given that a well known history^[1] bills itself as "A History of Egypt from the End of the Neolithic Period to the Death of Cleopatra VII", it stands to reason that the effects of her death on Egypt could be discussed a bit more in this article. (currently just 2 sentences)

I should say that the article seems pretty complete to me, although it is a bit shorter than most FA articles. Still, it seems that some of the above publications, or others that I am not aware of, could be used to add additional perspectives/interpretations of this well-studied event. Catrìona (talk) 09:33, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Budge, Sir Ernest Alfred Wallis (1902). A History of Egypt from the End of the Neolithic Period to the Death of Cleopatra VII, B.C. 30: Egypt and her Asiatic Empire. K. Paul, Trench, Trübner & Company, Limited.

@Catrìona: hello! Thanks for the lengthy and detailed source review! I'm glad that you find the existing sources to be sufficient and formatted correctly. As for providing additional sources, I just added Bailey (2001) in discussing a posthumous image of Cleopatra in a crude erotic caricature on a Roman oil lamp associating her with wildlife of the Nile in Egypt. As for your concerns about the impact of Cleopatra's death on Egypt, I added another sentence about a cultic priest and Egyptian scribe who dedicated gilded images of Cleopatra in a book of Isis dated 373 AD (something already explained in the main article on Cleopatra). To be honest, though, I don't think we should say much beyond this, because I think it is sufficient to say Cleopatra's death marked the end of the Hellenistic period and allowed for Egypt to become a Roman province. I don't think this article is the place to go on a tangent about the various cultural and political changes that occurred in Egypt during the subsequent Roman period. We have links to the article Egypt (Roman province) for that purpose, and a lengthy footnote about Cornelius Gallus, Augustus' equestrian governor that he personally installed there. Perhaps we could move the footnote into the main text? Beyond that I don't think we should dive into the Roman period very much, since it is only tangentially related to Cleopatra (unless we're talking about visual arts or poetry depicting her). In regards to your list of sources, perhaps some of them could be added, but we already explain Edmonia Lewis' sculpture at the end of the article. Is it really necessary to cite Richardson's journal article "Edmonia Lewis' "The Death of Cleopatra": Myth and Identity"? I don't think we should reserve a lot of space for individual works of art, especially when that information can be found in other articles like the one on Edmonia Lewis. Regards, Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:41, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right about the sculpture. However, some of the others—particularly Psychiatric Assessment of Cleopatra—might provide additional, useful information. Catrìona (talk) 22:12, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably right! The problem is I don't have permission to access articles on their website, the "Karger.com" journal database. If you have the article freely available in a PDF I'd be more than glad to look over it. Otherwise I can't do much about it! Regards, Pericles of Athens^Talk 22:23, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can't access the article either, but I would recommend WP:RX, so far they've been able to get everything that I wanted. Catrìona (talk) 04:42, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Catrìona: You'll be happy to know that I have lodged a formal request at WP:RX for access to Orland et. al. "Psychiatric Assessment of Cleopatra" (1990). Hopefully someone from the WikiProject will get back to me within a reasonable amount of time. In the meantime, is there some other freely accessible article online that you would like to see being cited in this article? Pericles of Athens^Talk 02:48, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whether a source is freely accessible is irrelevant to judging the comprehensiveness of an article. In this case that point is largely met, so I'm ~~tentatively~~ supporting on sources. Catrìona (talk) 03:23, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Catrìona: Excellent! Thanks for your tentative support. When and if someone at WP:RX responds and provides excerpts from or access to Karger.com, then I will gladly incorporate views and input from Orland's journal article into our article. Regards, Pericles of Athens^Talk 03:42, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Catrìona: UPDATE! A project member over there at WP:RX has generously provided me with the article by Orland et. al., and this has produced both good news and bad news. First, the bad news: Orland's article is rather disappointing and anticlimactic. I would describe some of the language in it to be somewhat unprofessional for an article in a medical journal, to be honest. I was expecting a lot more, but it did lead me to at least one good source on a related topic, which brings me to the good news! After accessing Saul Jericho's 1969 article "The correspondence of Morgagni and Lancisi on the death of Cleopatra" via JSTOR, I have gone ahead and decided to cite him in the article on the subject of early modern literature discussing Cleopatra's cause of death. You can now see a new paragraph on the subject in the "Cause of Death" section, although I don't think we need to explore the topic further. Thankfully this fills a large gap in the article where it jumps from discussion about ancient authors to modern scholars in their assessment of Cleopatra's demise, showing that there was at least some debate about this issue in the centuries between antiquity and the modern era. Pericles of Athens^Talk 08:12, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Citing Jarcho in the article also conveniently knocks off one source from your list of suggestions above. I hope you find this to be sufficient! Pericles of Athens^Talk 08:18, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Catrìona: Another update! After noticing how Cilliers and Retief's article is freely available online, I have decided to include their input as well! Again, it can be found in the "Cause of death" section. That's two articles from your list that are now cited in the article. Pericles of Athens^Talk 09:11, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking into this and expanding the article slightly. Unfortunately, one often has to access the sources in question to tell if they are useful or not. I've struck the word "tentatively" above. Catrìona (talk) 17:22, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome. Have a happy New Year!Pericles of Athens^Talk 22:28, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Kaiser matias edit

"According to a popular belief..." This may be a dialect difference, but I have never seen the definite article used, so it would just be "According to popular belief."

"Modern scholars debate the validity of ancient reports involving snakebites as the cause of death and even if she was murdered or not." This is more a stylistic choice, but I feel the "even" is unnecessary; after reading it again I understand why it's there (it shows another issue of debate), but I also feel it could be dropped (I initially read the sentence to show modern scholars debating the preceding sentences, discussing snakebites, and the "even" came out as another point of contention, if that makes sense). I just wanted to note that, but it isn't going to sway my overall support.

"Her suicide allowed her..." Is there a way to write this to not have her repeated twice here? Just seems bunched up.

This may be getting too much into the historiography of it all, but is there any older sources that discuss the specific date? Do any of the primary sources, or anything earlier than the modern era write about it? If so it may be worth including them here.

Overall not a lot that I see. While a short article it is really fascinating, and like the look at the historiography of the subject, as well as the copious artwork used here. Kaiser matias (talk) 23:34, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kaiser matias: hello! Thanks for reviewing the article. I was busy with family holiday gatherings these past few days, of course, so I wasn't able to address this earnestly until now. As you can see with my latest edits, I have slightly reworded each of the passages you mentioned. I'm glad you don't see any glaring problems with the article as it stands now. To answer your question about older sources possibly discussing a specific date for her death, I will refer you to the "Date of death" section of the article where this is explained: "There are no surviving records dating Cleopatra's death.[60] Theodore Cressy Skeat deduced that she died on 12 August 30 BC on the basis of contemporary records of fixed events along with cross examination of historical sources.[60]" So no, there is no source that provides a specific date; this is something that modern scholars had to reconstruct using various primary sources as a guide. Sometimes ancient histories ranging from Chinese to Greek historiography provide exact dates for specific births, deaths, battles, even solar and lunar eclipses, but unfortunately in this case we are lacking that. Perhaps it was provided in some history or another that is now lost, so Plutarch and others didn't feel the need to repeat it (especially since his work was a biography about Antony, not Cleopatra per se). You can also tell that Plutarch, in various passages, expects his readers to know certain things as being obvious, glossing over stuff that we in modern times would otherwise love to know. It's certainly frustrating! However, that goes with the territory of examining primary sources that are so old, and in many cases fragmentary. I hope that answers your question! Regards, Pericles of Athens^Talk 00:41, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I seemed to have missed that on my earlier look through. Impressed with the article, has my support. Kaiser matias (talk) 04:25, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kaiser matias: Great! Thanks for the support and your kind words about the article. Regards, Pericles of Athens^Talk 04:32, 27 December 2018 (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. Ian Rose (talk) 11:55, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 11:56, 27 December 2018 [20].

Lynchburg Sesquicentennial half dollar edit

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 20:13, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... a coin that was issued for a rather small Virginia city in 1936. There was no particular scandal, but the coin is made more interesting by the fact it was the first U.S. coin to show a living person by him or herself (to date, I think it has happened only three times). Enjoy.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:13, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Ceoil edit

Have read through over last hour and made some trivial copy edits. This is the usual accomplished stuff by this editor; very tight writing. Support on prose; for some reason the phrase "with no known hoards" tickles my imagination. Ceoil (talk) 00:22, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley edit

I second Ceoil's comments. I've made one trivial amendment and am thoroughly satisfied with the current text. Tim riley talk 16:41, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Usernameunique edit

Background

Profits from the sale of coins were used to defray the cost of the anniversary celebrations. — Any idea what the costs were?

The sources don't go into that.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:28, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What would you think about including some background information on the general practice of issuing commemorative coins at the time?

That's what I've tried to do with the information that the government didn't sell them, but a private group. What more do you think we need?--Wehwalt (talk) 02:28, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From the other articles on commemorative coins, it seems as if it might have been a common practice at the time to have special coins authorized by the government in recognition of certain events. In the Coinage of the United States template at the bottom, the vast majority are from 1900 to 1936. What made commemorative coins so popular during these decades? --Usernameunique (talk) 16:26, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone into it more.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:23, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Legislation

Lynchburg Sesquicentennial half dollar — The convention seems to be a hyphen (Sesqui-centennial) with the Association, but otherwise not. Is this correct? There's a confusing "The Sesquicentennial Commission" in "Preparation," however.

Fixed that. Yes, Sesqui-Centennial seems an old usage, but it forms part of the name.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:28, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Robert F. Rich of Pennsylvania — How did he vote?

There was no roll call vote, it passed without objection. Usual for coins.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:28, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Added "without objection" to the article, which I hope you don't object to!

became the Act of May 28... — Is this the official title? If so, it should be in quotation marks to make it clear what is part of the title and what is not. Otherwise, why is "Act" capitalized?

I've rephrased. It is one way of referring to an act.

Preparation

Fred McWane, wrote to Charles S. Moore — What did he say?

That letter is not preserved but Moore is replying to a letter and says so.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:31, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

his commission had decided Senator Glass should appear on the obverse — Anything specific on why they ultimately chose him?

Not beyond what is in the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:31, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The senator stated, "I had hoped there would be an avenue of escape." — Stated then, or some time afterwards?

Judging by the news stories, at the time.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:31, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keck's models were sent to the Medallic Art Company of New York, which reduced them to coin-sized dies. — Are Keck's models extant, and if so, are pictures available? How large were they?

I believe the models would have been returned to the sculptor, at least that seemed the usual course. No idea if they are still around. Photographs are available, and appear both in the September 1936 Numismatist and in Taxay's work. I could include them if you want, although the copyright issue is mildly dodgy as Keck lived until 1951 and we don't know who took the photographs. They would have been on the order of 12 inches in diameter, which was the size that the Janvier reducing lathe could handle.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:00, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures would be nice if you think the copyright issue is resolvable, but up to you.

I think it has to wait for 2022.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:45, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Design

The closed parenthesis seems to be misplaced.

Massaged.

Who were the two living (or four total) people depicted on the other two?

Footnoted.

was aware of the unwritten rule that living people did not appear on U.S. coinage — Seems to somewhat contradict his "hope" in the preceding section that a law forbade it.

I've made it clearer this was a custom. No law actually forbade it (it does for paper currency, but that was a direct response to one incident). But a living person has very rarely (five times) appeared on a US coin, and never on one expected to circulate.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:51, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity (not related to this article), what was the one incident?

Spencer M. Clark.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:45, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

it was deemed well-deserved — By whom?

I'm just rephrasing the source on this one.

but as of 2017, it remains in place. — Update?

Still looking, but that's the most recent I have on it.

Vermeule suggested ... medals for the Assay Commission. — Kinda long, perhaps worth splitting in two.

Production, distribution and collecting

They came on the market during a price boom in commemorative coins — "They" could equally mean the 13 that were held back.

I've tried to make it clearer from context that the marketed coins are meant.

They were formally placed on sale on September 21. — Meaning the 5,000 (or by then fewer) held back for locals?

The source isn't precisely clear on this.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:47, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

second commemorative coin boom in 1980 — Begs the question of what happened during the first one.

The first was 1936. The new matter you've requested above will help there and I've smoothed out the references to it.

their value helped by the wide distribution of the mintage, with no known hoards. — Why is this? One might think that hoards would create artificial scarcity (fewer coins on the market) that could drive up prices.

Yes but sooner or later they come on the market and the prices crash. And it's not a real scarcity so prices don't go up as much in advance, if the existence of the hoards is known.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:12, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

#7–10: Links?

I'm not certain it's worth it for the small number of people who seem to have Congressional ProQuest and who could easily search for the information if they do.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:28, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

These are US Government publications, so they are in the public domain. The relevant law, for instance, is available here. Ref #10 is here. Ref #11 is here. Ref #9—which incidentally should say "4448," not "448"—is partially sourced here and here. Google Books probably has some of these; occasionally they are only available as snippet view, and you have to request full view access from Google (using the "Report an issue" link at the bottom of the page, followed by "I have a question or feedback about a book" and then "I’d like to see the entire book, and I believe the book is in the public domain"). Usually takes less than a week for them to respond. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:29, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks, will add those probably tomorrow.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:28, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've added them. I avoided the gBooks link and gone ahead and given the ProQuest URL. Thank you for what look like some useful links.

As to your point about the number of people with Congressional ProQuest, the Google Books links (if indeed available) might be more helpful, but thanks for including links for each.

#27–28: These are probably still under copyright, but are they in a database (e.g., JSTOR) somewhere, or otherwise linkable?

I've added links though it is subscriber (ANA members, mostly I think) only.

Up to you, but you might consider a "last name[s] year, page#" convention rather than a "last name[s], page#" convention.

I'm going to let it stand. It works.

Sources

Bullowa 1938: You could add a {{closed access}} or {{subscription required}} template.

I know there's been discussion about whether to add a subscription tag if there's a JSTOR number, the argument being that JSTOR is sufficient warning. But this is a coin article, so I've added one.

Slabaugh 1975: You refer to the edition as "second ed.", but use "4th ed." for Yeoman 2018.

Good catch. Fixed.

Yeoman, R. S.: Is the book published under his initials, or first name?

Under the initials.

A strong article, as others have said. Comments, predominantly minor, are above. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:08, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your thorough review. I think I've done or responded to everything.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:28, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've cleaned up whatever was left.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:50, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, Wehwalt. I've made some predominantly minor edits to the article, and added a few comments/responses above; whatever your response to them, I'm happy to support. Nice work! --Usernameunique (talk) 04:45, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review and source review. I'll look over the closing comments further.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:45, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

The coin images need to clarify that photograph's copyright; coins are 3D objects so a 2D photo of them can include creative choices by the photographer and thus a photographer copyright.

These are images uploaded (as the original image was) by Bobby131313. He neglected to add a copyright tag. I enquired at WP:MCQ a while back and the response I got was that uploading them to Commons indicated an intent to license them.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:50, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:CGlass.jpg needs a better description. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:35, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

License looks a bit dodgy too. I've replaced it with a copy with all the info and a proper license. Thank you for your comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:51, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jo-Jo, can I just confirm you're good with the image check? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:37, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say this is acceptable. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:58, 27 December 2018 (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. Ian Rose (talk) 11:56, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 23:30, 26 December 2018 [21].

Seleucus VI Epiphanes edit

Nominator(s): Attar-Aram syria (talk) 07:06, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A king so horrible that he was burned alive by his subjects. Thats what ancient historians wrote about Seleucus VI, and this reputation became dominant and many modern historians believed it. Whether this was the case or not, we will not know for certain since we have fragmentary sources and some coins to establish the career of Seleucus VI, who, non the less, was able to put an end to his uncle and rival to the throne; a feat that Seleucus's father could not achieve during a civil war that lasted 17 years. The article is short due to the scarcity of sources. I made sure to include any piece of info that is available in academic sources. An editor from the GOCE did the copy editing. Hope this will be an interesting article. Attar-Aram syria (talk) 07:06, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support comments by Sturmvogel 66 edit

No DABs, external links OK
Overlinked Cilicia
and himself prepared for war Delete "himself"
marched against his nephew but lost and was killed awkward
He was resistant to allowing the cities He resisted allowing...
Lede says Tryphaena was probably his mother, but that's not repeated in the main body.
Priene met Seleucus VI probably in Cilicia Priene "probably" met...
this was not widely accepted by scholars "has not been"...--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:09, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. I created a section for your comment. I hope this was not inappropriate. If it is, please revert me. And thanks for taking the time to review this.

No, not a problem.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:28, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk edit

As usual, I'll have a look soon. FunkMonk (talk) 21:31, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You could link the terms and names mentioned in captions, and explain their relation to the article's subject (something I've forgotten to suggets in earlier FACs).
"Antiochus VIII married the Ptolemaic princess" Was he monarch at the time?
Link Seleucid dynasty (and everything else) at first mention outside the intro.
"sought to emphasize his descent by depicting himself on the coinage with an exaggerated hawk-nose in the likeness of his father" How do we know he didn't simply have such a nose?

All is fixed. Antiochus VIII was king (his first year). I believe Seleucus's actually had this nose, but not as huge as the one appearing in the infobox photo. this coin shows him with a normal nose actually. Another point is that his brothers (such as Antiochus XI Epiphanes, Antiochus XII Dionysus, Demetrius III Eucaerus) appeared with that same nose. Historians dont think this is a coincidence especially that Antiochus VIII was surnamed "Grypus" (hook-nose), and in a country where the lines of Antiochus VIII and IX were fighting, it was important for the sons of Grypus to remind the people that they are the sons of the legitimate king (for ten years Antiochus VIII was the sole king until his brother Antiochus IX decided to rebel.) I have no source for this explanation so I cant add it. The only thing mentioned by the source is that the sons of Antiochus VIII emphasized their descent through their noses

I think you could introduce Antiochus VIII as a monarch at first mention then. Otherwise it isn't clear he was that until the quote.

Done

"and confined his nephew's to" His nephew's what?

Forces. I think the copy editor thought that readers will make the connection. I deleted the 's because its enough to say that Antiochus IX's forces confined Seleucus VI

You could link Antiochus VIII, Antiochus XI and Philip I in the image captions.

Done

"King Antiochus IV allowed" What was their relation?

Oh too distant. Antiochus IV was the uncle of Seleucus VI great grandfather

"erected by the island of Delos" On the island?

fixed

"reconstructed by Théophile Homolle" Give year?

done

Does this statue still exist, and are there photos?

No sadly. Only the base and I could not find any photos of it

"Egyptian wife Tryphaena" in the intro and "Ptolemaic princess Tryphaena" in the article. I know the two terms could be considered interchangeable here, but might be best with consistency.

done

Support - looks good to me, with such a flurry of confusingly similar names, it is good to link and present them all in image captions henceforward (I should had brought it up during earlier FACs too). FunkMonk (talk) 17:15, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support comments by Mr rnddude edit

I don't know all that much about the Seleucid empire, other than that it was founded by one of Alexander's trusted generals after his death, but I'll help out with some notes for a start.

Sources:

Several sources have been flagged as missing "pagenums for book chapter". In order: Adrian Dumitru (2016), Eugenia Equini Schneider (1999a and b), Hope W. Hogg (1911), Arthur Houghton (1992), Marion Meyer (2001), Claudia Tempesta (2013), and Nicholas L. Wright (2011).
A bunch have also been flagged for "missing archive link", but perfect is the enemy of good here.

Thanks for this thorough review. I added the pages numbers, but Im not sure what do you mean by "missing archive link"

It's the most common of all error prompts, at least for me. It's mostly about the possibility of links breaking and there not being a back-up. I don't know about creating archive links, and it's too minor to worry about. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:22, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Citations:

There's two instances of p/pp errors:

Citation 38: p. 72, 73 should be pp. 72–73 Use an endash when pages are in series, and a comma when they are not.
Citation 58: Lorber & Iossif 2009, p. 102, 103 should be pp. 102–103.

I appreciate your use of links where possible to allow readers, reviewers, and anyone else to navigate directly to the page to check the source themselves. That's neat.

corrected

Images

I note that none of the images (except in the infobox) have alternative captions. These are vital for our visually impaired readers who cannot see the image.

With the image "Seleucus VI's statue.jpg", you might consider transliterating or translating the text for the alt caption. I suspect that most readers, particularly laymen, aren't going to be able to read the Greek text with any ease.
With the image "Syria under the Seleucids 95 BC.svg" you might very well just use the "image description" for the alt text.
With the coins, since they are all obverse and reverse, just describe what is being shown. E.g. for "Antiochus VIII.jpg" perhaps something like portrait of Antiochus VIII on the obverse; depiction of Zeus holding a star and staff on the reverse. Preferably in more detail though.

Done

Four of the six images are of coins, which isn't a great variety. However, I do appreciate that it is difficult to obtain likenesses of many ancient figures except in mint struck form.
I checked, briefly, the copyright status of each image. I didn't detect any issues. Each image is tagged with an appropriate license.

That's the basic "errors" based check for now. I'll start doing a prose review next. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:34, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

Note 10: was accepted by many scholars - was, being past tense, implies no longer, and so should be has been.

Here Im not sure. it was accepted at the time by some scholars. Those scholars are dead now but they kept their acceptance until they died. But modern scholars still accept this attribution. So what should be written here?

Has been is perfect present tense, so it means: it was true then, and it continues to be true now. E.g. Work has been an accepted part of human life since the dawn of agriculture. In our context it means that Homolle's original identification continues to be accepted by scholars. Hope that clarifies. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:22, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected

Note 8: was the most-eastern point - Uh, eastern-most isn't it?
Note 8: However, it is known that following - While I understand what you're attempting to do here: indicate, without outright declaring, that Haym is wrong. It's unnecessary to tell the reader that a fact is a fact. Remove it is known that. The reader should be able to piece the facts together.
Note 7: autonomous coins issued by the city - Coins have autonomy? autonomously issued coins or coins issued by the autonomous city.
Note 5: 0.5 g.reduced - remove the second period.
Note 4: Historian Jan Willem van Henten suggested that the intended king was Seleucus VI rather than Seleucus I, but den Dulk rejected this hypothesis as the author of 4 Maccabees mentioned that "Seleucus Nicanor" reigned before the time of the Jewish high priest Onias III, who is separated from Seleucus VI by almost a century, making the identification of "Seleucus Nicanor" with Seleucus VI difficult. - At 64 words this is a very long and strenuous sentence to read. You can split this sentence in several places, though I'd propose: 1. ... rather than Seleucus I. Den Dulk rejects this hypothesis [as/because] .... 2. ... almost a century. This makes the ....
Note 2: The name Zaleucus is etymologically related to brightness; the historian Frank Adcock agreed with the linguist Otto Hoffmann who considered Seleucus and Zaleucus different pronunciations of the same name - Why is there a semi-colon after brightness instead of a full stop? The two statements don't appear to bear any connection to each other.

Done for the rest of the notes

Death and Legacy

The city of Athens shared a close relation with the Seleucid kings and statues of Syrian monarchs set up by Athenian citizens on the island of Delos testify to that - I had to read this two or three times to get the correct meaning. I would put a comma after Seleucid kings.
... the first, and oldest ... - 1. Normally I'd expect the list to include "the second, by Appian" and "the third, by Eusebius". 2. By the laws of logic, the first account is, by necessity, going to be the oldest. Hence remove the first.

Done

Reign in the capital and the war against Antiochus X

Seleucus IV only controlled Cilicia and Syria Seleucis (Northern Syria) - I only control my house. So by no means does Seleucus IV get to complain about the size of his domain. That is to say, remove only as a subjective term.

Done

the archaeologist Alfred Bellinger believed that the king prepared for his coming war against Antiochus X in Elaiussa. In 144 SE (169/168 BC), King Antiochus IV allowed - Antiochus IX is defeated by Seleucus in 95 BC. You've just set the stage for the coming war between Selecus VI and Antiochus X (son of Antiochus IX). Then, in the next sentence, we're moving back 75 years to the time of Antiochus IV. Suddenly I'm thrust out of impending war, into city politics. For me this segment belongs in a separate later paragraph, or even in the following section: but not before the end of Seleucus VI's reign - So after his death?

You are right. I rearranged the paragraph and re-wrote some sentences. Hope its more logical now.

Sure that works. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:22, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Antiochus X's quest to avenge his father led him to face Seleucus VI - 1. Stating the obvious. We've already established that Seleucus VI killed Antiochus IX, and that Antiochus X is Antiochus IX's son. It follows then that Antiochus X and Seleucus VI are at conflict. 2. quest to avenge - Belongs in a novel, not an encyclopedic article.

Done

I have no serious comments about prose in the earlier sections of the article. It's both concise and clear. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:18, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a second sweep and haven't noted anything else. I check about a third of the linked references, and they all checked out for me. Happy to support. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:13, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note edit

Well this one has kind of fallen through the cracks -- I note Mr rnddude has commented on sources and images but I'm not sure that we've had the reliability of the references assessed, nor the licensing of the images. If not, we should list requests for those at the top of WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:07, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I asked on the talk page.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 11:17, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Images seem OK to me although I have to wonder why File:Syria under the Seleucids 95 BC.svg shows 20-21th century dams. Regarding sources:

Josephus did not really live in the 19th century, did he?

Well no, he didn't. That's why there's an "orig-year" next to the publishing year: Josephus (1833) [c. 94]. That particular edition of the ancient work was published in the 19th century. The same as for the ancient sources of Appian and Eusebius, and for Libanius except in 1992. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:07, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is it normal that the sources are so heavily weighted towards numismatics? I know that coins are a major source of information for that time and Google Scholar'ing "Seleucus VI" seems to support this notion.

They are our only source aside from short sentences in ancient literature. So it is inevitable

Are "Modern Library", "Fontemoing & Cie" and "Mnemosyne, Bibliotheca Classica Batava." good publishers?

Mnemosyne, Bibliotheca Classica Batava is the title of the series; Brill is the publisher. Fontemoing & Cie is the publisher of Pierre Roussel in 1916; whether it is a good publisher or not is not relevant here as Im using the work published by them because Roussel chose them as his publisher and I have to use this source to cite Roussel's reading of the inscription (In any case, works published by Fontemoing & Cie are cited by many modern scholars, as a search on google books will show). The work published by Modern Library is by Peter Green, a respected historian. However, I replaced the work of Green

Didn't do any spotchecks but source formatting seems OK to me.

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:51, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Replying to ping: I made a few comments on the sources and images relating to formatting. I looked briefly at the image licensing, for any red flags, but I don't have the necessary competence to do a proper image review. As for a source review, I'll give it a closer look when I get the chance. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:29, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

All images appropriately licensed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:41, 22 December 2018 (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. Ian Rose (talk) 23:30, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 23:16, 26 December 2018 [22].

Ludwigsburg Palace edit

Nominator(s): ♠Vami _IV†♠ 23:08, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome (back) to the "Versailles of Swabia," one of the largest palace complexes in Germany. After a detailed GAN, I nominated Ludwigsburg Palace for FAC at the start of August. The nomination ended in failure, so I let a month of time elapse before re-nominating and incorporating editor commentary on the previous FAC. Here's to progress! –♠Vami _IV†♠ 23:08, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tony1 edit

1a, opening two sentences:

"Ludwigsburg Palace (German: Residenzschloss Ludwigsburg), also known as the "Versailles of Swabia", is a 452-room ~~palace~~ complex of 18 buildings ~~located~~ in Ludwigsburg, Germany. Together W[w]ith the ~~added~~ gardens ~~around the palace~~, its ~~Ludwigsburg Palace's total~~ area is ~~amounts to~~ 32 ha (3,400,000 sq ft)~~, making it~~—the largest palatial estate in the country ~~Germany~~." ... Does it get better? And why not a conversion to acres to save us the millions and millions. Does "German" (language) really need to be linked? "Germany" certainly doesn't need to be—unless the reader is Trump or a five-year-old kid. The country-link will be in the Ludwigsberg article, anyway. Later, I see the garden alone is "3,400,000 sq ft": how can that be?

Tony (talk) 10:32, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find a source claiming it was the biggest palace in Germany - just one of. Even though, but total area, it definitely is (eat it, Würzburg!). I've added all your suggestions, also. –Vami

"In 2016, the Ludwigsburg Palace attracted some 330,000 visitors." Now it's "the"; but that's missing from the very opening. Which is it to be in a grammaticalised sentence (as opposed to the article title)? And why not "the Palace"?
- Oh man, good catch! Fixed now. –Vami

Vami, I was indicating that you need to do far, far more than just fix what I pointed out in the opening two sentences. Have you printed out the text and struck through all the woolly wording throughout? Tony (talk) 02:13, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On it. –♠Vami _IV†♠ 04:43, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Tony1: Finished. –♠Vami _IV†♠ 14:10, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"In 2017, 350,642 people visited Ludwigsburg Palace." It's a phone number. Good case for passive voice.
How do you "sort out" paintings?
English can be ugly if you want it to be: "Ludwigsburg Palace exhibits a great deal of Austrian and Czech Baroque influence,"—shows? reveals?
I see lots of "would" future tense. Use it a bit, but not more, please. "that was then carried out by" rather than "that would then be carried out by".

Fixed. –Vami

At least the spot-check found better prose than the opening two sentences (above). Tony (talk) 13:02, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I missed your comment, but it's okay been I addressed it now. Thanks for getting back to me. –♠Vami _IV†♠ 18:12, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jmar67 (JM) edit

I was asked by Gerda and Vami to do another copy edit (first one several weeks ago). I have finished an initial pass and welcome feedback. Jmar67 (talk) 22:05, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See also article talk page. --JM
@Vami IV: Should be "Alter Hauptbau" and "Neuer Hauptbau". --JM
- Fixed, and thank you for your copyedits thus far. –Vami

Comments and support from Gerda edit

Thank you for the invitation to an impressive article about an impressive building! I'll read the lead, but will comment on it last, and do little steps, commenting as I read.

I don't need such a long hatnote. The other palace, fine, but both the socalled "city" (town?) and the porcelain will be linked in the article, - let's get to the topic ;)
I formatted the infobox a bit. I don't see any advantage in having it collapsed, just more white space. The "alt" text shouldn't be a repetition of the caption, but explain to a blind person what you see on the image. Please, generally, avoid fixed image sizes, - upright factors (from 0.7 to 1.3) respect users' preferences.

TOC

The table of contents looks clear, but I wonder if "Hauptbau" is a good a idea, once we started with "palace", and readers may be unfamiliar with the term. Perhaps better use "main building" and introduce the German in the text?

Changed Old and New Hauptbau headers back to North and South wings and introduced translated text in parentheses. –Vami

Do we really need 5 headers for the references. (I normally have only 3: (foot)notes, references, and cited sources.)

No. That is why they are not headers. –Vami

History

What do you think of having the plan in the architecture section, where (hopefully) the German terms get explained?

Done. –Vami

How about the name of the builder in German, which would make the explanation of Ludwigsburg much easier? I strongly believe that his name should be at least mentioned in his article ;)

First paragraph: "Eberhard Louis renamed the estate after himself (German: Ludwigsburg, lit. 'Louis's Castle') in 1705" –Vami

That's what I mean. His name was "Eberhard Ludwig", or the place would be Louisburg or what. Really too bad that so many noble people travel in the English Wikipedia only by translated names. Common name is fine, but real name should also show, if you ask me. (Not your fault, but we could start adding a real name in an article like this.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:27, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I've added a clipped image of the duke's portrait with his German name. –Vami

Can we link to the palaces of Munich, instead of the present-day city? (like you do for Versailles)

Done. Moved link to the same sentence I linked Versailles in and replaced the first mention with "Nymphenburg Palace." –Vami

How about linking "architectural trends ..." to Baroque architecture?

Done. –Vami

"city"? - Project Germany defines a city as something with at least 100,000 inhabitants. I'd prefer "town". See Town privileges

But later granted city status. --JM

I'd call it town status, or say that it receive town privileges. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:09, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed --JM

Perhaps it's just too late, but I don't get the meaning of the run-on sentence beginning "E L decided ...". Split in two, or three? And what does overture mean here?

Not a run-on sentence, just somewhat lengthy and awkward. I have changed. "Overture" = proposal, offer. --JM

No need to say "Duke E L" once he's introduced. Just name, or "the duke".

Fixed. –Vami

In an article about something German, I don't think you have to say "German:" everytime something is translated, - it should be default.

Done. –Vami

Need sleep. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:36, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Construction

I am no friend of squeezed text between images left and right, in general. In particular, the Courtyard image looks finished, not like construction ;) (actually: nor do the others) - Any other location for that? Better English names in the caption.

Unsandwiched a lot of the article. Did I go too far? –Vami

"first stone" - "cornerstone"?

Done. –Vami

I am no friend of mixing English and German, as Old Hauptbau. At least Old Hauptbau. And a translation of the German part?

"Hauptbau" would produce "Main building," thus "Old Main building," which is thoroughly unsexy. –Vami

Don't get me wrong, I don't want you to use the thoroughly unsexy name throughout the article, but once explain please what Hauptbau means. Or: use Alter Hauptbau, after explaining once what that means. Or: say old Hauptbau. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:53, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Changed my mind: keep the courtyard image, but in the caption use the terms from the text. Move the 19th century thing below.
explain "absorbing"?

Changed to "incorporating" --JM

please don't use the fixed template in FACs, - some of the FA people are allergic to templates ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:55, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be WP:OR from poor translating from Swiss German (Bieri), corrected. –Vami

Donato Giuseppe Frisoni - he was introduced before, but I didn't make the connection that Donato Frisoni was the same person. How about same name, or just last name, which would tell people that they should know him?

Fixed; abbreviated to "Frisoni". –Vami

Thank you for the fixes. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:53, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More later. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:09, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Use as a residence

Why not simply "Residence"?

Done --JM

Images: the view is decorative but not much more, Casanova should look "in" and could be normal upright.

Done. –Vami

For fairness: in "Duke Eberhard Louis left no heirs and was succeeded by Karl Alexander." - let both be Duke, or both not ;)

Done --JM

another "city"

Done --JM

"... use Ludwigsburg as a secret residence until 1775 and brought the Rococo style to Ludwigsburg in 1747." - I'd end the sentence after 1775, otherwise the chronology seems disturbed.

Tweaked --JM

"such as when" - really?

Is OK. --JM

It is OK but not elegant. The palace is elegant. Thank you for tha many fixes! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:08, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would not call it "elegant" either but it is not jargon. It is perfectly correct for giving an example. I would not have made this change. --JM

Will readers know what Schlosstheater means?

Fixed. –Vami

What is an "opera hall"?

Changed to "opera house" –Vami

"himself succeeded"?

Is OK. --JM

just curious: why not simply "he succeeded"? - I try to avoid "however" and "himself" ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:08, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This was there for rhetorical reasons, because he had succeeded his predecessor earlier in the sentence. I don't know what you have against "however". I use it often. --JM

"Charlotte, Princess Royal, daughter of King George III" - "Charlotte, the daughter of King George III" would suffice.

Done --JM

"Friedrich II, now Frederick I" - I'll never understand these noble names ;)

Anglicized every instance of "Friedrich II" and added the distinction of "Duke" –Vami

"felt that he had to express this accomplishment in architecture, as Eberhard Louis had attempted" - no way that Eberhard Ludwig could have expressed the same acomplishment (and which anyway) - the wording sounds translated to me, but I may be wrong.

Done --JM

"... remodeling, this time the Ordenskapelle and the king's apartment, which lasted from 1808 to 1811" - sounds like the apartment lasted.

Done --JM

"Neuer Hauptbau's" - just no, we can't add an English possessive to a German term.

Done --JM

Is this an established rule? I find it OK. We are using these terms for convenience and should treat them as English words. --JM

I have modified the prose to remove the possessive –Vami

"then-modern tastes" - not happy. "in the latest style"?

Done --JM

any better word instead of a repeated "take place".

Done --JM

More later. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:22, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Later history

The first image caption is needlessly long, - all we'd need to know is that it was used for important contracts and trials ;) - Put rest in the body, if really needed. - Please link trial in caption, for those who only look at pics ;)
- Done. –Vami
"restoration took place at"?
- Fixed. –Vami
Second paragraph: first sentence combines 2 things by "and" which are not connected, opening to the public, and ratification.
- Fixed. –Vami
Too much math: the following year - four years later.
- Fixed. –Vami
How about combining the two Sitzmann visits? The second has more substance, - do we need the first at all?
- Axed first visit, revised second. –Vami
Is the Lego thing notable if the company has no article in German?
- Guess not; axed. –Vami
The sentence about the painting attribution is too complex to follow, - make it three?
- Simplified and whittled down into two. –Vami
Am I the only one to find visitor numbers a bit boring? - How about one?
- Axed. –Vami
"to arrange the Neuer Hauptbau" - arrange? refurbish? whatever, but not arrange. - More later. Vacation from tomorrow, be prepared for delays ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:49, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. –Vami

Architecture

I'd not link Austro-Czech, and perhaps better not even use it. The later link (Bohemian Baroque) is the one that would fit, while Sudenten German is plain wrong.

Fixed. Not that it matters, but that was actually not an error of my making. –Vami

I don't understand the "but" in the sentence with the (too?) many names.

Removed. –Vami

It's debatable if the people mentioned before should get a repeated link, but certainly not a repeated red link. I'd give no first names to those mentioned before, reminding readers that they should know them.

Fixed. I translated one of those bios, and a number of others were faulty links (oops). –Vami

I don't understand the "also" in the sentence about the interior, nor what "Baroque influences" means.

Fixed sentence. I removed "Baroque" from the sentence and added a semicolon to punctuate the "also", a reference to the mix of Baroque styles that is the palace exteriors. –Vami

"King Frederick I, at the time Duke Frederick II" - I think "Duke Frederick II" would be better.

Done. –Vami

Sorry, the whole paragraph strike me as unconvincing. Perhaps I should read first what follows. An overview of the styles, perhaps with some years attached, is desirable, but a load of unknown names is not that. Tired, sorry. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:50, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll consider methods of expanding/improving the paragraph as you dictate. –♠Vami _IV†♠ 14:42, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The deed is done. How does it read now? –♠Vami _IV†♠ 18:40, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Much better, thank you! - How about - once we are next to the plan, say which part was made by whom when - at least for major parts as Alter and Neuer Hauptbau? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:23, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By ruler (Eberhard Louis built all the exteriors) or by architect? Both? I also cover that, building by building, in the following sections. –♠Vami _IV†♠ 18:19, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure it will come in the details, but here is the plan, and here you could make the connections of architect, year and building, but only for important ones. That could actually also go to the lead then, pleasing Dr. Blofeld. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:51, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the lead now. –♠Vami _IV†♠ 19:41, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reading again:

Can we avoid repetitions more, Baroque, Czech Baroque, more Czech. - I wonder if Bohemian would be more precise.

Done. –Vami

Prague and Vienna come as a surprise after we heard of French and Italian.
Can you elaborate? –Vami
We heard about many influences from France and Italy, and then are told that it resembles places in Prague and Vienna, - wouldn't that fit the Bohemian influence better? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:02, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a footnote detailing that Bohemian influence - does that help? –Vami
Can we avoid "whose work Eberhard Louis was familiar with"?
Removed. –Vami
Where would Neoclassical begin?
Where in the prose...? –Vami
Yes. I began a new paragraph for rococo, and a third would be good for neoclassical, only where? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:02, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. I've moved the Rococo bit back into the first paragraph, since it was a single sentence, and gave the whole second paragraph to the Neoclassical. –Vami

North wing

"At the top of the stairs is a guard room and then the beletage's four suites, following the French Baroque model of a living room, audience chamber, and bedroom". Don't we need "are" (not "is") fofr more than one? I only count to 3, not 4, in the model.

No. There is one guard room, hence "is". I've made some revision to the sentence(s; I split the quoted material). –Vami

"Eberhard Louis's apartment is made unique by the addition of a hall of mirrors ..." - suggest: The apartment of EL features a unique hall of mirrors".

Done. –Vami

"houses the two galleries" - do we know them already? " houses two galleries"?

Oops. Removed. –Vami

General: How about using this paragraph to once more connect the German terms from the plan to what they mean in English, and in the later paragraphs use one or the other, without repeating the translation. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:02, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you are referring to the "Eastern/Western Galleries" here. Since they're not named on the map nor a major part of the palace, I've taken their title-case names away. –Vami

More to come. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:23, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"piece of clockwork" - why "piece of"? link "clockwork"?

As it turns out, that piece of clockwork is actually all the clockwork from Zwiefalten. Fixed now. –Vami

"joined to it"? - "connected to it"?

Done. –Vami

Why north wing, but Western Gallery? Add German names for galleries?
"peacetime - warfare"? Peace - War?

Done. –Vami

link the virtues, or Virtues?

Done. –Vami

"Above the entire gallery is Colomba's Gigantomachy", - I'd offer a bit of explanation, what it is (ceiling freco?) and what it shows, - yes, there's a link, but I had no idea before clicking.

Added. –Vami

East wing

not sure how a building can begin a wing, as in the first sentence.

Fixed. –Vami

"on the ceiling of the beletage by Leopoldo Retti, preserved from the 1720s" - I think saying something was different style and then back to the former is fine, but "on the ceiling of the beletage by Leopoldo Retti from the 1720s" would imply it was there all the time, no? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:20, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is the Östlicher Kavaliersbau, not the Riesenbau. –Vami
?? We are under East wing, and the question is: do we need the "preserved"?
Axed both instances of "preserved". –Vami
"Joined to the Riesenbau and Östlicher Kavaliersbau by a connecting room on its southern end is the Schlosskapelle" - please no, just to Germanish. Begin with Schlosskapelle, and use joined or connected?

Removed instead (couldn't make work). –Vami

King David is a redirect, and the story possibly begins before he was King, - how about David?

Done. –Vami

"restricted by Protestant doctrine to illustrations of the Apostles", - no, "restricted by Protestant doctrine to illustrations of biblical topics, such as Apostles ..." - link Apostles? - If it's Protestant it was not consecrated.

Done. The Apostles was already linked.

"Beneath the chapel is a crypt that contains all rulers" - how about "A crypt under the chapel is the burial site of all rulers"?

Done. –Vami

"The Schlosskapelle avoided ..." no, - a chapel can't avoid ;)

I... Done. –Vami

I boldly rephrased the ceiling fresco thing, please check and revert ;) - too tired to go step by step. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:28, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thankee. –Vami

West wing

Can you introduce the order right after "Ordensbau", for the connection?

Done. –Vami

"King Frederick I's" - looks strange. "... of King Frederick I"?

Changed to "the king's". –Vami

"due to the difficulty in transporting resources" - what? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:36, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Axed sentence. –Vami

South wing

The sentence about the servant passages comes as a surprise after we reached 1945 already.

Couldn't find a place to fit this, so I axed it. –Vami

"It is home to a statue" - not sure it's the best way to say that.

Fixed. –Vami

"Next are the grand staircases" - same, "next" in what respect?

Removed all instances of "next" like this. –Vami

At the end of the sentence beginning "Pilasters and windows", I don't know what I read. Split? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:37, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. –Vami

Grounds and gardens

"Surrounding the residential palace on three sides are the 32-hectare (79-acre) Blooming Baroque (Blühendes Barock) gardens, which attract 520,000 to 550,000 visitors annually." - Please no. I suggest we first learn about the gardens and their history, then about the strange name which sounds like a marketing name, and then about that the marketing worked. When were the gardens called Blühendes Barock? (A name which is pure nonsense.) And by whom?
"The gardens were to be focused" - hard to believe ;)

Changed to "centered". –Vami

Why south wing but South Garden? Actually I'd understand South Wing, as sort of a name. We just debated Luther monument vs. Luther Monument, ending with the latter.

Reduced garden stature. –Vami

"collection of broderie parterres, bosquets, and an orangery" - not sure that can be called a collection

Axed because who cares. –Vami

didn't we link the dukes often enough?

Enacted a link-pocalypse. –Vami

"filling in the North Garden's terraces to replace it with a large broderie" - replace "them" (the terraces)

Rewrote. –Vami

what are hillocks? link?

Link added. –Vami

"the garden east" - not sure we can say that, and the sentence in which it occurs is good for three

Also rewrote. Rewrites everywhere. –Vami

"the Hohenstaufens" - can we please avoid an English plural for a German word?

Changed to "House of Hohenstaufen". –Vami

Frederick I and/or II - I keep being confused (dropped him once)

Axed to just Frederick I, continuity be damned. –Vami

"which easily became a permanent landmark" - what does "easily" add?

Removed. Sorry about that, I guess the flowery writing of the Blooming Baroque website infected me. –Vami

"40 recreations of fairy tales" - recreations? - I suggest to find a way to link fairy-tale the first time, and be consistent about hyphen or space. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:35, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hyphen added to "fairy-tale" as per Blooming Baroque website theme. –Vami

Favorite

The repetition explaining history is too long for my taste.

Reduced. –Vami

"leaving only the road to the main palace" - what does "leaving" mean here?

Reworded sentence. –Vami

another link to that king, and the the following?

Axed. –Vami

"appointed an elector in 1803 and made a king in 1806" - "made" sounds rather infomal ;)

Changed to "and then a king in 1806". –Vami

Museums

"making it one of the largest in Europe" - I guess we need to say the largest what

Done. –Vami

I'd unpipe the manufacturers of porcelain, they have good names.

I think the sentence, "It also includes porcelain from the manufactories at Meissen, Berlin, Sèvres, and Vienna", works fine. It denotes those links as to manufacturies. Unpiping the links would lead to a lot of "[place] porcelain factory" in English and French. –Vami

do something about these stone sculptors of only local prominence, perhaps no link and just two names, - the French one has at least commons images.

I've banished the Ferettis and fixed the link to Johann Wilhelm Beyer. –Vami

General: the alt texts for images are not yet really telling a blind person what can be seen, - and could you help finding the ill-links for German, Italian, Danish ... people? - The ALT texts for this one, please, ill-links in the next FAC, or actually for all articles you write. Did you see that one of them turned blue, thanks to LouisAlain? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:29, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. On it. Will update on completion. –♠Vami _IV†♠ 20:21, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Finished. –♠Vami _IV†♠ 21:17, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Thank you for great willingness to change. You may go over the alt texts once more, the queens is more visible as described than Casanova, but that's no reason not to support. Good luck! Let's get to Schloss Köthen ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:31, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ceranthor edit

Intending to review the prose here. ceranthor 14:12, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

"In 2017, the palace attracted over 350,000 visitors." - "more than" probably works better than "over" here

Done. –Vami

"Philipp Joseph Jenisch, Johann Friedrich Nette, and Donato Giuseppe Frisoni " - presumably architects, but only the last has a link suggesting that... might add "architects" before listing their names

Added. –Vami

"It then survived World War II intact, the only palace of its kind to do so," - seems a bit vague - of its "kind" meaning what?

Changed to "It survived [...] of its size". –Vami

History

"Meanwhile, Nette began the interior of the Alter Hauptbau, which he would never finish. " - not sure that meanwhile adds much here

Removed. –Vami

"Nette made two trips to Prague and his native Brandenburg to expand his pool of talent, in 1708 hiring fresco painter Johann Jakob Stevens von Steinfels (de), stucco workers Tomasso Soldati and Donato Giuseppe Frisoni, then Andreas Quitainner in 1709, then Luca Antonio Colomba, Riccardo Retti and Diego Francesco Carlone." - seems like a run-on

Whittled down a bit. –Vami

"The Bildergalerie was decorated in 1731–32, while the Ahnengalerie was likewise decorated from 1731 to 1733" - be consistent; stick to dash ranges or writing out X "to" Y

Done. If more than one year, I use "[year] to [year]". –Vami

"Charles Eugene began the construction of a new ducal residence in Stuttgart in 1746, but continued to use Ludwigsburg as a secret residence until 1775" - I'd cut the comma before "but continued"

Done. –Vami

"La Guêpière completed the Schlosstheater from 1758 to 1759,[32] adding a stage, machinery, and the auditorium.[33] A wooden opera house, adorned with mirrors, was constructed in 1764–65, located east of the Alter Hauptbau.[4]" - same note as above with date ranges

Done. –Vami

"In 1764, Charles Eugene moved the ducal residence back to Stuttgart and made no more modifications to Ludwigsburg from 1770 onward." - I think this is an uncommon use of "onward", which usually refers to physical direction IMO. I'd replace with "after 1770" or something more prosaic

Did both. –Vami

"Charlotte continued to reside at Ludwigsburg and received many notable visitors from across Europe, among them some of her siblings.[39]" - seems a bit vague to not name any of these visitors

Sources don't list any so I shrank the sentence instead. –Vami

"In the early 1930s, Wilhelm Krämer (de) began hosting the Ludwigsburger Schloßkonzerte (Ludwigsburg Palace Concerts), which comprised six to ten concerts annually from 1933 to 1939, performed in the Order Hall, the Ordenskapelle, or the courtyard.[44]" - might split off the last bit following "performed..." into a separate sentence

Banished to the Shadow Realm instead. –Vami

Architecture

"who were educated in and experienced with Czech Baroque architecture and hired staff also experienced in that style.[16]" - I'd cut out the "also"; seems unnecessary for comprehension

Done. –Vami

"His friend and partner Antonio Isopi" - business partner, or romantic/sexual?

Fixed, "working partner". –Vami

"more grounded Classical form that would then be carried out by Johannes Klinckerfuß" - who is this? there's no article, so you should give a brief identifier for the lay reader (aka me)

Done. –Vami

" In 1810, the rooms on the beletage were remodeled in Neoclassical," - missing the word "style", perhaps?

Added. –Vami

"built from 1715 to 1719 to house courtiers" - is "to" the right word here?

Done, changed to "for housing courtiers". –Vami

"The Schlosskapelle avoided major remodeling in the 19th century and is today the most original area of the palace.[69][18]" - bit vague what you mean by original here. I think you mean not restored, but it's not crystal clear IMO

Axed. –Vami

"The final and southernmost part of the east wing is the 490 feet (150 m) long Ahnengalerie," - Should be foot, not feet. Add "|adj=on" to the conversion template and that should fix it.

Missed that, added. –Vami

"The Ordenskapelle was given its current appearance from 1746 to 1748 by Johann Christoph David Leger" - "given its current appearance"? What does this mean?

Also axed. –Vami

Grounds and gardens

"which attract 520–550,000 visitors annually." - previously, when listing date ranges, you've shortened the latter number rather than the first. keep it consistent throughout

Done. –Vami

"and attracted over 500,000 visitors by the end of May" - more than, not over

Fixed. –Vami

"but was restored true to form from 1972 to 1982.[109]" - "true to form" meaning?

Removed. –Vami

"around 400 paintings" - about, not around

Fixed. –Vami

"over 4,500 exhibits of examples of porcelain, ceramics, faience, and pottery" - more than, not over

Fixed. –Vami

"children over four years of age about life" - same as above

Changed to "four years of age or older". –Vami

General

Restating this, but be consistent with either dash ranges for dates/years or writing out X "to" Y

Since fixed, I think. If work took place within two years, I use a dash. If not, the latter. –Vami

Refs should be in ascending order for consistency's sake - ie., for "Inspired by Munich and Versailles,[4][2]", it should be "Inspired by Munich and Versailles,[2][4]". Let me know if that needs clarifying.

Done. –Vami

Might need some WP:NBSPs - an example would be the break seen here "Michael Hörrmann, the director of the State Agency for Palaces and Gardens, valued the portrait at a minimum of €1 million.[50]"; or here "the Baden-Württemberg State Agency for Palaces and Gardens plans to have spent €4 million to sort out and restore some 500 paintings, 400 pieces of furniture, and 500 lamps, clocks, and sculptures,"
Lots of duplicated links throughout the article body - suggest installing this tool to help!

I have written a very long article and don't want readers scrolling up to get at pertinent links. I have, at least, restricted myself to a single link per section. –Vami

See MOS:DUPLINK; there should generally only be one link in the entire body section. ceranthor 14:04, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Used the tool you gave to vaporize a lot of duplinks, reducing links to one per body section (Architecture, History, etc.). –Vami

Besides a few concerns about vague wording, I think this is engaging and in good shape. Comments above. ceranthor 18:52, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Besides the duplinks, I'm satisfied. I need to run through and read again to see if I missed any prose issues. ceranthor 14:04, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reviewing so far! –♠Vami _IV†♠ 18:07, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Final thoughts

"The palace attracted more than 350,000 visitors in 2017." - I'd move this to the end of the third paragraph of the lead; I don't think it flows well in its current location

Done. –Vami

"Construction began in 1704 with Philipp Joseph Jenisch directing construction for Eberhard Louis, Duke of Württemberg." - repetition of construction is distracting

Fixed, removed second "construction". –Vami

"Opposition to the palace itself was found at the ducal court because of Ludwigsburg's cost.[12]" - such passive voice here, and too much separation between the subject and verb for such a short sentence

Unpacified. –Vami

"Opposition to the palace itself was found at the ducal court because of Ludwigsburg's cost.[12] The populace also chafed at the palace's cost, one pastor in nearby Oßweil (de) saying at his pulpit, "May God spare our land the chastising that the Ludwigsburg brood of sinners conjure."[4]" - perhaps combine the two sentences and make them more concise?

Done. Still two sentences, but now the second is supporting the first rather than being its own thing. –Vami

"The Bildergalerie was decorated in 1731–32, while the Ahnengalerie was likewise decorated from 1731 1733." - missing an endash / two inconsistent date range styles

Simplified sentence, greater detail in "Architecture". –Vami

"As the master builder of what was now decried as the "sin palace", Frisoni and Paolo Retti " - should this be "master builders"?

Changed to "central figures in the construction of [...]" –Vami

"With his death, the nine-year-old Charles Eugene became Duke, beginning a regency that lasted until 1744.[29]" - I might substitute "after" for "With" here

Done. –Vami

"The palace's first restoration took place at the Alter Hauptbau in 1865.[42]" - any records of what happened between 1865 and the public opening?

No. My source jumps to 1939 from there. –Vami

Got about halfway through. Can post more once these are finished. Still noticing inconsistencies for date ranges and other stylistic things like that. ceranthor 14:16, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Final thoughts (continued)

"Today's gardens were created in 1954 and arranged in a Baroque style for Ludwigburg's 250th birthday.[93] " - "today's" reads oddly to me... maybe better as "the current" or "the contemporary" gardens?

Axed as redundant sentence. –Vami

"The gardens comprise smaller themed gardens and the Fairy-Tale Garden (Märchengarten)," - "garden" is repeated three times in such close proximity here

Removed. –Vami

"which contains a folly and depictions of some fairy tales.[94] " - any details on which fairy tales? brief mention couldn't hurt

Added three examples. –Done

"From 1797, Duke Frederick II revived the South Garden in a Neoclassical style by dividing it into four equally sized lawns with a Mediterranean theme." - From 1797 until when?

Changed to "Around 1797", the source only gives 1797 for a date. –Vami

"The canal was filled in, maintenance reduced, and an orchard planted on the southern lawns that was later used to grow potatoes.[101]" - something about this sentence doesn't sit right with me

Revised. –Vami

"ensuring the future of the Blooming Baroque gardens.[102]" - might add "continuity" or something like that after "future"?

Added. –Vami

"and since 1995 one of the original stage pieces has been used for the Children's Stage (Junge Bühne).[33][127]" - one of the lights? bit vague here

A-ha, my source has some more information. The "original stage pieces" referred to a winter background. Added now. –Vami

ceranthor 20:01, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

" Charles Eugene was the next duke to reside at Ludwigsburg from 1747," - same issue as above with "from" with no end date

Fixed. –Vami

"and brought the Rococo style with him." - what does this mean?...

Axed and moved into next sentence. –Vami

"Within the palace itself are two museums operated by the Landesmuseum Württemberg and dedicated to fashion and porcelain." - I'd add respectively assuming these two museums focus on fashion and porcelain, respectively

Added. –Vami

Still going thru and checking date range consistencies. ceranthor 15:09, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for fixing some of those! –Vami

The bit about WWII in the lead doesn't appear to be backed up in the text itself. ceranthor 14:20, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Removed. –Vami

Support on 1a. Sorry for the delay and my onslaught of comments. Great work! ceranthor 13:33, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Blofeld edit

Just a quick passing comment, the lede looks very short for an FA quality article, I don't see any summary of the architecture for instance.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:06, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I gave the lead a can of spinach and it seems to have bulked up pretty good. Now contains an abbreviated architectural history of the palace. –♠Vami _IV†♠ 18:17, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was more some of the architectural details I was looking for, an FA quality article ideally needs to have a summary of each major section written into the lead.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:59, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some detail about each wing to the lead's first paragraph. –♠Vami _IV†♠ 12:14, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley edit

"later used as a residency" What does residency mean here - residence?

Fixed. –Vami

Construction began in 1704 with Philipp Joseph Jenisch directing for Eberhard Louis, Duke of Württemberg." This is clumsy. Maybe "Eberhard Louis, Duke of Württemberg, appointed Philipp Joseph Jenisch to direct the work and construction began in 1704."

Added. –Vami

"Ludwigsburg Palace was opened to the public in 1918. The next year, and 100 years prior, it was where the constitutions of the Free People's State and Kingdom of Württemberg (respectively) were ratified." This is confusing. Maybe "Two constitutions were ratified in the palace, that of the Kingdom of Württemberg in 1819 and the Free People's State in 1919. The palace was opened to the public in 1918.

Done. –Vami

"Following the Battle of Blenheim,[2] Eberhard Louis spent the remainder of 1705 and early 1706 in Nymphenburg Palace.[3] Inspired by Munich and Versailles,[2][4] and having a pretext for a new palace in the Erlachhof,[5] Eberhard Louis renamed the estate Ludwigsburg (Louis's Castle) in 1705 and began studying the architectural trends of his day.[6] Eberhard Louis sent the theologian Philipp Joseph Jenisch [de] to study architecture abroad in 1703 and made him director of construction on his return the next year." This is confusing. You say "the remainder of 1705" but remainder after what? Presumably the battle of Blenheim, but you have not stated the date of the battle and why is it relevant where he stayed? It seems odd to say that the destruction of a hunting lodge was a pretext for building a palace. You then imply that Eberhard Louis was planning the palace in 1705-6 but go back to say in 1703.

I have finished a rewrite of the section. –Vami

"established it as the capital of the Duchy of Württemberg" I think "designated" would be better than "established".

Done. –Vami

"Jenisch returned to Württemberg and began construction from Weiss's plans in 1704" What happened to Weiss? Was Jenisch only instructed to complete Weiss's modest manor house? Why would he have been sent abroad to learn if that was all he was doing? These points need clarifying.

I have no idea who Weiss was, where he came from, or where he went, so I just axed him from the prose. –Vami

"A pastor in nearby Oßweil [de] said of the palace at his pulpit" When?

1709; added. –Vami

"Nette based his plans on those of Jenisch" But as I pointed out above you say that Jenisch was building Weiss's modest manor house.

Fixed in the rewrite, I think. –Vami

It would be easier to follow the construction section if the plan was higher up and larger.

This would displace the portrait of Eberhard Louis and therefore the handy translation of his name and therefore Ludwigsburg. –Vami

"the building authority was aligned with him" What does this mean.

Rewrote this bit, how does it look now?

"so Frisoni brought on Giacomo Antonio Corbellini" I would say "brought in".

Done. –Vami

"decorated from 1731 1733" Presumably between 1731 and 1733.

Fixed. –Vami

"continued to use Ludwigsburg as a secret residence until 1775" Why secret?

Removed "secret". –Vami

"In 1764, Charles Eugene moved the ducal residence back to Stuttgart" You have not said that it had been earlier moved from Stuttgart.

As it turns out, I misread the source - Charles Eugene officially made Ludwigsburg his capital. Fixed now. –Vami

"Ludwigsburg Palace had already been the residence of Frederick II since 1795,[4] who made it his summer residence.[32] On 18 May 1797, the duke married Charlotte, daughter of King George III, at St James's Palace in Westminster.[34] They used Ludwigsburg as their summer residence" Repetition of "residence" three times and "summer" twice.

Fixed. –Vami

More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:58, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for your comments so far. In the course of addressing them I've been stumbling over an abundance of information I missed and have since added. –♠Vami _IV†♠ 17:39, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments
"A witness and his interpreter, an American soldier, being addressed by a civilian lawyer". The caption should say at the Borkum trial. Also the picture description says that it shows the defence counsel addressing the court.

Added. –Vami

"It was originally built just to house the apartments of Eberhard Louis and his daughter-in-law, Princess Henrietta Maria." You say this is 1705-8, but the marriage of Henrietta Maria was not until 1716.

Removed "and his daughter-in-law" –Vami

"The ceiling fresco was lost, when the gallery was divided into smaller rooms from 1808, until its restoration from 2000 to 2004." What does this mean - that the fresco was covered over for a century and revealed when the partitions into smaller rooms were removed?

I misread the source, the frescoes were removed. Fixed now. –Vami

"On the second floor is the duchess' box" duchess' box is ungrammatical.

Fixed. –Vami

"Thouret walled up the first-floor windows in 1807 and 1708 for seating room and for the king's canopied throne under its star-studded semidome." 1808? to increase the seating room?

Yes, fixed. –Vami

" It was built in 1719 and 1920" 1920?

Fixed; it was 1720.

"The actual kitchen, the Küchenbau, was built separate from the palace in its west" to its west?

Fixed. –Vami

"a butcher's shop" Was there a shop inside the kitchen?

Yes. "Inside are seven hearths, a bakery, a butcher's shop, several pantries, and the quarters for the servant staff in the attic and on the first floor."

"The grand staircases on either side of the vestibule, from 1798 called the King's and Queen's Staircases, which lead up to the beletage of the Neuer Hauptbau." This is ungrammatical.

Fixed. –Vami

"The south garden was into four equally sized lawns"?

Fixed. –Vami

"a knight of the House of Hohenstaufen who is."?

Edit scar, removed. –Vami

"Construction of Ludwigsburg Palace began in 1704, but by 1710 Eberhard Louis had decided to use Ludwigsburg Palace as his main residence rather than just a hunting lodge." You say above that he decided in 1704 to build a small palace, not a hunting lodge.

Fixed. –Vami

This is not far off FA, but still needs some work. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:05, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:30, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Johnbod edit

I don't really see any of the four hatnotes are necessary. If anywhere, some should be at Ludwigsburg.

Removed all but one; the German-text quotation, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Foreign-language quotations. –Vami

"Blooming Baroque" gardens - this reads oddly in English. Is it a project/brand name dreamed up for a recent replanting? If so, I think rather too much use of it is made (34 mentions).

Blooming Baroque (translated from Blühendes Barock) is the official name for the gardens of Ludwigsburg Palace. –Vami

Para 2 of the lead is too long & detailed. Too many dukes & too many architects. Save them for later. Or possibly that stuff should be in an overview section below the lead, which also could have the wider context of city & palace, alternate capital & where & what the Duchy of W is anyway (which certainly needs explaining to English-speakers). Now after the lead the article plunges straight into a really detailed & dense history, followed by an equally dense description of the building, which is probably more than most readers will want.

I've trimmed Para 2 down. –Vami

History - you need to integrate the development of the palace & city better. You should probably start by explaining the Duchy of W a bit - trust me, no English-speakers know this. Was the area entirely rural in 1700? How far from from the palace is a) the city, b) Stuttgart?

Done. –Vami

More later. Johnbod (talk) 19:34, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Johnbod, are you still planning to add something? Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:00, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, I was, but if you are ready to close then please go ahead. Johnbod (talk) 15:21, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coord notes edit

Unless I missed them we still need image and source reviews. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:02, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The image review was in archive 1. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:33, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There was a review of Pius Bieri's website "Süddeutscher Barock" in the first archive. Self-published website, but but several authors on Google Books refer to or credit his work in their own. –♠Vami _IV†♠ 19:47, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Has this had a source review that I'm not seeing? --Laser brain (talk) 13:46, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No. See my last response in this subsection. –♠Vami _IV†♠ 14:32, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested! --Laser brain (talk) 14:59, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the source review has been conducted I think we can promote but I note many duplinks in the article -- pls review/rationalise; you can use this script to highlight them. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:15, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

Books

Recommend that exact dates be removed and years used instead for consistency

Done. –Vami

Set this in its own section. Also, how are the news sources not web sources? If I were setting off a section, it would be "official sources" for those published by various parts of the German government.
Curzon is published by a niche press, but she appears to have a decent reputation as an amateur historian and I have no reason to believe that she's unreliable for what she's being cited for. The rest of the publishers appear to be mass-market or academic and can be assumed to be reliable.

News

All sources seem legitimate

Web (general)

I would get rid of all the |website= parameters, as duplicative of the urls and not adding any information.

Done. –Vami

StampWorld—appears to be user-generated content, SPS, or otherwise very dubious source. However, it looks like you've cited the information to a better source so you could just remove StampWorld.

Purged. Other citation there had the same information, sans the postal stamp, so I removed the stamp. –Vami

Zum.de appears to be self-published, per its about page. However, the source appears to have been published by the Badische Heimat, which could be listed as a publisher.

Added. –Vami

Official sources

Assume reliability.

Spot checks to come. Catrìona (talk) 11:37, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Spot checks

Checking every 10th source starting with #3, or failing that the next available source that I can access. If used multiple times, I'm only checking the first two references.

Verified: 3, 14, 25, 43, 53, 66 (at least a bit of the information—assume the rest is in the second source), 73 (ditto), 83, 94, 103, 114, 123
Issues: Could you give the quote in 33 that verifies the text? I'm having trouble finding it but it could be my bad German.

If that is the Casanova quote in "Residence", that comes from Wenger's book, in English. –Vami

Additional sources

I think the article is very complete as is. No terribly important additional sources were found with English and German searches into Google Scholar and Google Books. Catrìona (talk) 12:08, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vami, Catrìona, it looks like most of this has been actioned, is there more to go? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:21, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support on sources. Catrìona (talk) 10:51, 22 December 2018 (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. Ian Rose (talk) 23:16, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 07:16, 22 December 2018 [23].

Hector Berlioz edit

Nominator(s): Tim riley talk 21:05, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia now has FAs or GAs on thirteen French composers – Alkan, Bizet, Boulez, Debussy, Fauré, Josquin, Massenet, Messager, Messiaen, Offenbach, Poulenc, Ravel and Saint-Saëns. It seems right that one of France's greatest composers should join them as an FA. The article has had the benefit of a peer review as thorough and helpful as any I can remember, and I think it now meets the FA standards. I look forward to your comments. – Tim riley talk 21:05, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support I had a spare hour sitting around earlier and took that long time to read through the copy I had with me while waiting for my very late guest to turn up! A few minor typos picked up with these edits Three very minor points to pick up on here – they read slightly inelegantly to me, but you may disagree and it won't affect my support.

1821–1824

"graduated from the medical school": "from medical school"? I'm a big fan of the def article, but not sure it's needed here.
"suggested law as an alternative profession, but refused to" "but"? Wouldn't "and" work better?

1860–1869

"Berlioz's wife, Marie, died": do we need the name, only two paras after the wedding?

My review has been on prose and formatting only as I know nearly nothing about Hector, and even less about musicology. Interesting stuff, nevertheless. – SchroCat (talk) 21:47, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not rising to "guest", above. Agree on all three drafting points, and will change the text accordingly. Thank you for your input here and at peer review. And thank you for your support here, too. Tim riley talk 08:30, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Double sharp edit

Can we have some more on Berlioz's musical style? Currently we only significantly cover his orchestration; his use of harmony, phrasing, and structure is barely touched on. IMHO Chopin's article is an excellent model for covering those aspects of technique as well as one can without tons of musical examples. Double sharp (talk) 04:46, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have been mindful of the length of the article: I was hoping to keep it to under 9,000 words (the average for composer FAs is almost exactly 7,000 and although Tchaikovsky became an FA at 12,600 words he has subsequently been pruned to 8,000, leaving only three FA composer articles with more than 9,000 words) but I have added another 238 words on harmony and counterpoint, not too full of technical terms, I hope. Tim riley talk 08:26, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Tim riley: Looks great; I have nothing else major, so I'll support. Double sharp (talk) 02:06, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. Your support is greatly appreciated. Tim riley talk 16:27, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SN54129 edit

Regarding the notation images, is there any reason they're different sizes? I see one of them's 2.5 (good—as it's very detailed), but the others (although they seem as equally detailed?) between 1.3 and 1.
- This was my attempt to get the notes roughly the same size on the page, but if anyone can make them more so, I'll be very pleased. Tim riley talk 15:56, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I think the portraits could be their normal sizes, but maybe my eyes are getting manky.
- I think I have used "upright=" less than 100% for a couple of images to stop them clogging the text too much, but am not ferociously committed to those sizes, and will not object if the consensus is to put them at 100% Tim riley talk 15:56, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Could cantata be linked?
- Definitely. The earlier link is more specific. Now done. Tim riley talk 15:56, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Reputation and Berlioz scholarship"—I would have thought the subject of the scholarship is probably obvious by now!
- I think without the "Berlioz" it wouldn't be immediately clear whether we were referring to his scholarship or other people's scholarship about him. Tim riley talk 15:56, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article is cool beans though, cheers. ——SerialNumber5412914:56, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for these points. Tim riley talk 15:56, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Smerus edit

just to stir the pot as I flit by....

The article is first class, the FA proposal has my support.

Some thoughts on the operas. In the 'music' section you don't give the dates of the operas which could be helpful (I know BC and LT are dated in the 'life' section, but B&B isn't mentioned there). You might also mention what Berlioz was up against at this time, i.e. grand opera and Meyerbeer, whom B memorably said had the "luck to be talented and the talent to be lucky" (and who also to B's subliminated resentment was wealthy in his own right). Grand opera sucked up the resources and audiences for opera in Paris. As Cairns writes, for BC "Berlioz ...was an opera composer on sufferance, one who composed on borrowed time paid for with money that was not his but lent by a wealthy friend", and effectively none of his operas was written to contract or with any promise of performance. Which makes them even more remarkable imo. Some of this might be mentioned. (or not).--Smerus (talk) 21:11, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this, Smerus. I've dealt with the dates and will ponder how to accommodate the Meyerbeer and money points (without further inflating the word count too much!) Tim riley talk 16:26, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And now done, though I'm dithering a bit about whether it might be better in the Life than in the Works section. Shall ponder further. Tim riley talk 17:24, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's a six and two threes situation.--Smerus (talk) 16:01, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by Tony1 edit

1a, lead:

I'm allergic to a colon within a succession of semicolons. Needs surgery there. And do you really want to list individual work-names rather than simply listing the genres he wrote in? ... Maybe, but it becomes indigestible after the first few. More important to briefly convey at the opening the big-picture of his place in music history. Symph Fant was, after all, a turning point in the onset of romanticism in music, wasn't it?
- Happy to change if a consensus agrees with you on this point. None of the peer reviewers mentioned the point, but other reviewers here may think differently. Tim riley talk 16:13, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Commenting as requested: another reviewer agreed, so have changed. Tim riley talk 21:59, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"As the elder son of a provincial doctor"—just checking: he had one brother, right?
- Right. 16:13, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Second paragraph beautifully written. Except for this: "those who thought him an original genius and those who thought his music lacked form and coherence". The grammar's a bit arch, and jerks the reader when they get to the second "thought", which is very different grammatically. "regarded him as an. 16:13, 2 November 2018 (UTC)"?
- Happy to change if a consensus agrees with you on this point. Tim riley talk 16:13, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Commenting as requested: disagree. A matter of personal stylistic preference. Tim riley talk 21:59, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"A romantic in his personal life as well as in his art,"—I'm slightly uncomfortable about using this association, presumably between a flush of oxytocin in the brain, and the complex social, political, and technical aspects of romantic style in music. Makes for cute wording, but it's misleading.
- Happy to change if a consensus agrees with you on this point. Tim riley talk 16:13, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Commenting as requested: other reviewer comments concur, so have changed. Tim riley talk 21:59, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not used to the lowercase "f" in "fantastique" (in an English-language context).
- See Symphonie fantastique 16:13, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
"musical journalism" or "music journalism"?
- Happy with either. Fractional preference for the first, but the second is also fine. Tim riley talk 16:13, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
tension between 'throughout" (the whole span) and "much" (a subset of it): "throughout much of his career". During much, or throughout his career. And you've got the th-word again in the same sentence.
- Happy to change if a consensus agrees with you on this point. Tim riley talk 16:13, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Commenting as requested: a matter of personal stylistic preference. Tim riley talk 21:59, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for prose until things are sorted out, and I'd like to go through more than just the lead. Tony (talk) 12:49, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your suggestions. Comments added. Tim riley talk 16:28, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not used to being challenged by having a consensus required for my points. On the contrary, you need to present reasons why those points are not actionable. Tony (talk) 16:24, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic remarks

Oh, get you! I suggest you get used to it. Your assumption of a monopoly of wisdom is arrogant and contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia. Oppose by all means. Tim riley talk 16:43, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tony1, I have thought your points on my previous FACs were good, and I was extremely grateful for them, but there are occasions when points are not always necessary, given the perfectly acceptable difference in styles between writers. There is always more than one way to crack an egg, and so it is with well-written English. For example, a colon to introduce a list followed be separating semi colons is acceptable (or at least it was when I was taught it); "those who thought him an original genius" reads perfectly well to my British English eye, but maybe the slightly less formal Aussie English eye thinks it stuffy - who knows? At the end of it, many of the points you have here are not about grammar or structure being "wrong", per se, but about a personal preference on the style - and I think De gustibus is a point that should play a part in prose reviews, I think. Tim is an excellent writer, very approachable and eminently flexible when good points are made. He also rarely makes grammatical errors, and I am sure he will look at the points you have made again to see if there is a good enough reason to change things, rather than just for stylistic reasons. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 17:11, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not buying this trick to weaken the role of reviewers. This is a slippery slope: soon we'll find every prose issue a reviewer raises is met with a retort of "only if there's consensus". It's an oppose, and until he fixes the issues or provides detailed reasoning for why they should not be fixed, the oppose stays. I have yet to go through the rest. Tony (talk) 03:33, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no 'trick' here, Tony. I'm looking at your comments and seeing that most of these are not actual errors, but stylistic preference. I've given two examples above that I do not see as being problematic: the colon introducing a list, with semi-colons breaking up that list; and the "those who thought him an original genius" phrase. I'll dig out my Fowler later to see what he says on the first point. As to the second, perhaps changing the second "thought" to "considered" would ease part of your concern, although I think we obsess a little too much about a repeated word, and "considered" may feel false in comparison, who knows. Either way, this isn't my article, or my review, but I do think you could add little more flexibility into your position, rather than being quite so absolutist and thinking that they are the only way to do things: English is flexible, particularly when you consider the differences between the various variants. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:14, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SchroCat: Actually, I don't like the repetition of various variants, and so I must oppose you forever. ——SerialNumber54129 11:32, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with Serial on various variants, which is surely a hill worth dying on. Schro THIS IS THE END ;) Ceoil (talk) 11:48, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was the best I could do with the hangover that is only just clearing... out watching Pixies last night. - SchroCat (talk) 12:57, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

...Mmmm; a timely reminder to dig out my copy of Pilgrim... ——SerialNumber54129 13:39, 4 November 2018 (UTC) [reply]

The top and bottom of this is that if a reviewer at PR or FAC makes a suggestion I agree with I adopt it forthwith. If I don't agree with it I will of course adopt it if other reviewers think it preferable. If Tony is going to oblige with a review of my main text I shall adopt any of his suggestions I agree with, and also any I don't agree with but other reviewers do. That is how Wikipedia works. – Tim riley talk 14:04, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer's response

Off-topic remarks

I'm afraid I'm not one of Tim Riley's lickspittles or sycophants, even if I did accuse him of having "beautifully written" the second paragraph. Rather, I take a more neutral, technical attitude to his writing; it's very good in many places, but it's speckled with issues that need fixing—most of them are minor, but together they subtract the prose from FA standard.

I'm not going to descend to issuing ad-hominem insults and intimidation ("Your assumption of a monopoly of wisdom is arrogant"). Nor do I take lightly his crude attempt to undermine the FAC review process by demanding consensus-gathering on almost every point ("I suggest you get used to it", he writes). It's unseemly behaviour by a nominator. What I care about is our readers, who are apparently absent from consideration by those posting here.

We're going to have to put up with a lot of RFCs on this page: I'm prepared to start a run of them if consensus has to be debated. And I hope no one minds if I insert advice at every nomination page that there's a simple way of rebutting FAC critiques: you just demand consensus.

Now, let's examine just the first point in my review of the lead: a colon within a succession of semicolons. On this matter I consulted two linguists today. Both supported my objection. One advised me to "make the point about readability. Readers will find it difficult to follow. ... I think it doesn't belong".

But a deeper problem surrounds the first point: the opening paragraph is an indigestible, winding path, cluttered by no fewer than 11 parenthetical years in 75 words. There is little point in gumming up what should be a broad sweep that introduces the topic by describing the big picture of one of the great composers. The years zig-zag from earlier to later and back, so conveying chronological development is clearly not the rationale; and the years of composition appear below in the main text, where the chronological can be nested in a more detailed, explanatory narrative. If the purpose of the laundry list is to show the array of genres in which he wrote, that's fair enough. So why obscure this by making readers hack through redundant numerical undergrowth and unnecessarily elaborate punctuation, which at one point is unusual and disruptive?

Here is the current opening, which will turn off all but the hardiest readers, followed by a version the nominator might well have politely suggested to overcome the problem I raised, instead of shooting bullets of personalised rudeness:

––––––––––––––––

Louis-Hector Berlioz (/ˈbɛərlioʊz/; French: [ɛktɔʁ bɛʁljoz]; 11 December 1803 – 8 March 1869) was a French Romantic composer. His output includes orchestral works such as the Symphonie fantastique (1830) and Harold in Italy (1834); choral pieces including the Requiem (1837) and L'enfance du Christ (1854); his three operas: Benvenuto Cellini (1838), Les Troyens (1858) and Béatrice et Bénédict (1862); and works of hybrid genres such as the "dramatic symphony" Roméo et Juliette (1839) and the "dramatic legend" La damnation de Faust (1846).

––––––––––––––––

Louis-Hector Berlioz (/ˈbɛərlioʊz/; French: [ɛktɔʁ bɛʁljoz]; 11 December 1803 – 8 March 1869) was a French Romantic composer. His output includes orchestral works such as the Symphonie fantastique and Harold in Italy, choral pieces including the Requiem and L'enfance du Christ, his three operas Benvenuto Cellini, Les Troyens and Béatrice et Bénédict, and works of hybrid genres such as the "dramatic symphony" Roméo et Juliette and the "dramatic legend" La damnation de Faust.

––––––––––––––––

I don't agree with a comment below that "hybrid" might be opaque to too many readers. Tony (talk) 14:43, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't want to disrupt someone else's FAC, but "I'm not going to descend to issuing ad-hominem insults and intimidation" does not parse in any way with accusing seven other reviewers of being "one of Tim Riley's lickspittles or sycophants". If you want to be taken seriously, at least try not to treat the rest of us like dross.

I spoke to four linguists... and other nice stories. Fowler does not query or debar the practice, which is certainly good enough for any British English speakers. Were the "linguists" you spoke to British, or one of the other variants of English?

I go back to my original point: there are several ways of phrasing something, and just because you happen to prefer one way does not mean that other versions are not equally as good or even (shock horror) better than yours. Stop being so bloody didactic and dictatorial in your approach with people and maybe they may take you seriously.

I'm going to step away from this, as dealing with inflexible viewpoints on something as flexible as an opinion on what grammar works best is not something I enjoy. Love and kisses, a lickspittle. - SchroCat (talk) 15:25, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

File:Vue_de_la_nouvelle_salle_de_l'Opéra_prise_de_la_rue_de_Provence_-_NYPL_Digital_Collections.jpg needs a US PD tag
- Done. Correctly, I hope. Tim riley talk 15:37, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
File:Marie-Moke-Pleyel.jpg: what is the author's date of death?
- Not known so changed tag. Tim riley talk 15:37, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
File:Berlioz_young.jpg needs a US PD tag. Same with File:NiccoloPaganini.jpeg, File:Gustave_Courbet_-_Portrait_of_Hector_Berlioz_-_WGA05492.jpg
- Done. Again, I hope correctly. Tim riley talk 15:37, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - What's the publication date for the second? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:34, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - The original Ingres portrait is dated between 1818 and 1831 by the Metropolitan Museum of Art, but I'm afraid I don't know a publication date for the engraving of it used here. Ought I instead to use a copy of the original, as Ingres is known to have died in 1867? Tim riley talk 18:49, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - That would work. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:27, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        Will do. Tim riley talk 20:38, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
File:Berlioz_-_cordes_col_legno.PNG should include details and a tag for the original work.
- Do you mean for the first publication of the music or its first performance (for this and the idée fixe one, below?) Grateful for guidance. Tim riley talk 15:37, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - The music itself. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:34, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
File:Idee_fixe.PNG needs a tag for the original work. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:01, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Both music examples tagged as suggested. I've given the composer's dates as well as the date of composition to be on the safe side. Tim riley talk 18:49, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, as always, Nikkimaria, for your review. I've a couple of points on which I'd be glad of a steer. Tim riley talk 15:37, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've put you to more trouble than usual, and I'd like to repeat my thanks for your guidance. Tim riley talk 20:38, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Support from Dmass edit

Picking up where I left off at peer review:

Struggling Composer

First para, first sentence: comma needed after ‘1830 Revolution’.
- Fifty years ago and more I was being told off by my Eng Lang masters for opening a subordinate clause with a comma and then forgetting to close it. Plus ça change! – Tim riley talk 20:28, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Para 3: hyphen for ‘well-founded’?
- I don't think so. I agree with Gowers that "if you take hyphens seriously you will surely go mad", but I am reasonably OK on this aspect: if used attributively it's "a well-founded suspicion", but when used predicatively, as here, "a suspicion is well founded". – Tim riley talk 20:28, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Works

Possibly brackets round / dashes before and after ‘rather than the German "architectural"’?
- Yes. I sometimes worry that I rather overdo parenthetic dashes, but they do make things crystal clear sometimes where commas don't. – Tim riley talk 20:28, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Where you say: ‘in operas, and to a large extent in orchestral music’ it’s unclear whether you’re referring to Berlioz or to French music generally. It’s also very sweeping - Saint-Saens is architectural; Pelleas hasn’t got any self-contained numbers ect ect (I realise I'm teaching my grandmother to suck eggs...). Maybe worth making clear that it’s a French tradition, rather than the French tradition?
- I have to tread a bit carefully here: I think what I have written accurately reflects what Rushton says, whereas what you suggest – though I think it correct – isn't quite what he says. – Tim riley talk 20:28, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say the paragraph beginning ‘Berlioz’s compositional techniques’ is pure TR: packed with info, yet concise and clear.
- How very kind! One can never tell which bits of one's immortal prose will get the nod from readers and which won't. – Tim riley talk 20:28, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
When you mention “Romeo's arrival at the Capulets' vault” I suspect you feel that naming the work would be a statement of the bleeding obvious, but I think it’s a bit odd as you haven’t yet done so in the Works section. Ignore at will.
- I could have my arm twisted, but if you refrain from such a course I think I'd rather leave it. – Tim riley talk 20:28, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Symphonies

Might ‘the classical pattern established and continued by German composers and those who followed their traditions’ be simplified to: ‘the classical pattern of the German tradition’?
- Yes, indeed. – Tim riley talk 20:28, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
‘Tell a narrative’ - I'm not sure that verb belongs. I can see you’re avoiding ‘tell a story’, which you use in the next para. Unfold? Recount?
- You have an exasperating knack of homing in on the bits of my prose that I have sucked my teeth about. I was never quite happy with this, but couldn't think how to improve it. I'll try "recount a narrative", but that doesn't strike me as ideal either. – Tim riley talk 20:28, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
’described by the musicologist Mark Evan Bonds as a work traditionally seen as…’ is a bit of a mouthful. Maybe snip 'traditionally seen as'?
- Again, I am trying to be faithful to the source: what you suggest is crisper, but implies that Bonds has signed up to the idea, which I don't think he specifically does.
Could the para on Harold be trimmed - maybe one too many assessments (interesting though they all are)?
- Yes. Kennedy can go. – Tim riley talk 20:28, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Same point re Roméo.
- Tricky. What can I lose? – Tim riley talk 20:28, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Looking at it again, I would have to say the one that could go would be Chabrier. Rushton says the same thing but more explicitly (and in English). But I"m not going to suggest you cut Chabrier because it made me laugh. Dmass (talk) 08:46, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Footnoting the Chabrier comment is very funny - but (reluctantly) shouldn’t it be translated?
- Well, I suppose it should be translated if we apply the MoS strictly, but nobody else has suggested it so far (perhaps they are too nice-minded) and I am inclined to think that the wording of the main text makes it clear enough to the most obdurate non-Francophone that the one word is a rude one. If there's a consensus for a change I'll go along with it, but I'll resist if I can. – Tim riley talk 20:28, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
When I read ‘for giant wind and brass band’ I momentarily wondered what you meant by giant wind. Maybe reverse them?
- Indeed. Giant wind is not a wholly alluring proposition. I'll redraw as you suggest.

Operas

Maybe add a few words giving the subject-matter of Benvenuto Cellini to save the reader having to follow the link? You could nick ‘inspired by the memoirs of the Florentine sculptor’ from the linked article.
- I'll ponder on this. Truth to tell I've never seen the opera and am swimming with one foot on the bottom here. – Tim riley talk 20:28, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's a marvel - as was Terry Gilliam's production at the ENO (which you mention). Dmass (talk) 08:46, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More later. This article is superb. Even by your standards. Dmass (talk) 19:00, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for these points and your kind words of encouragement. Looking forward to more comments, though I am conscious of other calls on your time, e.g. earning a living. – Tim riley talk 20:28, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Picking up from:

Choral

‘… necessitating larger ensembles than sufficed for the concert hall’ - perhaps plainer language might do: ‘calling for larger ensembles than were needed in the concert hall’?
- Yes, much cleaner. Tim riley talk 14:28, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mélodies

First para: ‘group’ instead of ‘grouping’?
- My reason for choosing "grouping" was that the songs in Les nuits d'été were not conceived as a cycle and were grouped together after they were written, but perhaps this is not a distinction that needs making here. I'll prune. 14:28, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
‘originally for voice and piano, later orchestrated, and now usually heard in the latter form’ might be tightened to: ‘originally for voice and piano but now usually heard in its later, orchestrated form’.
- Yes, better. Tim riley talk 14:28, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prose

You have ‘Memoirs’ here, but ‘Mémoires ‘ in the next section. In fact (wait for it) the final score seems to be 4-2 in favour of the latter.
- [Pause to remove knife from ribs. You may also be pleased to note, after my finger-wagging chez Boulez, that this article exceeds 9,000 words. Ahem!] I have dithered about whether to call them Mémoires, Memoirs or memoirs. What think you? Tim riley talk 14:28, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you're referring generally I think 'memoirs' is fine; where you're specifically referring to the book I'd go for Mémoires. Dmass (talk) 17:49, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Done. Tim riley talk 22:52, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Changing reputation

First para: ‘regularly performed’. I have a colleague at work for whom this is a bête noire. She would say: ‘you mean “frequently performed”’ - as opposed to performed at regular intervals'. Whether you listen to her is a matter for you.
- Your colleague has a point. I have a similar tic about "significant" used as a mere synonym for "important" or "big". I'll amend. Tim riley talk 14:28, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I love the Debussy comment you’ve found – in fact you’ve used some cracking quotations throughout.
- Good! As always with a biographical article there is so much good material that one has to leave out. Tim riley talk 14:28, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
‘What Cairns calls "the mere repetition of cliché" about Berlioz, which persisted well into the second half of the 20th century, has become rare.’ Hasn’t he said much the same three paras earlier?
- Lose the whole sentence, you think? Tim riley talk 14:28, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I would... Dmass (talk) 17:49, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Blitzed. Tim riley talk 09:25, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Recordings

The von Otter recording of Nuits is from 1999 and Gens from 2001 so maybe not ‘recent’ – perhaps Karen Cargill (2013) and Susan Graham (2014), both of which I think were well reviewed. Nice to see PB in your list of fantastiques…
- True. One of the two versions you suggest disappointed me rather (I shall not say which) but that's no reason to ignore it. Tim riley talk 14:28, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Notes are a joy in their own right. I see that another kind editor is going to look at Sources so I will leave that. That’s me done, except to say again Congratulations. A pleasure to read and I’ve learnt a lot. Wholeheartedly support. Dmass (talk) 09:40, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. Excellent comments, and your support is most gratefully received. Tim riley talk 14:28, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Ceoil edit

As I said at the PR, this is first rate and has opened my horizons. Will certainly support with some suggestions;

lead: hybrid genres Non-specialists are not to know what this means.
- In conversation one would say they're neither one thing nor the other, but that's a bit informal. Suggestions for saying so more formally will be welcome.
  - We have an article cross-genres. With electronic music (my area) we say 'blending of genres', which is very informal indeed, and hardly "neither one thing nor the other" - its a deliberate crossing over, but none the less but some such construct might avoid the off-putting 1930s SF futurist word "hybrid", which makes me think of tentacles on the one hand and overt cold intellectualism (or even smooth jazz) on the other. Ceoil (talk) 21:37, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Vary opening para structures: there are more, but "In 1824 Berlioz composed" is followed by "In August 1826 Berlioz was admitted" (both from 1824–1830: Conservatoire student)
- Always a trap when writing Life and Works articles: I'll comb through for any more. Tim riley talk 13:42, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Indeed Ceoil (talk) 22:23, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In the same year he made the first of his four attempts to win France's premier music prize - That year... the first of four.
- Omitting the preposition feels on the slangy side to me, but others may disagree. Tim riley talk 13:42, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  ok, but 'that year' rather than "In the same year"? Ceoil (talk) 21:37, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keen to read Shakespeare in the original, Berlioz started learning English in 1828. - Keen to read Shakespeare in the original, Berlioz began to study English in 1828. Dont like "keen" unexplained, I assume there was a career objective.
- I need to make it clearer that he was simply knocked sideways by Shakespeare and wanted to be able to read him in English. (As well he might: I once saw A Midsummer Night's Dream in Paris and was underwhelmed: the rhythms are all wrong.) Tim riley talk 13:42, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Redrawn Tim riley talk 20:43, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Beethoven became both an ideal and an obstacle for Berlioz - was both an ideal and obstacle; while I know what you mean it seems labored and could be teased out better.
- We've tweaked this at PR, and I'm not sure I can think of a better way of getting the point across. Suggestions welcome. Tim riley talk 13:42, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - No its fine. I see now the subtlety. Ceoil (talk) 21:40, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Some hard to follow logic: "At around the same time he encountered two further creative inspirations: he heard Beethoven's third, fifth and seventh symphonies performed at the Conservatoire,{{refn|The Conservatoire concerts were conducted by François Habeneck, whom Berlioz honoured for introducing the Beethoven symphonies to French audiences, but with whom he later fell out over Habeneck's conducting of works by Berlioz. and he read Goethe's Faust in Gérard de Nerval's translation. - can we simplify.
- Not sure what your concern is here: if it's the reference to Habeneck in the footnote, I put that in in response to a request at peer review. Tim riley talk 13:42, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - The sentence is too long. By the time I got to the end, I'd forgotten the beginning. Ceoil (talk) 21:37, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Now split into two sentences. Tim riley talk 09:56, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see tense issues throughout: to take an eg: "Paganini, known chiefly as a violinist, had acquired a Stradivarius viola, which he wanted to play in public if he could find the right music." I suggest settling on one, or reducing to constructs such as "the violinist Paganini acquired a Stradivarius viola".
- I think, in that instance at any rate, the tenses are right. P had already got the viola when the suggestion came up that B might write something for him to play on it.
  - Yes ok. Ceoil (talk) 21:37, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Beware of excessive detail, for eg between December 1842 and ~~the end of~~ May 1843
- Yes. I can't remember why I thought that detail necessary. Shall prune. Any others come to mind? Tim riley talk 13:42, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The section beginning with "The last of Berlioz's operas" (in "Operas") is top heavy with quotes that might be paraphrased.
- Yes: one quote could be unquoted easily enough. Tim riley talk 13:42, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In "Changing reputation", the phrase One important reason seems to break the fourth wall. I say this as somebody who was first attracted this website by Geogre, but times have changed.
- You've lost me here, I'm afraid. I'm not sure what you mean by breaking the fourth wall. Tim riley talk
  - It seems to me like from the transcript to a lecture - maybe i'm odd or stupid, and both are probable, but "An important reason" seems more the wiki voice. 21:37, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
    - I'm still unsure what alternative wording you would prefer here. Any suggestions?
As more and more Berlioz works became widely available on record: "as his works became more wide available on..." to avoid "more and more".
- I'd prefer to stick with this. Repetition has its place, and this strikes me as one. Tim riley talk 13:42, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not so sure, but fine. Ceoil (talk) 23:10, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A milestone in the reappraisal of Berlioz's reputation came in 1957, when for the first time a professional opera company staged the original version of The Trojans in a single evening - "The reappraisal of Berlioz's reputation came in 1957 when the first professional staging...". 'when for the first time' isn't right either, ad this seems like a simplification. Surely the staging was the culmination of many factors.
- When you're back in circulation I'd like to discuss this point further, because what I have written accurately conveys what I understand to be the accepted facts. Tim riley talk 13:42, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Tis ok, see that it was within a continuum. Ceoil (talk) 23:12, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Northcott concluded, "Berlioz still" - Northcott concluded that, and no comma
- Hmm. I was using "concluded" to mean that this was the writer's envoi rather than what he deduced. Tim riley talk 13:42, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - ok Ceoil (talk) 21:37, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
By 1963 Cairns, viewing Berlioz's greatness as now firmly established - greatness? If 1963 is established, we dont need to say "now"
- True. Will prune. Tim riley talk 13:42, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Among the milestones in the subsequent Berlioz discography are the recordings conducted by Colin Davis - not sure why "subsequent" is needed here. Is it just referring to all extant recorded material? "milestones" is management speak.
- I'll ponder on rephrasing this. Tim riley talk 13:42, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - And now done. Tim riley talk 09:25, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks. The next dry Martini is on me. Ceoil (talk) 23:17, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
By the 1950s the critical climate - "critical climate" is not ideal. Critical opinion?
- It's a bit less definite than "opinion". It's more the general atmosphere. Some critical opinion had always been pro-B, but it was now becoming more part of the mainstream, if that makes sense. Tim riley talk 13:42, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes; if you mean a cultural shift; ocean currents rather than beach waves. Ceoil (talk) 22:20, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In recent decades Berlioz has been widely regarded as a great composer - vague - either "today" or "Since recent decade x". Maybe replace "has been" with "is".
- With WP:DATED in mind I shy away from "today" (though it is certainly correct), and B's widespread acceptance into the pantheon (though not, alas, the Panthéon) can't be pinned down to a particular decade. What I've written is a fudge, but a necessary one, I think. Tim riley talk 13:42, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I cant formulate anything better than "In recent decades", and also, yes "today" is euff. ok. Ceoil (talk)
Nevertheless, Northcott was writing about Davis's "Berlioz Odyssey", consisting of seventeen concerts of Berlioz's music, featuring all the major works, a prospect unimaginable in earlier decades of the century.[197][198] - tense issues & and don't like "was writing", construct is a bit confusing for a thick paddy like me. The tense issue is not helped by the following sentence: "Northcott concluded, "Berlioz still seems so immediate"
- It looks right to me on rereading, but I'll mull it over.
  - ok. my main, ahem, concern, is "was writing" vs. "consisting" Ceoil (talk) 21:37, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Fine. Fixed. Tim riley talk 09:56, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All of Berlioz's major works and most of his minor ones have been recorded for LP or CD - "All of Berlioz's major and most of his minor works". Can we say "recorded on" (strictly speaking its 'transferred to') and its 'vinyl' rather than LP if we are distinguishing vs CD, which usually can play longer than LP, if you catch me drift. Plus vinyl is mistily cool, and does imply long play (vs. a 45) - Berlioz didn't release top 20 singles that I am aware of.
- From memory I think most of the works were available on LP. I daresay my references to LP and CD will look antiquated quite soon, with streaming being the current trend, and perhaps "commercially recorded" would be better. Tim riley talk 13:42, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Redrawn accordingly. Tim riley talk 20:46, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - I havnt streamed since 06; torrents dear man. Ceoil (talk) 21:37, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's about it; you are free, Tim, to disagree at will. Apologies for my tardy detailed response; work related "events" got the better of me. Ceoil (talk) 03:16, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Moving to support - given that I will be gone for the next week or so, and nothing I have highlighted is either beyond the nominator nor fatal to my opinion of the article, and I trust his diligence to respond and adjust where appropriate. Ceoil (talk) 07:51, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the support and for the above points, which I shall enjoy going through. Tim riley talk 13:06, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - And now done. Shall away with tweaking shears in hand. A couple of points I'd like to discuss with you further, but no rush. Tim riley talk 13:42, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tim, the only reason I bring there things up is flow; keeping reader engagement. reader attention these days is fleeting, and an off word can cause a person to click out. obv you are superior at this; my suggestions were thick paddy suggestions only, rather from a technical POV, and have enjoyed the back and fourth. Ceoil (talk) 01:05, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review and Support by KJP1 edit

Having had my, very limited, say on this at PR, I'm pleased to pick up the Source Review. It'll take a couple of days. Usual excellent stuff, by the way. KJP1 (talk) 07:38, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

Have checked the accessible online refs., 72, 121, 127, 132, 148, 152, 158, 162, 166, 186, 196, 197, 200 and 203. All work and all support the content. My only queries relate to 196 and 202. 196 takes me to the search engine for Operabase and, for some reason, I can't make it search for 2017-2020 performances of Les Troyens. I also wonder whether running to 2020 isn't a little Wikipedia:CRYSTAL. But perhaps not really an issue as I'm assuming the works are scheduled and are likely to go ahead. Mind you, so was Covent Garden in 1940! Re. 202, I'm sure this is fine, but I don't think I seen the Worldcat entries used as ref.s like this before. But they do support the content.
- Operabase: The blighters revamped the site a few days after I first started using it for this article. The new improved site, as usual in such matters, doesn't work as well as the old one, or doesn't so far, at any rate. I've sent them an email and hope the info will be restored, failing which I'll revisit this statement in the article. I can't think of any alternative source for it. Tim riley talk 09:43, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Citations of CDs: I could flesh this out in the citation if wanted, on the lines of "Name of Work, Decca 2010 recording OCLC XXXXXXX". Would that be preferable? Tim riley talk 09:43, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Cannot check the online subscription ref.s, nor the offline book/journal sources, but they all appear appropriately cited and the nominator isn't one for whom spot checks are required.

Sources

All appear to be appropriately cited. I'm sure I've raised it before, but is the Earl of Harewood better given as EofH or George Lascelles? Also, he's Lord Harewood in Note 22.
- He should certainly be Harewooded and not Lascellesed. He signed himself "Harewood". I don't deal with all that many earls (though I used to work for one, years ago) but my practice, which I think is the norm, is to say "The Earl of Thingummy" at first mention and then "Lord Thingummy" later, and I think "the Earl of Harewood" would look odd in note 22. But he can be "the Earl of Harewood" or "Lord Harewood" throughout if wanted. Tim riley talk 09:43, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links

Find a Grave - I don't think it's doing any harm, but this site's not considered a reliable source as it's user-driven.
- Truth to tell I hadn't spotted it was there. I must take care to check external links. It's right enough in this case, mind you: I've visited Berlioz's grave, but the reference can of course be removed if you prefer. Tim riley talk 09:43, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Very little indeed to quibble with and impressively researched and sourced. Pleased to Support (on the basis of the SR and the earlier PR). Apologies for the delay in completing. KJP1 (talk) 07:43, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the review and for your support, KJP. Greatly obliged. Tim riley talk 09:43, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support per my detailed comments at the peer review. I do not believe the oppose should delay promotion in any way.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:22, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Wehwalt, for your input at PR and your support here. Both are greatly valued. Tim riley talk 09:25, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to weigh back in to associate myself with Indrian's excellent review and thoughtful comments, in their entirety.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:35, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Support From Indrian edit

"A romantic in his personal life as well as in his art" - I am afraid I have to agree with Tony here (don't worry, this will not be a theme). While a cute turn of phrase, it is misleading in its application of the term "romantic" in two different definitions.
- I've redrawn – rather reluctantly, as in Berlioz's case I think the two mingled inseparably, but so be it. Tim riley talk 20:21, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"It was he rather than she" - This feels awkward to me, and I think we could word this in a way that gets rid of the "it was" while still conveying the meaning.
- Revisiting the paragraph I think we can lose the whole sentence without detracting from the substance. Now blitzed. Tim riley talk 20:21, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"he later had flute and guitar lessons" - I think we can find a more interesting verb than "had" in this instance.
- Any suggestions? "Had" seems the natural construction to me. See my comment on Plain Words, below. Tim riley talk 20:21, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Maybe "took"? In this case the simplicity of the verb does not bother me so much as the phrase "had lessons" feels wrong to my ear, though it may be a British versus American English thing. If "had lessons" is considered normal in British English, then perhaps we can leave it be. Indrian (talk) 15:51, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"He later contended that this was an advantage" - "That" is unnecessary.
- Perhaps it's a generational (or even geographical) thing, but omitting the "that" would grate on me. Tim riley talk 20:21, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Go ahead and leave it then, as its no great issue, I have just been personally conditioned to remove "that" when it feels unnecessary to the meaning. Indrian (talk) 15:51, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"At the age of twelve Berlioz fell in love for the first time" - This introductory clause is right on the borderline of a mandatory comma, so I did not put one in myself as I sometimes do in these reviews, but when I read it aloud it does feel like a pause is appropriate after said clause.
- There are distinct differences in the international varieties of English on this point. I notice that my American colleagues are much keener on commas in such places, even in simple sentences such as "On Monday comma she went out." When BrE writers use them it is usually to avoid ambiguity. The example I often use is "On first reading Joyce, Beckett was excited", where the comma removes the fleeting thought that there is someone called Joyce Beckett. I don't know how many BrE writers would want to put a comma in this sentence about HB. Few, I think. Tim riley talk 20:21, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I called it borderline, so will defer to your judgment. Commas are certainly a tool for avoiding ambiguity, but I think us Americans also use them to indicate natural pauses in the flow of a thought such as might occur when one is giving a speech. Indrian (talk) 15:51, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"made it clearer" - Again, not at all incorrect, but can we avoid "made"?
- I suspect we may have a different attitude to Plain Words. Other things being equal I prefer the simple word to the more elaborate one. Tim riley talk 20:21, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fair enough, unlike the one above lets just keep this as it is. Indrian (talk) 15:51, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"The first concert of Berlioz's music was given in May 1828" - Passive voice.
- I know, and I originally wrote this in the active voice, but it seemed to me to shift the focus from the concert to Berlioz, which was not what I was after here. Tim riley talk 20:21, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Afterthought: would you be happier with "The first concert ... took place"? Avoids the passive but keeps the concert as the focus. Tim riley talk 08:00, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Why don't we take that for a test drive. I understand the narrative impulse, but would love to avoid the passive voice if we can. Indrian (talk) 15:51, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - Done. Tim riley talk 16:27, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"The hall was far from full, and Berlioz lost money, but he was greatly encouraged by the applause from musicians in the audience, including his Conservatoire professors, the directors of the Opéra and Opéra-Comique, and the composers Auber and Hérold, and by the vociferous approval of the performers." - This sentence is long and a bit tortured, with three independent clauses joined by conjunctions and a list within a list. If there is a good way to break this up a bit, I would encourage you to do so.
- Done. Flows better now, I think. Tim riley talk 20:21, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Much better, thanks. Indrian (talk) 15:51, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Done. Tim riley talk 16:27, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Berlioz's fascination with Shakespeare's plays prompted him to start learning English during 1828, to let him read them in the original." - "so he could read" maybe"? "Let" just feels awkward here.
- Again, to an elderly Englishman like me "so he could read" is horrible. I'd be happy with "so that he could read", if you really dislike "let". Tim riley talk 20:21, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's fine. Why don't we make that change? In this case my real goal is to improve the sentence flow and "so that he could read" moves the sentence along better to my ear. Indrian (talk) 15:51, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Until the end of 1835 Berlioz had a modest stipend" - I am once again not a fan of "had" in this context.
- Happy to consider alternatives, but my general presumption is in favour of plain words. Tim riley talk 20:21, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm still not sold on this construction, but lets not hold up the FAC for it as it would be picking at the tiniest of nits. Indrian (talk) 15:51, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Although he complained – both privately and sometimes in his articles" - Not sure that the qualifier "sometimes" is strictly necessary here.
- The point I'm seeking to get across is the HB complained loud and long privately, but only complained in print every now and then. He was not a egotistical writer, and didn't go on at length in his articles about his own problems. Tim riley talk 20:21, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's fair, let's keep it. Indrian (talk) 15:51, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Should "bêtes noires" be italicized as a foreign phrase? I am seeing contradictory information on this.
- Me too. Of the five style guides on my shelves. I make the score 3:2 in favour of not italicising. If writing on my own account, and not for Wikipedia, I should unhesitatingly italicise it, but I'm an old fogey who has only recently stopped writing "première" and still capitalises "Lieder" (but not here, of course). Tim riley talk 20:21, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well then, let consensus rule (despite what some reviewers might think). Indrian (talk) 15:51, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to hold off on supporting this article until these concerns are addressed, but would emphasize that they are all minor, and a few of them are stylistic preference rather than imperative correction. While I normally refrain from commenting on the reviews of others, I feel it important in this instance to go on the record to agree with Tony that this is a well-written piece only slightly marred by a handful of minor issues, but to disagree vehemently with his assertion that his stylistic preferences should dictate how the article is written. Therefore, I do not find his oppose in this matter, nor his defamation of fellow editors, to be particularly helpful to the process. Indrian (talk) 18:51, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic remarks

You're telling blatant lies, further suggesting that the FAC process is becoming increasingly corrupted—by several editors here, User:Indrian. First, where is my assertion that my "stylistic preferences should dictate how the article is written", please? And where have I defamed fellow editors? I wrote that I am not this nominator's lickspittle or sycophant. I. Don't twist what I say. Your claims are themselves defamatory. Tony (talk) 00:32, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, you are clearly an accomplished writer and editor with a firm grasp of the English language and much to offer on the critique of Wikipedia articles. You have, however, blown through the project like a hurricane since your return from a self-imposed exile, which I am sure you are clever enough to have noticed without me pointing it out.

As an editor of long standing, you are also well aware of the article history function, granting anyone who cares to look awareness of how you changed a support to an oppose here merely because Tim riley failed to enact or fully engage with all your proposed changes to the article, which is pretty much the text book definition of attempting to "dictate how the article is written." Others have already provided examples drawn from your recommendations that evince personal preference, so I will not retread that ground. I will note, however, that you have declared on this very page those who have rejected said recommendations are uncaring towards the readers of the project -- a defamatory statement if I have ever seen one -- and lickspittles for the nominator (and yes Tony, you did not call out any specific individual by name as a lickspittle or sycophant, but we are smart enough to parse the innuendo that you are equally too intelligent to have cultivated by accident).

I honestly believe most of your suggestions across FAC have been solid, even a few that Tim riley chose not to enact here, but I know few people who like the idea of an editor, no matter how erudite or insightful, proclaiming his positions like Moses descending from the Mount. Your attitude comes off as entitled and superior, and I am not close to the first person to point this out. I think you would find many editors far more receptive to your highly salient points if they did not come off as a sermon. It might also help if you showed enough engagement with the process to progress beyond the lead on more than a handful of the articles that you review. That you lash out at many who grow tired of this behavior as bullies, tricksters, and corrupters only worsens a tense situation that need not exist in the first place. Just the two cents of one lickspittle who is apparently out to subvert the FAC process. Indrian (talk) 01:28, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly lies and exaggerations. Tony (talk) 01:52, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I shall enjoy working through these points. I have a more general grammatical point I'd like to discuss, but I'll set it out on your talk page, if I may, rather than clog this review with it. More on the above tomorrow, I hope. Tim riley talk 19:01, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't resist looking in, and then, of course, got drawn into looking at all your points. Actioned, or not, as outlined above. Some v. good points there: thank you. Tim riley talk 20:21, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Those few trouble spots flow much better now. I am largely satisfied, with just a handful of rejoinders above. I expect to be supporting quite soon. Indrian (talk) 15:51, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And we are good here. I will happily support. It was a pleasure working with you. Indrian (talk) 21:54, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Indrian. I heartily reciprocate those sentiments. I don't think we've run across each other before, but I hope to do so again. Tim riley talk 22:22, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and support from Gerda edit

Thank you for expanding another fascinating composer. I planned to come to the PR but it was over before I got to it. Minor remarks only:

Lead

"choral pieces" sounds a bit too small for his Requiem, - I'd understand it for anthems and motets.
- An accurate description, I think. In Rushton's analytic works it is put under that category. The Cambridge Companion to Berlioz groups them under "Religious works", but that does not feel quite comfortable a category for Berlioz, an agnostic: how truly religious his works are is open to question.
Native French speakers told me that it should be (or rather: has to be) "Le Damnation de Faust".
- If so, they are wrong. The gender of "damnation" is feminine and not masculine, and as to capitalisation, there is no standard French usage for such titles. The version here is the more common, I think, although the version you quote is also often seen. Kern uses the capital, Grove and Rushton the lower case, Cairns and Barzun both give the title in English (as I was much tempted to do were our WP article not titled "La damnation de Faust").
  - I am sorry about the wrong article, was too tired, so kind of blind. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:51, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Symphonie fantastique, in which an idealised depiction of her occurs throughout" - I wonder if the clause is lead material, because it seems too short to describe the complexity of the work, and can't be longer, or would be undue weight. If anything short, isn't it rather a depiction of his feelings for her, than of her?
- I think the text here accurately reflects the sources, and to my mind it would be odd not to mention the matter briefly in the lead.
"he wrote musical journalism" - it may be my lack of language, but it sounds strange to me. I'd understand "he worked as a music jounalist", "he wrote for the musical press", or saying precisely what he wrote.
- Idiomatic BrE, I think. And AmE, too, I presume, as several AmE writers have been happy with it at PR and here.
  - Thank you, learned a new phrase then. --GA

Early years

Why the redirect Roman Catholic Church, when Catholic Church would suffice?
- The reader won't be affected, but this is for the sake of strict accuracy. The RC is not the only catholic church. See the Nicene Creed, used by other catholic and apostolic churches.
  - Do I understand right that you take La damnation de Faust because our article has it, but not Catholic Church although our article has it? --GA
    - I don't think my religious scruples need airing here; I think the title of the RC Church article is incorrect, but I don't make a song and dance about it. I'm not dogmatic about following the titles of WP articles when mentioning the relevant works: following Barzun, Holoman and Cairns, I have used "Harold in Italy" although our article on it is headed "Harold en Italie", which in fifty years of knowing the piece I can't remember being used by any English speaker. I could be persuaded that we should have "The Damnation of Faust" in English too, as Cairns and Barzun do: one hears the title given in both languages in Britain, but a spot of Googling suggests that the French title is the more frequently used, which is why I stuck with it here. A similar consideration applies to Roméo et Juliette and Les Troyens to some extent. Cairns even translates the Fantastic Symphony, which looks rather odd to my eye. Tim riley talk 12:39, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - Sorry, the question wasn't about religion ;) - For titles of music, I'd tend to go with the original, especially in an article about its creator. I religiously believe that we can't say that Wagner composed The Flying Dutchman (and convinced the FA writer in the FAC), while we can say that The Flying Dutchman was performed, suggesting "in English" by saying so.
Can we get a c. dating for his father's portrait without clicking on it?
- I haven't seen one. Cairns prints the picture but doesn't date it. If it is OK for Cairns without the date I think we can reasonably follow suit.
- After a bit of investigation I still can't give a date for the picture that I feel sure about, and I'd prefer not to put one in the caption unless I'm confident about it. Tim riley talk 10:16, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I wonder where "c. 1840" in our file comes from then? --GAI
    - I'm afraid I can't answer that. I uploaded the picture, and obviously I'm sure I didn't just invent the date, but where I got it from I cannot now remember, or discover by this morning's digging. Tim riley talk 12:39, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For quotations, such as "saved me from the tyranny of keyboard habits ...", I'd like to have the French original, at least in a footnote, when it's not available in an online source. (I don't trust translators.)
- I agree about translations, and when I am writing for WP I include the ipsissima verba in a footnote if I am offering my own translation, but this one is from David Cairns's translation of the memoirs, as the citation makes clear.
  - I'd still like the flavour of the original, but accept. --GA
"The dominance of Italian opera in Paris, against which Berlioz later campaigned, was still in the future" - The why say it at this point?
- This is where the source mentions it, and I agree that it is appropriate here: there was Rossini on offer, but the repertoire was largely French at this point. We touch on the Italian opposition again later, and this prepares the context.
"Royal Chapel" - is a link possible?
- I looked for one when drafting, but concluded that there was no helpful one available. The chapel was part of the Tuileries Palace but has no separate article, and I think a link there would be more irritating than enlightening for readers.

More to come, need sleep. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:25, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your replies, learning. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:51, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Conservatoire student

I am not too happy about the header in French + English, but you will have your reasons.
- No worries on that point: "conservatoire has long been absorbed into the English language. The OED cites examples of Anglophone use for local music colleges as far back as the 1930s. I have a strong feeling it is now more usual than "conservatory" in this context, though I cannot positively assert that. Tim riley talk 19:58, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I confess that I had forgotten that his first opera was linked two sections before, and believe that a second link here, where he actually writes it, might be excused?
- Sometimes I find Wikipedia's rules on links very unhelpful to readers. If you continue to read this article you will pass through at least half-a-dozen places where I'd have liked to put a duplicate link to help the reader. We seem to have established by custom and practice an unofficial dispensation in life & works articles to have a link from the life and another from the works, but I don't think I am comfortable with pushing that any further. Tim riley talk 19:58, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
link counterpoint? - or will all readers who got this far know?
- The link is in the wrong place, some paragraphs below. I'll move up here. I am obliged to you for spotting this. Tim riley talk 19:58, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prix de Rome

"Le retour à la vie (The Return to Life, later renamed Lélio)" - please teach me. I am used to either give an English title in brackets, in Italics and title case, if such a title exists, or a simple translation, in sentence case (The return to life).
- I am in no position to teach anybody. I haven't found any MoS guidance on this point, and have just done my best. The present renditions are clear enough, I think, though I am not opposed to another style if others prefer it. Tim riley talk 19:58, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
He wrote "the poetic memories formed from my wanderings in Abruzzi", - I suggest to not use the quote but reword, for two reasons, 1) to avoid third person in the beginning vs. first person in the quote, 2) to avoid a link from a quote, and a strange one, because the link goes to a region Abruzzo, and the plural appears nowhere in that article, not even for the mountains, and Abruzzi (disambiguation) is also no help. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:30, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The plural form used to be usual, I think. cf. Edward Lear: "There was an old man of th'Abruzzi, Was so blind that he couldn't his foot see..." I'd prefer to stick with the oratio recta. Tim riley talk 19:58, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - All understood so far. More tomorrow. Singing Bach was good, WO, as we say, concerts 8 and 9 December. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:56, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Paris

Benvenuto Cellini: I'd first say when it was performed, then reception.
- Added date to caption, which should do the job. Tim riley talk 18:02, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Struggling

"His reception was enthusiastic. The German public was more receptive than the French to his innovative compositions" - I could imagine that combined, avoiding "reception - receptive".
- Redrawn. Tim riley talk 18:02, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"and his conducting was seen as highly impressive", - I'd say "and impressive conducting".
- I imagine it was impressive, but what is being said here is that it was seen as such. Tim riley talk 18:02, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"The following year was spent mostly in conducting and writing prose." - why passive voice? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:19, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Redrawn Tim riley talk 18:02, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Works first section fine. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:03, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for these points. I'll wait for any more and then deal with them together. Tim riley talk 19:07, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I had little time, and am in the process of writing a GA (BWV 214).

Symphonies

"but the work tells a story, graphically and specifically" - curious what "graphically" and "specifically" mean here.
- the first adverb refers to the vividness and the second to the fact that unlike, e.g. Beethoven's 6th, precise events are being portrayed. Tim riley talk 18:02, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
link Idée fixe, perhapas to Leitmotif (interesting word, - in German it would be Leitmotiv)? Yes, it's linked in the previous section, but will everybody read sequentially?
- I wish this were permissible, as I entirely agree. Tim riley talk 18:02, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"is the composer's idealised (and in the last movement caricatured) portrait of Harriet Smithson" - for those who don't remember from the lead, the phrase in brackets seems a bit too long until we get to the main term.
- This says what I am trying to convey, I think. Tim riley talk 18:02, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea how Schumann's quote may have been in German, and the Lambert one is rather pale. Is that all great minds said about this work?
- At reviewers' request I have removed some quotations from my original text, and am reluctant to add more. Tim riley talk 18:02, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
same question about the Harold, - is "romantic and picturesque" any specific? "among the greatest works of its kind in the 19th century" says about nothing after we learned that it's one-of-a-kind.
- Again, I had another quote here but have removed it. Tim riley talk 18:02, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
link to Shakespeare's drama (even if everybody should know it)? - Past midnight here, more to come. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:12, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- This has come up above. I'd prefer not to link it, but will do so if that is what people prefer.

Operas

image - sorry, I think an image of some woman in a red dress tells me nothing, and could be from many 19th-century operas. If we have one image to represent his operatic work, I believe it should be from Les Troyens, and both a cover or a scene (for example File:Les Troyens à Carthage 1863 - throne room of Didon - design by Chaperon - Gallica.jpg) would show some specific style.
- I'm entirely open to using a different picture, but the one you suggest seems to me confused and unappealing. Tim riley talk 18:02, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have dug out a replacement, showing The Trojans at Carthage in an 1892 production. Tim riley talk 18:46, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"The three operas contrast strongly with one another." - do we have to say that?
- A point worth making, I think. Tim riley talk 18:02, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"... seldom staged during the late 19th and the 20th centuries. In the 21st century" - kind of complex math, could be something like "... seldom staged until some revivals in the 21st century ..."
- Redrawn.
I'd prefer to see Liszt's help before revivals in the 21st century.
- As it relates the content of the sentence preceding it I prefer it where it is. Tim riley talk 18:02, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Troyens: I think we need a reminder of the opera's topic (like Benvenuto C. described as a sculptor). Yes, that came up before, but imagine a reader who comes specifically to this spot.
- Done. Tim riley talk 18:02, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
the nocturne-duet ... 'nuit paisible et sereine'" - in that quoted phrase about a duet title, a quotation mark seems to be missing.
- A hangover from when it was in oratio recta. Now removed. Tim riley talk 18:02, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Choral

Four composers, three linked, one not. Two were mentioned before, so don't need to be linked, but I'd still link them all.
- So should I, but we must play by the rules. Tim riley talk 18:02, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As said before, I'd link the choral works again, just like the operas.
- Ditto. Tim riley talk 18:02, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"The orchestra does not play at all in the "Quaerens me" section" - why say what not? The choir sings a cappella, or: the choir sings without orchestra, or: it's written for unaccompanied choir?
- Seems to me what the French call bonnet blanc et blanc bonnet. Tim riley talk 18:02, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"By that time he had added", - the last subject was Macdonald.
- Redrawn. Tim riley talk 18:02, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In the sentence about L'impériale, we think for too long that it's still about the Te Deum.
- Redrawn Tim riley talk 18:02, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How about a line about La damnation in the opera section, because readers may look for it there?
- Yes. Done. Tim riley talk 18:02, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you decide against linking works once more, how about translatiing the title (again)?
- Too many words already. I hoped but have failed to keep the word count below 9,000 words. I am loth to add more. Tim riley talk 18:02, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
mention Messe solennelle (Berlioz), Prix de Rome cantatas (Berlioz), Lélio, fr:Le Chant des chemins de fer, fr:Tristia - at least that they exist? Translation of French articles likely (requested).
- Ditto. In an encyclopaedia article one must select what to include and what to omit, and I don't think these pieces need mention in the works section. (Most are mentioned in the Life section, of course.) Tim riley talk 18:02, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mélodies

Some readers arriving here may not know that mélodies are French art songs. Use the term with a link?
- Unfortunately there is no mention of "mélodies" in the text from which I can link. To do so from "the 33 Mélodies" would be misleading for readers, I think, we are not allowed to link from headers, and unaccented "melodies" in the text refer to the tunes rather than to the French genre.
  - Later: on reflection, I think a link from "the 33 Mélodies" will work without confusing anyone, and have added it. Tim riley talk 18:06, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Warrack considers up to a dozen songs from the 33 Mélodies well worth exploring. "Among them are some masterpieces." - Reading that, the two sentences look unconnected.
- Redrawn. Tim riley talk 18:02, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prose

I could imagine a longer, more to-the-point header
- It seems to me to cover what is covered. Tim riley talk 18:02, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"He professed to dislike writing his press pieces", again, the previously mentioned subject is Macdonald.
- I think the meaning is plain enough to let the wording stand. I am reluctant to repeat "Berlioz" in the space of three words. Tim riley talk 18:02, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reputation ...

I added some interlanguage links (which will turn blue).

Done. Begun on Armistice Day, ended on Britten's birthday. Sorry for only mentioning points for improvement, while I could praise the whole effort, loving quotes such as "Berlioz still seems so immediate, so controversial, so ever-new". I had the great pleasure of Les Troyens in Frankfurt, "DYK ... that mezzo-soprano Claudia Mahnke appeared as Dido in Les Troyens by Berlioz, and according to a reviewer, in the final 25 minutes convincingly ranged from hurt vulnerability to furious despair?". I decorated my talk on St. Cecilia's day, was just a bit too late for Britten's Op. 2. - Thank you for listening. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:06, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments acted on or not as above. Thank you for your comments. Tim riley talk 18:02, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, like the opera scene image and much else. Support. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:31, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

His biographies I find a ref for the first book-length bio being by Mirecourt here, however, can't find that book among the author's writings. Did I miss something, or was it just one his weekly biographies about Les Contemporains (2nd series). Just curious. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:16, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How do you feel about making the Holoman - which seems to be availble online - accessible, instead of a subscription required source? A colleague would link every single page, - I normally link only the beginning of a relevant chapter. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:21, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have had problems in the past with Google books being available to readers in some countries but not others. In Britain, for instance, only selected chunks of the Holoman book are available on Google. I'd be reluctant to point people in the direction of an online source not everyone can access. As to the Mirecourt biography, Cairns also mentions it, describing it as sympathetic but factually unreliable. It was published in 1856 in a series called "Contemporains", but this is probably too much information for the article, given the passing nature of the mention. Tim riley talk 17:06, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I had no problems with online books, and if not accessible, readers are at the same point as if not given, so I'd would still provide it. But it's you to decide here. I suggest to simply drop "book-length" as misleading, - his publications have elsewhere rather characterized as pamphlets. Berlioz is not on Wikisource, but others are, such as George Sand. - If in doubt about it being realy the first it could be "an early bio". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:26, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shall do as you suggest about Mirecourt and will ponder about a link to the Google version of the book. Tim riley talk 20:31, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think perhaps the best thing is to add a single link to the book in the Sources section, annotated so that nobody is led to expect complete access from anywhere in the world to the article. I'll have a scout round for a suitable form of words - this general point must surely have come up before. Tim riley talk 23:11, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a link to the Google site, albeit with some misgivings, but fingers crossed. Tim riley talk 19:32, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'm not used to link to the cover, but readers will be able to take it from there, searching. - What I normally do is a link to one page, then a reader can simply change the page number to arrive at a different page. In my latest GA, for example, that's books.google.de/books?id=m9JuwslMcq4C&pg=PA820, and the other pages (such as 102) can be inserted instead of 820. Some of them don't show in the preview, but others do. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:47, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Graham Beards edit

~~Oppose~~. Tony made some reasonable and actionable comments, which were dismissed in an offhand way by the nominator who implied that they require a consensus. Tony even offered a solution to one of the problems. The nominator's response was deplorable; He wrote "Oh, get you!", which to my ear is tantamount to homophobic - all that was missing was "ducky". Since when have actionable positive, critical comments required a consensus? Never in my tenure as an FAC delegate. The nominator should address Tony's comments directly, and apologise to him. This is not the way we conduct a FAC! Graham Beards (talk) 05:02, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@WP:FAC coordinators: Since this is a comment on the discussion rather than the qualities of the article, is it not an unactionable oppose? ——SerialNumber54129 15:37, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Amused to find myself, as a gay man, accused of homophobia.
Some of the suggestions referred to were later backed by other reviewers and have therefore been adopted, some time ago, though I did not, myself, favour them. Tim riley talk 08:13, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: Tim, just for the sake of clarity, would it be worth noting within Tony's comments which ones have now been actioned? It may be that Graham's concerns on the presumed lack of action on the comments are allayed when it is clearer which ones have been settled and which ones are—in your opinion—not beneficial to the article. It can't hurt to note which ones have been closed down. My regards to you both. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 21:50, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your helpful suggestion, SchroCat. I have done as you suggest. All of Tony1's comments have been addressed once again. Tim riley talk 22:02, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MOD edit

I've really enjoyed reading the article and it is mostly beautifully written. Commenting on prose; 17 instances of "although" seem too many, and some of these could be elided or replaced with "but". until she finally accepted him seven years later might be as good without the "finally". Should Jean-François Le Sueur's last name be capitalised when not beginning a sentence? --MarchOrDie (talk) 23:58, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for those points:

I'll have a trawl through the text for "although"s. "But" will sometimes do as well, and I'll change those.

"Although"s pruned where I can. Tim riley talk 08:37, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree one should be sparing with adverbs, but I think the "finally" serves a helpful function here, emphasising the elapse of years.
Le Sueur is an orthographic curiosity: many sources run the two parts of his surname together as Lesueur, others capitalise him as here. I haven't found any instances of "le Sueur" on English or French sites or in the six books that are the main sources for the current text (Barzun, Bloom, Cairns, Holoman, Macdonald and Rushton). As there is no consensus on the point in the various sources I have stuck to the capitalisation used in Le Sueur's WP article.

Many thank for your kind remarks. Tim riley talk 08:37, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note edit

Just a note that I can see we appear to have consensus to promote, I'll just want some time to take my habitual walk through the article and double-check that points have indeed been actioned before closing -- hopefully in the next 24h. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:01, 22 December 2018 (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. Ian Rose (talk) 07:16, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 07:38, 22 December 2018 [24].

Alodia edit

Nominator(s): LeGabrie (talk) 20:50, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notified: , Wikipedia:WikiProject Oriental Orthodoxy, Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle Ages, Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa

After a withdrawn FA nomination six months ago and a large rework in the meantime I hereby nominate this article again. It is about Alodia aka Alwa, a Christian Nubian kingdom in what is now Sudan. LeGabrie (talk) 17:09, 24 October 2018 (UTC) @Ian Rose: Nomination has been approved LeGabrie (talk) 20:11, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Attar-Aram syria edit

I will slowly review this. Looks interesting

I notice the name in Greek in the lede, followed by a citation. It is preferable that citations are not present in the lede. Suggest moving the citation to the first sentence of the Sources section. It could be like this: Alodia, written as Aρογα (Aroua) in Greek,[citation] is by far the least studied of the three medieval Nubian kingdoms.

Same regarding citation number 4. The literal quote should be moved into the main text with the citation. Maybe in the lede you can reword the quote to keep the meaning and eliminate the need for a citation.

Thanks for reviewing. However, I would object that there are numerous FA's which have citations in their lede, like the Byzantine Empire (which I used for orientation while reworking Alodia), the Han dynasty or Macedonia (ancient kingdom). LeGabrie (talk) 10:53, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Those featured articles should probably change this. The same case happened a while ago. The FAC coordinator Ian Rose had this to say: Generally, anything in the lead and the infobox should be cited in the main body, meaning the mentions in the lead and infobox do not need citation. An exception is when a quote is used in the lead. Hence, no need to delete the citation from the qoute, but I maintain my point regarding the Greek name --Attar-Aram syria (talk) 13:41, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I can just delete the citation and leave it be, without shoving the Greek name into the main text? I also have a question since you can write Arabic: can you maybe transliterate 'Alwa (including the apostrophe) into the Arabic script? That's the name the kingdom has in the Arabic sources. LeGabrie (talk) 14:14, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That should be suitable. As for the Arabic name, its: علوة .--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 15:07, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I notice the lede is too short for such an article. A lede needs to summarize the article and prepare the reader for what he will read in the main text. The current lede is mainly about the political history and does not cover the Administration and Languages sections. It also does not give adequate space for the economy section. I suggest an expansion to the lede.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 15:07, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Better now? LeGabrie (talk) 17:04, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. More to come soon.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 17:17, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I finished and the article is comprehensive and well sourced. I suggest asking the Guild of Copy Editors for help though. Some sentences were clunky and the prose could use the help of a guild editor--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 19:20, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Initiated a request. LeGabrie (talk) 13:52, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Suggest scaling up the lead map, and is there a reason for that caption to use smaller text?

You mean the text that appears right under the map? Isn't that the default text size? LeGabrie (talk) 14:25, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly looks smaller than comparable text in recent TFAs, eg Mascarene parrot or Taapaca. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:01, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I didn't make it small on purpose, that has to be the default size. LeGabrie (talk) 15:36, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Approximate_extension_of_Alodia_based_on_accounts_of_Ibn_Hawqal.png: what sources were used to identify areas of uncertainty?

Will rework parts of the map soon. LeGabrie (talk) 14:25, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: Reworked the map and included sources I used for modification: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Approximate_extension_of_Alodia_based_on_accounts_of_Ibn_Hawqal.png LeGabrie (talk) 17:07, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox is using flag parameters for icons that aren't flags

Isn't that permitted? We don't know the flags of Kush or Fazughli. The "flag" used for the Funj is their royal insignia. LeGabrie (talk) 14:25, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At icon size maps are pretty much indistinguishable, and aren't representative of a place the way a flag would be. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:01, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted the maps. LeGabrie (talk) 15:36, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Africa_in_400_BC.jpg: what is the source of the data presented in this image? Same with File:Kingdom_of_Fazughli.jpg

First image: No idea, didn't make it. Second one: Mohi El-Din Abdalla Zarroug: "The Kingdom of Alwa". LeGabrie (talk) 14:25, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any source that supports the data in the first image? For the second, suggest providing complete citation. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:01, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

II II

Suggest scaling up the ground plans

Upscaled them by +10% each. LeGabrie (talk) 14:25, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:King_Moses_George_of_Makuria.jpg needs a US PD tag. Same with File:ArnoldvHarff3holzschn1859.jpg, File:King_sennar_1821.jpg

Added tags for the last two pics. What tag should I use for the first one? The original painting is from the 12th century, but it was published only in 1967. LeGabrie (talk) 14:25, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's a wall painting, which would mean it was legally published significantly earlier. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:01, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, ok. Added tag. LeGabrie (talk) 15:36, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ground_plan_of_Mound_C_church,_Soba.jpg: any more details on source?

Somers Clarke: "Christian Antiquities in the Nile Valley", 1912. LeGabrie (talk) 14:25, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the source and author have been reversed in the template. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:01, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. LeGabrie (talk) 15:36, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Soba_capital.jpg: what is the author's date of death? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:45, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1926. LeGabrie (talk) 14:25, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Template should use publication rather than upload date. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:01, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. LeGabrie (talk) 15:36, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Gog the Mild edit

Hi again LeGabrie. Disclosure, I assessed this for GAN. It is looking good.

I have fixed some referencing errors. You will want to check that you are happy with the changes.
It is on the request list for a GOCE copy edit, which would be helpful. I shall wait for this to be completed before commenting further.

Gog the Mild (talk) 21:04, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Changed my mind.

All images need alt text.

How? Simply by adding "|alt=(repeat caption)"? LeGabrie (talk) 08:04, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's the idea, but the alt text should be a description, eg 'The stumps of three stone columns emerging from an expanse of sand' or similar.

@Gog the Mild: Good enough? LeGabrie (talk) 19:40, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@LeGabrie: I have tweaked some. The idea is that the alt tells a visually impaired reader what they would see if they could (see). Feel free to change or revert any you aren't happy with. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:18, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It needs checking for duplicated Wikilinks.

Is it ok to have a Wikilink to a certain entry in both the lede and the main text? LeGabrie (talk) 08:04, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes.

Done. LeGabrie (talk) 19:40, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where there are several cites they should be in number order. Eg cites 132 and 85.

I've fixed it - this diff.

I don't understand. LeGabrie (talk) 08:04, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why is note 2 in italics?

You mean the second annotation? Fixed. LeGabrie (talk) 08:04, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 21:42, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good. Just waiting for GOCE to get round to it now. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:32, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lead and Sources edit

I have carried out a mild copy edit. Could you check that you are happy with it.
"Alodia, also known as Alwa was a medieval Nubian Kingdom" Why does Kingdom have a capital K?

Ask the guy who changed that a couple of weeks ago. Fixed.

The joys of Wikipedia.

"It was the last of the three Nubian kingdoms to convert to Coptic Christianity" This gives the impression that Alodia converted to Coptic Christianity from another form of Christianity; if this is not the case, could you rephrase.

Fixed.

"in size, power and economic prosperity" In this context, what does "power" mean?

More soldiers. See also al-Yaqubi and al-Aswani who both excplicitely stated tht Alodia was more powerful.

In which case could I suggest 'in size, military power and economic prosperity"?

Done.

"A powerful king and provincial governors appointed by him ruled this wide, multicultural empire." Was Alodia an empire or a kingdom. Or did it vary over time? If the latter, could you specify (approximately) when it was which. If one of the former could you decide which and be consistent.

"Empire" in the sense of a large state. Rephrased.

"Nubian and Greek literacy flourished." I think that you mean 'Literacy in both Nubian and Greek flourished'.

Fixed.

"a period of Islamization and Arabization" Capital A.

Fixed.

Caption "Estimated extension of Alodia in the 10th century." "extension" should be 'extent'.

Fixed.

"What is known about it comes mostly from a handful of medieval historians from the Arabic world." Two "froms". Maybe 'What is known about it comes mostly from a handful of medieval Arabic historians'?

Fixed.

"The contemporary John of Ephesus" It is not clear to me who or what he was contemporaneous with.

Contemporary with Alodia's Christianizatin.

Yes, indeed. The words immediately before "The contemporary" are !2th century"; you can see the scope for confusion. Possibly reword as 'The events around the Christianization of the kingdom in the 6th century were described by the contemporary John of Ephesus.' or similar?

Done.

"it is only the capital Soba which received extensive excavations" This reads badly, maybe 'only the capital Soba has been extensively excavated'?

Fixed.

"These were unearthed in the early 1950s and again in the 1980s and 1990s." Does the source actually mean this? Or something like 'A number were unearthed in the 1950s, and further examples in the 1980s and 1990s'?

The source says that parts of the town itself were excavated during that time. Rephrased.

Gog the Mild (talk) 22:14, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Geography edit

"Nubian connections with Darfur have been suggested, but evidence is lacking." This is, I think, the first mention of Nubians. A brief explanation of who or what Nubians/Nubia are/is in the context of Alodia would be helpful.

There is already a wiki link to Nubia in "Sources"

"Nubia" and "Nubian" crops up repeatedly. To the uninitiated this means nothing. Given how often it is mentioned and its centrality to the topic I don't consider a Wikilink sufficient explanation at FA level.

Added an explanation in "geography".

"Abu Hamad likely constituted the northern top of the Alodian province known as al-Abwab" Given that al-Abwab has just been Wikilinked as a town this doesn't make sense to me. (Not even enough for me to suggest an alternative. How can a town constitute the "top" of something?)

"Given that al-Abwab has just been Wikilinked as a town" I think you are confusing Abu Hamad with al-Abwab. Abu Hamad is possibly the place which constituted al-Abwab's northernmost point.

Yes sorry. But this phrase currently does not make sense. You could say 'Abu Hamad was likely close to the northern border of the Alodian province known as al-Abwab' or something similar - if that is what is meant - but "northern top" has to go.

Rephrased

"Instead several forts have been recorded." I don't think that "instead" is a good word in context.

Rephrased.

"Lying between the Nile and the Atbara" This is the second time you refer to the Atbara, but it is Wikilinked to a city. If it is a city, the use of the definite article is unnecessary; if it isn't, you need to change the Wikilink.

Atbara River

Origins edit

"It seems likely that the Aksumite presence in Nubia was short-lived." "Nubia" appears from nowhere - a brief introduction to it would be helpful.

Gog the Mild (talk) 13:50, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nubia was already mentioned in "Sources".

@Gog the Mild and FunkMonk: I will take a break from Wikipedia from 17th December. Would be cool if we could get this done until then. LeGabrie (talk) 12:45, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Christianization and peak edit

"the Alodian king was aware of the baptism of Nobadia in 543" Do you mean 'the conversion of'?

Fixed.

"and eventually asked him to send a bishop" I am not sure why you use "eventually", I would suggest deleting it.

Fixed.

"spread among the Alodian populace is, however, uncertain." Suggestion only, delete "however".

Done.

"Roughly sixty years after the baptizing of the Alodian nobility" I am not sure what this adds. A reader can readily calculate the interval. I would suggest deleting.

Done.

"Muslim Arabs from the Byzantine Empire conquered Egypt" Er, "from the"?! Do you mean 'invaded the Byzantine Empire and conquered Egypt'?

The copy editor messed that one up. Fixed.

"probably with the throne passing between the states after each king." I can't work out what you mean by this.

King A of Makuria dies, king B of Alodia becomes king of both states. King B of Alodia dies, king C of Makuria becomes king of both states.

OK. What I should have written was 'I don't think that a reader would understand this, could you elaborate or rephrase.' Also, it sounds inherently implausible; is it solidly nailed down to a RS?

Welsby 2002, p. 89: "If there was intermarriage between the two royal houses the principle of martilineal succession [the son of the king's sister becomes the new king] may frequently have cause the throne to pass to a king whose father was of the royal family of the other state."

Excellent. That's nice and clear. If you can get the sense of that into the article it would be great.

Better?

That's fine. Thanks.

"that relations between the two kingdoms intensified." "intensified" is not a good word to use here.

Fixed.

Gog the Mild (talk) 13:19, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline edit

"Basically, no native or imported pottery or glassware, postdating the 13th century could be identified at Soba." Suggest deleting "Basically" and both commas.

Fixed.

"During the 14th and 15th centuries much of what is now Sudan was eventually overrun by Beduin tribes. 1. What is "Beduin"? 2. I don't see what "eventually" adds to the sentence.

Isn't that how it's written in American English? @Gog the Mild:

"They perhaps profited from the plague which might have ravaged Nubia in the mid-14th century killing many sedentary Nubians, but not affecting the nomadic Arabs." "perhaps", "might"; does the source support this?

Yes, Werner 2013 makes it clear that the plague in Nubia is just an assumption, although he is convinced that it happened.

"greatly benefiting from their large population" Again, is your source solid? Nomadic peoples are not noted for their "large population"s relative to agarian societies.

Hasan 1967 is a standard work on this matter. Keep in mind that the Bedouin population in Upper Egypt and the Eastern Desert grew continously over the course of centuries before finally migrating to Nubia.

"Here they parted west to migrate along" What does "parted west" mean?

Replaced with "headed west".

"Alodia, in particular, the Butana and the Gezira, was the target of" I think that the second comma should be deleted.

Fixed.

The way that the text switches between "Arab", "Bedouin" and "Beduin" is confusing. If they are synonyms, it would be best to chose one and be consistent.
"with 150 lordships residing on both sides of the Nile." If this means what I think it might, it may be better expressed as 'with 150 independent lordships existing, controlling much of both sides of the Nile.' or similar.
"Archaeology attests that Soba was largely ruined at this time." Just checking that you mean to use "at", and not 'by'.

"By" would be more accurate?

Depends. "at" suggests that it was actually ruined in 1474, or within a year or two. 'by' means that it was in a state of ruin in ~1474 and that this being ruined happened some (unspecified) time before 1474.

Ah. Fixed.

Gog the Mild (talk) 14:50, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fall edit

"However, most modern scholars tend to agree with the Arab narrative." This doesn't really make sense. Do you mean something like 'Most modern scholars agree that the Arabs destroyed Alodia'?

Fixed.

"late 15th century he gathered the Arabic tribes" Did you mean to use "Arabic" here instead of 'Arab'? There is a difference in meaning.

Fixed.

Legacy edit

"an oath they did not dare to break" This is a bit peacocky. I would suggest rewording or deleting.

Fixed.

"the shaving of the head of a king upon his coronation, or, according to Jay Spaulding" I suspect that you mean 'and' not "or"?

Fixed.

"In the area around Soba, the tribal Abdallab identity prevailed." Is that atypo for 'Abdullah'?

As mentioned in the article, the Abdallab are a Sudanese tribe that traces its origin to Abdallah Jammah.

Gog the Mild (talk) 18:21, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Administration edit

"The people did not oppose him, but prostrated themselves before him" IMO this really doesn't work. (The first infelicitous sentence I have noticed.) Could you think about just what information you want to convey to the reader and reword please.

People would not oppose the king after he enslaved them, but instead prostrated themselves.

I think that you have two points in this. The mass of the people accepted this state of enslavement by their monarch and Court etiquette represented this by enforcing a policy of prostration when addressing the king. If I am correct, then consider a rewrite to make these two points clearer.

Here is the original source (al-Aswani): "Their king can reduce to slavery any of his subjects he wants whether he be guilty of a crime or not, and they do not oppose him, rather they prostrate themselves before him. They do not revolt against his order, however, unjust it may be; [on the contrary] they call out loudly "May the king live (al-malik ya'īsh!)! And let his order be executed!""

"There might be evidence a mobile royal encampment existed" Do you mean 'There is evidence a mobile royal encampment may have existed'? (You probably don't - just checking.)

Nope.

"arabophone" Upper case A?

Probably. Fixed.

"closely intertwined" "intertwined" means closely. Suggest dropping "closely".

Fixed.

" boats would have played a central role in transportation infrastructure." The text goes from "had" and "were" to "would have". It would be better to replace this last with 'had', or 'may have', depending on what the source says.

Rephrased.

Church architecture edit

"The internal walls used to be covered by painted whitewashed mud" Painted and whitewashed? Usually it is one or the other.

"Painted" in the sense of Christian wall paintings (of which none survive but tiny fragments).

Yes, understood. Where does the whitewash come in?

First the bricks, then the whitewashed mud and finally the paintings

"The "Mound C" church, perhaps the oldest of the churches of Soba, was around 13.5 m (44 ft) in length." With the other churches you use is. Is there a reason for the change?

Should all be simple past now

"What seems clear is that Alodian churches lacked eastern entrances and tribunes" Link "tribunes" to [Tribune (architecture)].

Fixed.

Gog the Mild (talk) 16:23, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agriculture edit

"Instead, figs, acacia fruits, dom palm fruits and dates could be identified"> "Could be"; do you mean 'have been'?

Yeah.

"dom palm fruits" The usual spelling is 'doum'.

Alright

Trade edit

"Muslim merchants were recorded to have roamed Nubia" "Roamed" is a bit of an odd word in this context. Any chance of rewording?

Done.

Annotations edit

a. "(like for example Berta)" Delete like.

Fixed.

b. "common, though of course not universal, in Omdurman, the Gezira and Kordofan" Could you put a cite immediately after this quote.

Fixed.

b. "In 1927 it was written that along the White Nile" If you mean that this happened in 1927, you should say 'recorded', not "written".

Fixed.

Gog the Mild (talk) 22:34, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Right, bearing in mind your deadline of 17th I will start going back through this before you have finished addressing the issues above. There are three queries above on ongoing points. My comments in agriculture, trade and annotations above. The three new points below. Plus we need to sort out the 'Nubian issue', but we can leave that until we have the bitty stuff sorted.

The infobox image (map) needs alt text.

How do I implement it? Tried "alt_map" and "alt_map_caption", doesn't work.

That was tricky. I did it while I was researching it.

"Beduin" My understanding is that that is an archaic usage. In any event, you need to be consistent. Pick one of beduin or Bedouin. Note my point above: 'The way that the text switches between "Arab", "Bedouin" and "Beduin" is confusing. If they are synonyms, it would be best to chose one and be consistent.'

A Bedouin is a nomadic Arab. I sometimes use "Arab" so I don't have to use "Bedouin" (or in this case, "Beduin") all the time.

"with 150 lordships residing on both sides of the Nile." If this means what I think it might, it may be better expressed as 'with 150 independent lordships existing, controlling much of both sides of the Nile.' or similar.

Done.

Gog the Mild (talk) 13:51, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Looks good. Assuming that you sort out the Beduin/Bedouin issue then we are nearly there. I will give it a day or two and then read through the whole thing with fresh eyes. I will quite possibly pick up some fresh points, but maybe not, and I will try to come back to you with a coherent idea of what I think the article needs on Nubia/Nubian. You have worked hard on this, and been both prompt and responsive. As a reviewer I appreciate that. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:48, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I already added an explanation for what Nubia is:

"Alodia was located in Nubia, a region which, in the middle ages, extended from Aswan in southern Egypt to an undetermined point south of the confuence of the White and Blue Nile rivers.[17]" -Alodia#Geography

I also just added a specification for "Nubians": "By the early 4th century the kingdom of Kush, which used to control much of Sudan's riverbanks, was in decline, and Nubians (speakers of Nubian languages) began to settle in the Nile Valley.[37"-Alodia#Origins

Those look as if they should do the trick. I will try to get my read through done tomorrow. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:13, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wrapping up edit

Lead: "Alodia, a wide, multicultural state," What does "wide" mean here? It looks as if a word is missing. (Or do you mean 'large'?)

Fixed.

Sources: "Parts of this site were unearthed in the early 1950s and again in the 1980s and 1990s." This reads as if it were the same parts each time. Possibly 'Parts of this site were unearthed in the early 1950s with further excavations in the 1980s and 1990s' or similar?

Ok.

Decline: "overrun by Beduin tribes"

What's wrong with that? The term "overrun"? That's how it's formulated in Hasan 1967 as well.

Oops. I forgot to type my comment in. Sorry. Nothing is wrong with it. I wanted to point out that it was the single example of beduin or Bedouin you hadn't changed to "Arab". In my view it would be more comprehensible to a reader if "beduin" were swapped for 'Arab', but I can live with it as it is. Your choice.

Throughout: You sometimes write "Upper Nile", sometimes "upper Nile. Could you pick one and standardise. (Ditto "Upper Blue Nile" etc.)

Done.

"The people did not oppose him, but prostrated themselves before him." This still does not make sense and needs rewording in some way.

Better?

Languages: Images should not 'sandwich' the text - MOS:SANDWICH.

Fixed.

Trade: "Muslim merchants were recorded to traverse Nubia" This is not grammatical. If you want to use traverse then perhaps 'Muslim merchants were recorded as having traversed Nubia' or similar? Or perhaps 'Muslim merchants were recorded as having traded in Nubia', or 'Muslim merchants were recorded as having travelled in Nubia'?

Picked choice 1.

I have boldly made a couple of copy edits. I would be grateful if you could check that you are ok with them.

Looks good.

Gog the Mild (talk) 16:55, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have a solid article now, which I am happy to support for FA. Well done. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:07, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This looks very interesting, but since the article will probably change a bit after a copy edit, I will wait for that to happen before I review. In the meantime, there are a lot of duplinks, which you can highlight with this script:[25] FunkMonk (talk) 12:09, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@FunkMonk: @Gog the Mild: @Attar-Aram syria: Almost one month passed, still no copy edit from the GCE. There have been several minor copy edits though. Maybe you guys could point out which sentences in particular could need a prose fix, so I can take care of them myself? LeGabrie (talk) 17:07, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's now number five in the list, so you should see some action soon. Its been a slow month because the GOCE drive was on. Plus it is the sort of article I would probably have picked up, but I haven't, otherwise I would have to recuse myself from this assessment. For FA you really need an independent eye. I will do the copy edit if you want, but I won't then be able to support here. It will be done soon. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:15, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it seems to be very close to the top of the list now. In the meantime, you could fix those duplinks I mentioned, though. FunkMonk (talk) 17:22, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: Could you perhaps do that script thing? I don't know anything about that type of stuff. LeGabrie (talk) 17:47, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is very easy, you just cut and paste the code as described. And it will be very useful for your future editing. FunkMonk (talk) 17:52, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well ok, that was actually easy. Deleted all duplicate links which did not appear in the lede already. LeGabrie (talk) 18:17, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From FunkMonk edit

I will review soon, some preliminary comments below while waiting for the copy edit (also so the FAC coordinators can see this page is still active). FunkMonk (talk) 00:14, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"which is approximately 2,75 km2 in size" You should convert all measurements.

Added imperial numbers.

The Abdallab drawing seems very marginally relevant (from reading the caption) to the very image heavy section. Though it seems to have been created specifically for this article, I wonder if it is more useful elsewhere?

Well, the section is about the supposed ancestor of the Abdallab, so it's kinda relevant.

"In contrast to the White Nile Valley the Blue Nile Valley" You could need a comma after White Nile Valley.

Fixed.

"The southernmost Alodian sites have been noted in the proximity of Sennar." I'm not sure what this means. "Noted to be in proximity to"?

Are you sure that it's not "in the proximity of"? LeGabrie (talk) 13:31, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I still think you need "to be" for clarity. FunkMonk (talk) 14:23, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, done.

"Kordofanian; various Eastern Sudanic languages spoken in the Upper Blue Nile Valley such as Berta; Beja; Arabic[1] and Tigre[2]" This seems puzzling, several of thsoe don't even belong in the same language families? And the Kordofanian article doesn't mention all those languages.

Reading it again, I see it is maybe just confusingly written. I think you could make it clearer that the last languages mentioned are not part of the former group.

Better?

It still seems like you are grouping them together under the term Kordofania or as Eastern Sudanic languages, perhaps say "as well as Beja; Arabic[1] and Tigre" or similar. FunkMonk (talk) 14:23, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I added "(like for example Berta)" to make it clear that the following languages do not belong to said Eastern Sudanic languages. I now swapped "Beja" with "Arabic", people should know that Arabic is Semitic.

@FunkMonk and Gog the Mild: Copy edit is done. LeGabrie (talk) 21:02, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh good - you got the A team. I shall get on to it over the next couple of days. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:24, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll also continue soon. FunkMonk (talk) 03:42, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is it anything about the pre-Christian religion of the population known?

We have no written records from that period and only very limited archaeological evidence. All we can say with certainty is that the old Kushite religion was not maintained, as most Kushite temples went into disuse. Added the latter information.

You don't present all the people mentioned. Some are said to be historians or travellers, others get nothing. Should be consistent.

Should be now.

" who is known from a Greek tombstone in Soba" What is meant by "Greek tombstone"? That it was written in Greek? Could be clarified.

Fixed.

"By 1276 al-Abwab, previously described as the northernmost Alodian province, was recorded as an independent splinter kingdom" Why not link the name at first mention, instead of now at the end of the sentence where it is an WP:Easter egg link?

Because at the first mention I am still talking about al-Abwab as Alodian province, not the splinter kingdom.

"Based on pottery finds it has been suggested that it continued to thrive until the 15th and perhaps even the 16th century." What is referred to here, Alodia or al-Abwab?

Al-Abwab.

Could it be clarified in the text? FunkMonk (talk) 22:49, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@FunkMonk: Done. Also added wiki links for captions. LeGabrie (talk) 23:08, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

that caused the "flood gates" to "burst wide open", in text direct quotes like this should be attributed to the authors.

Doné

"a history of the Funj Sultanate compiled in the 19th century" By who?

Several authors. Added that.

You could give a date in the caption of the Funj image, like you do with the Arab horseman. Also, that image[26] could benefit form a proper infobox on Commons.

Done.

"The Nubian language was spoken in central Sudan until the 19th century, when it was replaced by Arabic.[120] It contained many words of Nubian origin" Not sure what this means. Seems self evident the Nubian language would have words of Nubian origin, or is there some distinction that isn't made clear here?

Copy editor messed that one up. Fixed.

"in the 17th century, a Sudanese prophecy mentioned a church in the Nuba Mountains" By who?

Added name

"Apotropaic rituals stemming from Christian practices outlived the conversion to Islam[132] and remained in use well into the 20th century." I see there is a long footnote about this, but I think it is interesting/significant enough that some of it could be discussed there in the article body.

Done.

"the new capital of the recently colonized Sudan" I think you could state who did the colonising.

Done.

"Because of their speed horses" I think there could be a comma after "speed".

Done.

You should check the image captions for terms to link, I see a bunch missing.

Didn't link to terms already linked in the main text.

Captions are treated separately, though so they should get links. FunkMonk (talk) 22:49, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"ultimately resulting in the modern day Sudanese Arab identity" This should be expanded upon outside the intro, as the intro should not have unique info.

Deleted that part from the lede.

Support - this looks good to me now, and I hope we'll see more FACs like it. FunkMonk (talk) 23:11, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley edit

I get error messages for the Hesse and Drzewiecki sources. They do not appear to be cited.

Hid them

"ancient kingdom of Kush in around 350" I would suggest adding "AD" to this first date, particularly as you do use AD twice below.

Fixed.

"when records show it controlled" I would prefer "when records show that it controlled", but other editors might disagree.

Fixed.

"A powerful king and provincial governors appointed by him" This is ambiguous whether it refers to Alodia or Makuria. I would say "A powerful king of Aludia and provincial governors appointed by him".

Fixed.

"The 14th century saw the arrival of both the plague and Beduin". The main text says "might have ravaged Nubia in the mid-14th century killing many sedentary Nubians, but did not affecting the nomadic Arabs". This is far less definite and sounds like speculation that the Black Death reached Alodia but did not affect nomads. You should make clear that this is surmise and I am not sure it is worth mentioning.

Rephrased.

The main text above is ungrammatical.

Fixed.

Is there a reason that you say Beduin instead of the more usual Bedouin?

That's how it's written in American English (I think)

"By around 1500 Soba had fallen to either Arabs or the Funj." Not to Bedouin? Then why mention them?

I use "Beduins" and "Arabs" interchangeably.

"a fertile plain bounded by the White and Blue Nile rivers" I think it would be helpful in understanding the geographical statements below to say the White Nile to the west and Blue to the east.

Fixed.

The geography section is difficult to follow without a map showing the locations mentioned, although I realise that getting a map can be very difficult.

The map in the infobox will have to do the job.

"By the 4th century the kingdom of Kush, which used to control much of Sudan's riverbanks, was in decline" As you say below it ceased to exist by the mid-century, I think it would be better to say in decline by the early 4th century AD.

Even if the source only says "4th century"?

If Kush ceased to exist by the mid 4th century then it is confusing to say that it declined by the 4th century. I would delete.

Added "early".

Dudley Miles (talk) 20:28, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:33, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"No native or imported pottery or glassware postdating the 13th century could be identified at Soba." This presumably means no pottery so "native or imported" is superfluous.

Fixed.

"Two churches were apparently destroyed during the 13th century, although they were later rebuilt." Is it known when they were rebuilt?

Since no pottery post-dating the 13th century is known it must have happened still in the 13th century.

Al-Maghrebi and al-Harrani. You should give the full name on the first (or only) mention.

Done.

overcultivation. I would find a suitable article to link to or delete the red link.

As you wish.

" it was likely comparable to that of Makuria". I think similar would be a better word than comparable.

Fixed.

"which was ruled by an appointed arabophone". What is an arabophone?

Someone who speaks Arabic.

"where it is written with surprisingly correct grammar" I would delete "surprisingly" as POV.

Replaced with "quite".

The type of christianity practised in Alodia is an important omission in the article. It was obviously Oriental Orthodoxy, as shown in the statement that "Nubian church architecture was greatly influenced by that of Egypt, Syria and Armenia" and that the Alodian church was under the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria. Is this not discussed by the sources?

There is also this: "State and church were closely intertwined in Alodia,[149] with the Alodian kings probably serving as its patrons.[150] Coptic documents observed by Johann Michael Vansleb during the later 17th century list the following bishoprics in the Alodian kingdom: Arodias, Borra, Gargara, Martin, Banazi, and Menkesa.[151] Arodias might have referred to the bishopric in Soba.[149] The bishops were dependent on the patriarch of Alexandria.[3]"

Dudley Miles (talk) 20:28, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@FunkMonk and Dudley Miles: I have two days left. Please check if you want to address anything else. LeGabrie (talk) 19:54, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to come back late but there are a few points arising from the nominator's replies to my comments. 1. The main one is that the nominator says that he uses Arab and Beduin interchangeably. As there are many non-Beduin Arabs this is likely to confuse the reader and I suggest changing all uses of Arab to Beduin. 2. Arabaphone is a very unusual word. I suggest adding in brackets the definition "Arabic speaking". 3. "Two churches were apparently destroyed during the 13th century, although they were later rebuilt." I think it would be helpful to say that they were rebuilt in the same century.

I would be happy to make the changes myself if this is acceptable to the nominator and it would help. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:38, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dudley Miles. I seem to have been left "article sitting", see the posts currently at the very bottom of the page. I have worked with LeGabrie before on African history articles - assessing for GAN, copy editing for GOCE. And have reviewed this one, see above.

That said, I think that I can speak for the nominator in saying please go ahead with your proposed edits against your points 2 and 3. Re your point 1, I raised the same issue. I think that the nominator has settled on Arab - they gave reasons which I won't go into unless you would rather - with one exception (that I noticed, apologies if you have spotted more). I wasn't wild about that, but as it was literally the last outstanding issue decided not to push it, instead commenting "I wanted to point out that it was the single example of beduin or Bedouin you hadn't changed to "Arab". In my view it would be more comprehensible to a reader if "beduin" were swapped for 'Arab', but I can live with it as it is. Your choice." The lack of change suggests that the nominator would rather leave it, but again I think that I can speak for them in saying please change it if it is a deal breaker for you. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:50, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it is misleading to use Arab and Bedouin interchangeably. We should follow what the sources do in any case. FunkMonk (talk) 15:55, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I have made all the changes. I do not have access to the source cited for references to Beduin but as the book title is The Arabs and the Sudan and the nominator uses the terms interchangeably I have assumed that it is reasonable to change all six "Beduins" (including one in the map jpg description) to "Arabs". Dudley Miles (talk) 11:23, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator notes edit

@LeGabrie: This looks to need a source review still, and a spot-check for verifiability and close paraphrasing. I've requested it. --Laser brain (talk) 13:54, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I won't be able to participate in that review though, I am taking a break. LeGabrie (talk) 20:12, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK—does that mean you are withdrawing the nomination? It can't be promoted without those reviews and you would need to participate as the nominator. --Laser brain (talk) 20:37, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Laser brain: If I renominate the article does it have to be reviewed all over again, by different reviewers? LeGabrie (talk) 21:31, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Butting in as Laser brain's fellow coord, the new nom would start from scratch but it would be fine, even expected, for you to ping those who participated in this one, inviting them to re-review (which, if there have been few changes since they looked previously, would not be onerous). That said, how long is your planned break? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:43, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian Rose: Most likely a couple of months. Perhaps I might be able to post short one-liners from time to time, but nothing more. A source review probably requires a bit more than that, I would imagine. LeGabrie (talk) 22:09, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay tks LeGabrie -- that makes the decision easy, I just wanted to check we weren't talking only a week or so. Let's treat this nom as withdrawn then, and when you get back you can renominate and ping the previous reviewers inviting them to stop by, so the new nom has an opportunity to hit the ground running. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:42, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian Rose and Laser brain: Would it be possible, if LeGebrie is agreeable, for another editor, eg me, to step in and field any queries arising from the source review? I assessed this at GAN and put in a fair bit of work above reviewing it as a FAC; it would be a shame not to see it over the line. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:42, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't mind. Thanks for the offer and see ya. LeGabrie (talk) 23:46, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tks Gog -- as the nominator is okay with that, so am I if Laser brain is. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:17, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alright I will take a look at the sourcing. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:01, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Earwigs copyvio is clear
FN #211 - used once, faithful to source.
FN #41 - used once, faithful to source (gawd Hatke is hard to read at times!!)
FN #36 - used once, faithful to source
FN #37 - used once, faithful to source
FN #38 - used once, faithful to source
I can't see Welsby's texts directly but can see he has discussed the kingdom and Soba
only formatting issue was the isbn spacing, which I have fixed.

Hence I am happy with the sourcing. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:44, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well this has certainly been a team effort, thanks and well done all. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:37, 22 December 2018 (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. Ian Rose (talk) 07:38, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 12:40, 21 December 2018 [27].

Brie Larson edit

Nominator(s): Krimuk2.0 (talk) 15:02, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you dislike pop culture icons but are a fan of cheese, dolls, architecture, rice, or latex, then there's plenty for you here. If not, I sure won't be clapping for you. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 15:02, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

Quotes within quotation marks should use single quotes

FN4, FN40, check for others. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:12, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FN67, FN114, check for others. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:30, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FN95 is missing author, same with FN92, check for others

FN135, FN139 (agency), check for others. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:12, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FN98, FN119, check for others. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:30, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FN4: author name doesn't match source, check for others

FN105, check for others. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:12, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FN45, check for others. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:30, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Channel names shouldn't be italicized

FN7, FN23, check for others. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:12, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Website names generally should be italicized

Archives and retrieval dates aren't needed for GBooks links - the links are courtesy

Issues with FN32 and 22, check for others. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:12, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be overspecific with book publication dates

FN17, FN20, check for others. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:12, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edition statements aren't part of the title

FN30 and others: not all Vulture articles are from New York, check that things are properly attributed

FN32 is incomplete

Currently using the article title as the publication title - those should be separate. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:12, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FN52: publication title doesn't match source, check for others

Nikkimaria, this seems fine to be. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:40, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That link gives the publication title as Slant; the citation gives the publication title as Slate. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:12, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FN73: date doesn't match source, check for others

FN95 (date missing), check for others. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:12, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FN98 (date missing), check for others. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:30, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FN107 has an odd author format

FN132: pages? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:24, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All done. I hope I haven't missed anything. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:40, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria, all done now, hopefully. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 17:21, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

'Fraid not. I realize it would be time-consuming to check each ref, but that might actually be the best approach in this case - it seems for whatever reason there is a significant rate of errors or omissions. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:30, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria, I went through each of the references and have fixed the errors. Cheers! Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:27, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47 edit

I have a question about this sentence (She was mostly homeschooled, which she believed allowed her to explore innovative and abstract experiences.). How can one be “mostly” homeschooled?
For this part (be featured in the Untitled Avengers film), I am uncertain if “Untitled” needs to be capitalized.

Wonderful work with the article. I could not find much that needed improvement. Surprisingly, I have never actually seen any of Larson’s work (film or television), but I still very much enjoyed reading this article. I hope you find this review to be helpful. I will support this once both of my nitpicky comments are addressed. Have an excellent rest of your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 07:16, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the kind words, Aoba47. In response to your first comment, I'd say that it's a bit tricky. This source says that she was "home-schooled for much of her childhood" and this says "mostly homeschooled" as well. My best guess is that she briefly attended public school but I couldn't find any mention of it anywhere. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:40, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense to me. Thank you for the clarification. I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 21:17, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:27, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

File:Brie Larson in 2018.jpg: Appropriate ALT text and use within the article (though it is slightly odd to have her look away from the article, but that is not a major issue in my opinion). It is appropriately licensed and tagged.
The images in the body of the article (File:2017 ACT The Strand 1127 Market Street.jpg, File:Brie Larson cropped.jpg, File:Brie Larson (cropped).jpg, File:Brie Larson in 2017.jpeg, File:Free Fire 01 (29694859031).jpg, and File:Brie Larson by Gage Skidmore 2 (cropped).jpg) are all appropriately licensed and tagged. Each image has appropriate ALT text and use within the article. Aoba47 (talk) 21:28, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Aoba. :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:25, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad that I could help. Aoba47 (talk) 23:00, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Hawkeye7 edit

Support ALooks of the required standard to me. I did find one curiosity:

"A journalist for Slant Magazine magazine"?

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:24, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Hawkeye7. :) I've removed the duplicate "magazine". Thanks for pointing it out. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 11:44, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Moise edit

“She was next hired for the ABC sitcom Hope & Faith, but she and some other cast members were dropped after the unaired pilot.” One would expect all, not just some, cast to be dropped if the pilot was cancelled. Can you clarify this in the article?

The show wasn't cancelled. Some of the cast were replaced after an unaired pilot, which is quite common during pilot season. I've tweaked the sentence. Does it read better now? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:28, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

“blaming it on filmmaker's inability to typecast her.” Is that “filmmakers’ “? Even so, I found this sentence not clear. Could you clarify it?

She said, "I wasn't a perfect package of one thing. I wasn't pretty enough to play the popular girl, I wasn't mousy enough to be the mousy girl, so I never fit in". Is there a better way to say this? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:28, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

“To support herself, Larson worked as a DJ.” A DJ at a club or at a radio station? Moisejp (talk) 16:26, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to club DJ. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:28, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looking forward to the rest of your comments, Moisejp. :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:28, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Krimuk. I'll get back to this very soon. In my first read-through and a half, not much jumped out at me in the prose, but I'd like to at least finish my second read-through. If I have time I hope to do spotchecks of a few sources, or if I don't have time I'll limit the scope of my review to the prose. Moisejp (talk) 06:51, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I support on prose. It is very well written and engaging. Moisejp (talk) 05:54, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much, Moisejp. :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:26, 6 December 2018 (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. --Laser brain (talk) 12:40, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 12:21, 21 December 2018 [28].

Gothic boxwood miniature edit

Nominator(s): Ceoil, Attic Salt

Impossibly small wood-cut miniatures from the 15th and 16th centuries, which have unfortunately been under studied until very recently, partly because they are too small to fully appreciate even with the naked eye. I have watched people come across them in museums, and the usual reaction is jaw drop; it takes a few minutes to realise what you are looking at. User:Attic Salt has been especially helpful with a series of detailed copy edits. Ceoil (talk) 01:30, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tim riley edit

This is a most interesting article and I don't think I'll be the only reader who comes to the subject with no prior knowledge at all and learns a lot. A few suggestions about the text

Engvar
- It isn't clear which variety of English the article is intended to be in. At first I thought it was in BrE ("categorised") but then ran across AmE ("coloring") and from a quick skim-check I make it AmE 4 (artifacts, coloring, medalist, modeling) and BrE 5 (categorised, categorises, organised, realised, specialised).
  Done Ceoil (talk) 22:43, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- False titles – fine if in AmE, but not in BrE, where a definite article removes the pain: "to [the] art historian Lynn Jacobs", "to [the] art historian Frits Scholten" etc.
  yes, absolutely - done Ceoil (talk) 22:43, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Punctuation
- The MoS bids us use straight rather than curly inverted commas (style’s, saints’ soldiers’ etc).
  Ok Ceoil (talk) 23:26, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Another thing the MoS prescribes is to put the full stop after the quotation marks for a quote that ends a sentence. (I'm forever falling foul of that myself.)

Done. Attic Salt (talk) 13:25, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lead
- Is "gebedsnoot" definitely German? It looks Dutch to me, and a quick Google rather points in that direction too. (But if it is a German noun it needs a capital G.)

Its definitely Dutch - changed now. Ceoil (talk) 23:24, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Says "Dutch" now. Attic Salt (talk) 13:26, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- "sixteenth century" – but "16th century" in the previous paragraph.

- Done. Ceoil (talk) 23:24, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- "heaven and hell" – but "Heaven and Hell" with capital letters later in the text.

- Done. Ceoil (talk) 23:24, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- "Due to their rarity" – fine if the article is in AmE, but in BrE "due to" has not yet been generally accepted as a compound preposition, and "owing to" or "because of" is wanted.

- Done. Ceoil (talk) 23:24, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- "relatively understudied" – relative to what? Rather leaves us in the air unless we are told what other studies you're comparing these studies to.
  Clarified in the lead, but could do with expansion in the article body. Ceoil (talk) 22:43, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Production
- I'm not sure why the phrase "evenly soft and tactile surface when polished" is in quotes. Usually if words are in quotes one expects to be told inline whose words they are.

- Done. Ceoil (talk) 23:24, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- "overlaid onto one another" – your meaning is perfectly clear, but looked at logically they can't all be laid on top of one another. "One on top of another" is a bit wordy, but more accurate, I think. You might want to canvass opinion on this: perhaps I'm being too fussy.
  - No agree, and trimmed accordingly. Ceoil (talk) 06:32, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- "larger scale counterparts" – hyphens are not my strongest point, but I think I'd hyphenate this.
  Fixed Ceoil (talk) 23:26, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- "straightedge" – the OED hyphenates this.
  Fixed Ceoil (talk) 23:26, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- "high born" – I'd hyphenate this too, I think.
  Fixed Ceoil (talk) 23:26, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- "first attributed person by the art historian Jaap Leeuwenberg" – we've already been introduced to this expert, so I'd omit "the art historian Jaap" here.
- "may have lead" – "may have led"
  Done Ceoil (talk) 22:43, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- "some 60 of surviving examples" – I'm wondering where you draw the line for giving numbers as words. We've got as high as sixteen in words earlier.
  Because i was too lazy to look up how to spell sixthy. Ceoil (talk) 22:15, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- "the Dutch version of his name, Adam Dircksz, is usually used by art historians". – it doesn't bother me, but some people get really exercised about the use of the passive voice, of which there's a fair bit in this article. Here, for instance, you could use the active: "but art historians usually use the Dutch version of his name, Adam Dircksz". (Either way, perhaps "generally use(d)" to avoid the jingle?)
  - have always struggled with this passive voice thing, as I dont know what it means, frankly. Its a term Ive only heard on wiki. Ceoil (talk) 06:31, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's a matter of what you make the subject of the sentence. Active is X does Y. Passive is Y is done by X. "I like you" is active. "You are liked by me" means the same but is passive, and longer winded. Sometimes the passive is useful, as in "all the seats were taken", which would actually be longer winded in the active – "people had taken all the seats". But generally active is shorter and less woolly. Tim riley talk 20:30, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tim, very clear. For obvious reasons English grammar wasn't taught in Irish religious order schools in the 70s, so am at a bit of a disadvantage with this stuff. Will comb through. Ceoil (talk) 08:48, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- Last para of section: does ref 35 cover all four preceding sentences?

Done. Ceoil (talk) 21:43, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- "Henry V III" – one or the other, I imagine. [Later: the penny's dropped: it's an unwanted space in VIII.]

ok Ceoil (talk) 21:43, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Iconography
- "depictions of the Crucifixion" – not capitalised earlier.
Formats
- "similar coloring, however" – stronger stop than a comma wanted here.
- "memento mori's" – the authorities think the plural of memento mori is memento mori, and given its Latin origin that's no doubt true, but I don't see why you shouldn't make it an English plural – but not, please, with an inverted comma.
Prayer beads
- "turned by a bow" – this caught me on the back foot: a bow? Is there a useful link you could add?
  Have rephrased this. Ceoil (talk) 00:21, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- "a sphere, which they then cut in half, hollowed out and attached a fastening hinge" – there's a preposition missing here, as you can see if you mentally omit the words in brackets: "a sphere, which they then [cut in half, hollowed out and] attached a fastening hinge".
  Done. Ceoil (talk) 00:56, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- "apotropaic" – I know the MoS discourages blue links from within quotes, but I think you might make an exception here. I certainly needed the dictionary, and I'm sure most other readers will too without a link.
  Done Ceoil (talk) 22:43, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- "A sweet-smelling fragrant substance" – is there a touch of tautology here? If it's sweet-smelling it must be fragrant, and vice vera. (Now I check, I see the OED defines fragrant as "Emitting a sweet or pleasant odour, sweet-smelling.")
  Done Ceoil (talk) 22:43, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- "a single bead, more rarely" – stronger stop wanted.
  Done Ceoil (talk) 22:43, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- "the bead stand, his cross; and the interior reliefs, his divinity" – I was taught to give the pronoun a capital letter when referring to the Deity. Perhaps that's gone now, but I just mention it.
  No your right. Ceoil (talk) 22:43, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Triptychs
- "fixed hinge" – wants a hyphen, I think.

- Done. Ceoil (talk) 23:24, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- "for lay persons used for private devotion" – a comma after "persons" would make it clear that it was the objects and not the persons that were used for private devotion.

- Done. Ceoil (talk) 23:24, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- "Christ Carrying of the Cross" – either Christ's Carrying of the Cross or Christ Carrying the Cross, I suggest. The capitalisation seems a touch lavish here, too, but I don't press the point.

- Now Christ's. Ceoil (talk) 23:24, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- "many of these type of altarpieces" – singular-v-plural clash: either this type or these types
- "contract between" – contrast?

- Hmm. I was only out one letter. But fine. Changed. Ceoil (talk) 22:24, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- "Part of the appeal of the Passion" – I struggle with this sentence. I get that there was a contrast between A and B, but can't work out what is setting what in deep relief.
Collections
- "is with the dukes of Bavaria" – "is that of…" possibly?
  yes, better. Ceoil (talk) 22:43, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- "fiancier" – a pleasing typo: one who regularly gets engaged to be married, no doubt.
  No comment. Ceoil (talk) 22:43, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Study and conservation
- "comparatively little research" – comparative to what?

That's all from me. I really enjoyed this article. I note what you say about the inability of photographs to do these works justice, but the ones you have chosen look pretty stunning to me. – Tim riley talk 09:05, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Tim, those suggestions have really helped add polish. Most done down, a few to get back to this evening. Ceoil (talk) 22:43, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for tardy return – just senescent forgetfulness. I've had a final read-through, and with the repeated caveat that I know nothing of the subject I am happy to support. I have enjoyed revisiting this informative and readable piece, which seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. Tim riley talk 16:20, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Itb was a very rewarding review....many thanks once again. Ceoil (talk) 19:32, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tkbrett edit

An interesting article about a subject I wasn't even aware existed.

The following sentence strikes me as awkward, maybe because of a missing comma: 'Such stylistic traits include broad and densely populated animated scenes, often placed in the words of art historian William Wixom, on "steeply angled ground planes of tiled floors".'
Sorted. Ceoil (talk) 23:20, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Tkbrett (✉) 00:08, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Prayer bead (AGO 29365)..." Is it normal to mention the accession number of a piece in the body of an article? I ask because I'm not used to seeing it done that way, though I understand this case may warrant it given that some pieces may not necessarily have a title.
Its added because "Prayer bead" is so generic, and refers to the overall type rather than the specific example. Ceoil (talk) 22:43, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair. Tkbrett (✉) 00:08, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As a more general comment, I'm wondering if there's any more information regarding Adam Dircksz? You mentioned that almost nothing is known about him, but the article left me wanting to know more about the origin of the miniatures.

Tkbrett (✉) 07:08, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for comments, and yes it is fustrating that the origions are not well understood. Have dug deep on Dircksz, and this is it; but as the object type has seem a huge resurgence of interest in just the last 3 years, no doubt a fuller picture will soon emerge. Ceoil (talk) 23:20, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully more research comes out. In the meantime, this will work great. Tkbrett (✉) 00:08, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Am considering having a crack at a bio. We'll see. Ceoil (talk) 17:52, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

"In some instances, boxwood miniatures were lined with or encased in silver." - source?

FN1 appears to be dead

Is working ok for me [29] Ceoil (talk) 23:20, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FN2 should list both speakers

Done Ceoil (talk) 23:20, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Use a consistent date format

Seems to have been addressed. Attic Salt (talk) 14:13, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FN33: don't see a matching entry under Sources

Fixed Ceoil (talk) 23:20, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FN36 is missing author. Same with FN39

FN43: page formatting doesn't match Sources

Some but not all Sources periodicals include page numbers - should be consistent

This appears to have been addressed. Attic Salt (talk) 14:16, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FN66 has some odd formatting

Be consistent in whether volume and number are capitalized

This appears to have been addressed. Attic Salt (talk) 14:18, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thornton punctuation doesn't match other entries

Be consistent in whether you use "NY" or "New York"

This appears to have been addressed. Attic Salt (talk) 14:19, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No citations to Gow Mann or Porras. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:15, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks as ever Nikki, all sorted now. Ceoil (talk) 00:07, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt edit

Interesting topic, about which I was happy to learn more. A few quibbles:

"highly intricate" "extremely intricate" sounds better to my ear, YMMV.

I prefer "highly", but not wedded to it. Ceoil (talk) 18:56, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"while others are standalone triptych altarpieces or statutes." No doubt "statues" is meant.

done Ceoil (talk) 18:56, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Their iconography can be linked to contemporary panel painting, sculpture, woodcut engravings, and altarpieces." should painting be plural?

yes done Ceoil (talk) 18:56, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"members of high nobility." suggest "high-ranking nobles"

better, and changed Ceoil (talk) 18:56, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Some of the original owners can be identified from markings, usually, initials or coats of arms, left by the sculptors.[5]" I'm not sure "left" sounds best here, maybe "included" or "placed"?

done Ceoil (talk) 18:56, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Boxwood is a hardwood with fine grain and high density, and it is resistant to splitting and chipping—all ideal characteristics for wood carving, although its application is limited by the small size of available wood pieces." I might say "use" for "application", and the ending feels a bit clunky.

Fixed. Attic Salt (talk) 13:30, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The lining with silver sentence needs a citation.

Done., Attic Salt (talk) 13:32, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Other shared features include various spatial devices, figures in contemporary dress, and draperies are arranged in angular folds.[27]" shouldn't the final clause be some sort of noun phrase? It reads strangely to my ear.

The verb "are" is now removed. This probably addresses this concern. Attic Salt (talk) 13:35, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"A minority contain plates of arms " is this like coats of arms?

This phrase is no longer in the article. Attic Salt (talk) 13:36, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

" were probably intended to evoke church setting.[37]" Is "settings" meant?

done Ceoil (talk) 21:55, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"The rosary beads are mostly around the same size so that they fit into a hand," Shouldn't there be more explicit discussions of the size of these things?

working on this Ceoil (talk) 18:56, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
done Ceoil (talk) 21:55, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"His divinity.[53][44]" Are you going by numerical order for refs?

done Ceoil (talk) 21:55, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"The panels are usually quite shallow, with just enough dept in the niche, to position the figures, which can either free-standing or carved in high relief." The second comma seems to me unneeded.

Yes it was; done Ceoil (talk) 22:15, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"The earliest modern collection where they were considered objects of art with intrinsic aesthetic, rather than merely functional, value is that of dukes of Bavaria, as recorded in a 1598 inventory which contains several boxwood miniatures.[66]" Likely a "the" before "dukes".--Wehwalt(talk) 02:57, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The last sentence you mention has been rewritten. Think I have all these now, if you would care to revisit, and many thanks. Ceoil (talk) 00:20, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support All looks good.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:44, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk edit

Though this has already received "enough" reviews, I'll review it as an excuse to read the article, which seems quite intriguing... Some preliminary comments below. FunkMonk (talk) 15:02, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Galleries are generally discouraged, unless they serve some point. Maybe if the title of that section could be specified further, it might come across as more necessary.

Butting in - it is absolute nonsense to say that WP:Galleries are generally discouraged, as reading the guideline will show. They have featured in almost every visual arts FAC/FA for years, as Ceoil knows well. Johnbod (talk) 15:40, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It also says "and the gallery itself should be appropriately titled (unless its theme is clear from context)", which is pretty much what I'm requesting. "Gallery" is pretty vague. FunkMonk (talk) 15:46, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking about this but not seeing a alternative. If it was "examples" for eg; well not all of the images are. Ceoil (talk) 09:25, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are covered by "unless its theme is clear from context". Otherwise I duuno, delete it? Doesn't seem like a hill worth fighting for. Ceoil (talk) 05:10, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not a big deal. It seemed the majority of the examples show prayer nuts, but since there are exceptions, this would be a misleading title. Maybe you could have a gallery of only prayer nuts, and another of different types (and more images could thereby be added), but let's just leave it. FunkMonk (talk) 14:37, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Your last option is under consideration; I'm all for more images:) Ceoil (talk) 17:04, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem the subject could warrant the article be tagged as part of some sort of Christianity project as well?
Yes agree, will do. 09:25, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
Done. Ceoil (talk) 17:04, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There are a bunch of duplinks, you can highlight them with this script:[30]
Very hand script! and thanks for review FunkMonk, delighted you enjoyed. Ceoil (talk) 09:25, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"and these was divided" were?

Done Ceoil (talk) 19:26, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This image[31] seems to have a lot of unnecessary space at top and bottom, perhaps crop? As a result, it would also take less space.
Unfortunately am blocked on commons for next two weeks, re an upload that was deleted two years ago <shruh>, but yes, agree and will do then. Ceoil (talk) 17:04, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds ridiculous, I can do the crop. Do you have a link that can direct me to discussion of your block? FunkMonk (talk) 19:26, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Would appreciate it you could do the crop. Here you go[32]. Ceoil (talk) 19:38, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've cropped it and changed the levels. FunkMonk (talk) 23:04, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since everything known about Adam Dircksz seems to have been mentioned here, perhaps his name should be a redirect? Also, I wonder if his full name was Adam Dirckszoon, as is usual for Dutch names of the time.
Am struggling with this tbh; had thought of a separate page, but there is too little, and its all highly contentious anyway. I think your option of a redirect is best. (ps definitely not Dirckszoon!) Ceoil (talk) 17:10, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dircksz certainly means Dirckszoon (son of Dirck), but it is normal to use the contraction, as the Dutch do. Johnbod (talk) 17:28, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes (having written a good deal of articles about animals discovered by 17th century Dutch travelers, the contraction often appears), and searching for that name seems to bring some additional sources in Dutch that may be relevant. Maybe MWAK can confirm. FunkMonk (talk) 18:52, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected! Fram also has an interest in this period, to see if there is much has been missed. Ceoil (talk) 18:59, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling variations could have included Dir(c)ks, Dir(c)kse and Dir(c)ksen but these do not seem to result in any relevant Google hits. One link seems to be about our subject when searching for Dirckszoon: https://www.debijbel.nl/kennis-achtergronden/bestuur-samenleving/1141/kruisiging refers to an object made for a certain Evert Janszoon van Bleiswijk from Delft, presently in the collection of the Rijksmuseum. This points to a related problem. The text states that Adam Dirckz might have been from the Southern Netherlands because he could have lived in Delft. However, that city is in the county of Holland, in the Northern Netherlands. The article Frits Scholten, "Speelgoed voor de ziel", Kunstschrift 2017(3): 10-19, ( https://www.kunstschrift.nl/index.php?slug=3-2017 ) defends the hypothesis that the artist was from Holland. As it is at least contentious on which side of the present border the man worked, wouldn't it be preferable not to refer to Belgium in the lead? And does the source asserting that some texts are in "Flemish" simply means "Dutch" by this, or do they contain words or phrases typical of Flemish or Brabantian dialects? If only Dutch is meant, the texts cannot be an indication that he was from the south, just that he was not from the Walloon parts of the Netherlands.--MWAK (talk) 20:34, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you MWAK; the info re Evert Janszoon van Bleiswijk is very interesting, and the plot thickens. Re Belgium in the lead, would Low Countries be a better option. Ceoil (talk) 20:39, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Low Countries" is a good alternative.--MWAK (talk) 07:53, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MWAK, note the article now also states "Due to their quality and stylistic similarities to the full sized Flemish and Brabantine altarpieces, they were for centuries assumed to originate from Southern Holland, however more recent research has found that a majority of the early owners came from the northern provinces of Holland and Zeeland." Have only linked Zeeland, if you could advise pls. Ceoil (talk) 14:59, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, "Southern Holland" should be Southern Netherlands which in the context of the sixteenth century refers to the area south of the Meuse bend, thus including modern Belgium. It's complex :o). You can either explain this in short — or as much as possible avoid any mention of the modern states, an option I personally prefer in such historical articles. "Holland" can best link to County of Holland.--MWAK (talk) 17:42, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"known as prayer nuts (the English term comes from the equivalent Dutch word gebedsnoot)" Only linked and explained in the intro, which should not have unique info.
Now moved to the prayer nuts section. Ceoil (talk) 21:05, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"The earliest record a collection is found" Record of?

Done Ceoil (talk) 19:26, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is a bit unclear here if all prayer beads covered here are also prayer nuts, or whether the latter is a type of the former. Are there non-prayer nut prayer beads of this type? Otherwise, it might help to be a bit more consistent in what term you use.

Done (see below from Johnbod and others) Ceoil (talk) 19:26, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well spotted, section re-titled, but need to comb for more of this. Ceoil (talk) 17:04, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Part of the appeal of the Passion was that the contrast between relatively simple scenes from the Life of Christ, and highly detailed vistas of more complex scenes, such as the Crucifixion or depictions of Heaven and Hell set in deep relief." I am not sure why the "that" is needed here.
Done. Ceoil (talk) 22:48, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"There are around 150 surviving examples." Only stated in intro.

Done Ceoil (talk) 01:42, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Most of the beads are 10–15 cm in diameter" only stated in intro.

This is expanded somewhat now in the body. Ceoil (talk) 13:30, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re this last one, am working up a section on scale, but feeling very lazy today, can't pull myself away from YouTube, and its slow going. Ceoil (talk) 19:02, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - looks good to me now. Still going to be a scale section? FunkMonk (talk) 19:56, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and re scale section, no, not enough solid continuous eximation in the sources to create in that guise; have instead been dotting facts and figures through the article. Ceoil (talk) 20:05, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Mr rnddude edit

Reviewing for the same reasons as Funk Monk.

Polyptychs:

Part of the appeal of the Passion was that the contrast between relatively simple scenes from the Life of Christ, and highly detailed vistas of more complex scenes, such as the Crucifixion or depictions of Heaven and Hell set in deep relief - that the ... are what? I think you meant [are] set in deep relief, or perhaps the that isn't needed.
... which can either free-standing or carved in high relief - which can either be or which can be either here. Missing "be" in any case.

Fixed. Attic Salt (talk) 13:47, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Form:

with the interiors hollowed out to make way for elaborate carvings - perhaps accommodate instead of make way for? Optional entirely.

This has been done. Attic Salt (talk) 13:48, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Dircksz:

... or him might have been a patron - him should be he, here.

This has been taken care of. Attic Salt (talk) 13:49, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Other:

It's unfortunate that the images don't have alt texts, for the visually impaired reader, but... I haven't a clue how you'd write an alt text for any of these images. Even the human eye is barely sufficient to grasp the depth of detail and quality of workmanship on display.

Yes have thought about this too can't really see a solution; there is so much detail that it seems unfair to focus in and describe one or two bits. Let me see. Ceoil (talk) 08:40, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for writing this excellent and fascinating article. I have only a few of the most minor suggestions to make for improvements. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:25, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mr rnddude, nice to see you again and working through. Ceoil (talk) 08:40, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SC edit

Interesting article about something I'd never heard of before. A couple of minor nit-picky points to have a look at:

Production

"surface when polished".[9]" There is no opening quote mark to this (and it doesn't need to be a quote, given the information)

Got this Ceoil (talk) 09:57, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Attribution

"Charles VI,[23] and Albert V of": you use the serial comma here, but don't elsewhere – it's worth having a quick spin round and making it consistent one way or the other
Fixed but scanning. Ceoil (talk) 09:57, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"and Albert V of Bavaria,[24] are known to have owned": comma after Bavaria not needed
Done. Ceoil (talk) 09:57, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adam

"and medallist, or him might have been": needs a tweak

Fixed that one. Johnbod (talk) 02:45, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and the article has an abundance of the phrase "have been", which I need to sort. Ceoil (talk) 09:57, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prayer beads

"According to art historian": no definite article here, but you have in a couple of other places – worth checking for consistency

This has been addressed. Attic Salt (talk) 13:53, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"jewelry" – I see colour and a couple of other British spellings, so this should be jewellery

This has been addressed, though one example of "jewelry" appears in a quotation. Attic Salt (talk) 13:53, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Your last source (Wixom, 1983) seems to be missing a page number – it's "pp. 38–4"

Done. Ceoil (talk) 03:13, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hope these help! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:17, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have them all now Schro, and thanks. Ceoil (talk) 20:59, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support A final readthrough after the recent changes, and this has my support. As an ignoramus in the field, this review is on prose only. - SchroCat (talk) 20:46, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Johnbod edit

"The majority are spherical prayer nuts (rosary beads; the English term ..." - prayer nut ≠ rosary bead, I think. Some may have been part of a rosary, but apparently most not. There are some questionable uses of "rosary" later on. The BM page on the Waddesdon Bequest one starts "Rosary bead or prayer-nut" & doesn't mention rosaries thereafter. Probably better to drop the word - "Rosary bead with the Vision of St Hubert and St George and the Dragon" -seems very odd iconogaphy for a rosary, and the section dealing with this one on the Ontario site doesn't use the word.

Now " The majority are types of spherical rosary beads known as prayer nuts (the English term comes from the equivalent Dutch word gebedsnoot)". Will look at Hubert and St George. 08:58, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

This is well above my pay grade, and perhaps I have got this wrong, but aren't they used as, or at least derived from, the larger paternoster bead in a single-decade rosary? What other function might a prayer nut perform? Ostentatious display disguised as devotion? (That said, perhaps they were something like a netsuke or chatelaine.) Theramin (talk) 01:35, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Theramin, for the first part, ostentatious might well cover it. Ceoil (talk) 01:53, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They appear to have mostly been used by themselves, as in the portrait in the gallery. In the Chatsworth one, the other beads are equally intricate, but if this was typical, where have all the other beads gone? But see next point. Johnbod (talk) 13:31, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, well, from the sources I have read, it seems there are (at least two?) extant boxwood miniatures of the beads in the form of a rosary. There are sources talking about them as paternoster beads, or at least derived from them, but the lack of visible wear suggests they were probably kept safely away and brought out infrequently, not handled daily. They are really too small to be practical objects (or indeed subjects) of private devotion in themselves. Maybe they are just expensive objets d'art to demonstrate impeccable taste. Another source suggests a link with the pomander, which is mentioned already. The image at prayer nut seems to show one attached to a chain, which could be a rosary, or a pomander, or just a security device. I'm not saying we need to decide what they are, but rather that perhaps the article could address this aspect a little better. But as I said, this is well above my pay grade, and I'll just shut up. Theramin (talk) 00:35, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It would be good to have more on the one that is a form of rosary - that "gifted by Henry VIII to Catherine of Aragon", aka the "Chatsworth Rosary", which you don't say. You say (as changed by Attic Salt) "Some are a single bead; more rare are those consisting of up to eleven beads, including those gifted by Henry VIII to Catherine of Aragon". Are there in fact others with this form? Ok, I see here it says there are two in total - better say that. Since we presumably can't use a pic, you should probably describe it more fully, and link to the good pic on the Ontario site.

Rosary beads vs prayer nuts delineated. Chatsworth beads now covered. Still, the paragraphs are WIP - some points raised raised not dealt with. Ceoil (talk) 03:13, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The very good Ontario "Boxwood Project" site doesn't have a link, which it should. Presumably this summarizes/extracts from: Ellis, Lisa; Suda, Alexandra. Small Wonders: Gothic Boxwood Miniatures, but it is all online.

Done. Attic Salt (talk) 14:25, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"gossamer" - is this just a vague comparison, or the actual textile? The link goes to: "gossamer. A gossamer is a very light, sheer, gauze-like fabric, popular for white wedding dresses and decorations". If the textile is what is meant it needs a bit more explanation.
Have taken this out. Ceoil (talk) 00:59, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
" A Last Judgement in the Art Gallery of Ontario contains some thirty separately carved spikes set into the ceiling vault and around Christ.[12]" and soon after "An example of this layering technique is in the Prayer bead (AGO 29365) in the Art Gallery of Ontario, where minuscule, individually carved, pointed rods suggesting rays of light were added to the vaulted ceiling via tiny drilled holes.[14" - do these refer to the same piece? Is it illustrated? If not, can the refs link to a pic? Maybe consolidate the two mentions.
Yes its the same piece and have merged. Link added to the AGO page. Considering using a reproduction under fair usage (who would then make 3 FUs). Ceoil (talk) 01:44, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image added. Ceoil (talk) 02:11, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"a central panel with major saints (the corpus) with two ancillary wings" - "corpus" in this sort of context usually means the body, as opposed to the cross, of a Crucifix. Not aware of this sense of the word.
Fixed Ceoil (talk) 20:27, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"The tracery can be categorised into three different styles." - presume this para is talking about the mainly geometric decoration of the outside. This needs to be made clear. Looking at Commons, I must say I'm not seeing many slices of pie. Also, there are no illustrations of the outsides until the end of the article.
Have reworded this to be more clear, also image of an exterior now added to the prayer nut section. Ceoil (talk) 00:53, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be inclined to rejig the Adam Dircksz section, moving the 2nd para to near the start of the 1st. That he was the artist is a convenient but pretty speculative idea.
And it seems falling from favour. Hold on....Ceoil (talk) 10:00, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Ceoil (talk) 02:29, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Boxwood miniatures follow in the tradition of earlier Christian sculptures" - yes, but you might mention the contemporary taste for very miniature luxury devotional objects in other media, notably jewellery, often with enamel, & also very tiny illuminated manuscripts. Nothing quite this tiny, I admit.

If you see a place to add more content of this type, please go ahead and add it. Note that the article already mentioned fashionable accessories and the use of beads as pendants hung from necklaces; it now does mention illuminated manuscripts. Thank you. Attic Salt (talk) 15:28, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Miniature boxwood triptychs, diptychs, and other polyptychs tend to be either standalone altarpieces or fixed-hinge pieces embedded in a larger structures such as tabernacles." - check where that link goes! Not very useful. Not sure we have an appropriate one - ok - Church tabernacle - changed. I find the 2nd part of the sentence rather unclear.
Me too, and doubt now that many are fixed hinged, and have simplified as "Miniature boxwood triptychs, diptychs, and other polyptychs tend to be either altarpieces or tabernacles"...which is now linked to Church tabernacle. Ceoil (talk) 09:53, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"A triptych altarpiece (MMA 17.190.453) in the Metropolitan Museum of Art has a compartment for holding relics.[60]" as does the Waddesdon BM 1511 one - see BM link I added (expanded content).
- Perhaps a separate article might be nice. Ceoil (talk) 01:57, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - - for now have expanded on WB.232 Ceoil (talk) 03:18, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think adding a single row mini-gallery with the good photos of the disassembled one at Commons Category:Prayer_Bead_with_Jesus_Carrying_the_Cross would be good - tells 1,000 words etc. Need to be careful not mixing up the a & b halves though.

Yes, like this idea. There are new sources in the Ontario link you provided above, not just Ellis & Suda, and lots of material on Dircksz, so may add another gallery after some expansion today. Thanks! Ceoil (talk) 08:46, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery now added. Take the point re a & b halves, it can get confusing. Ceoil (talk) 19:17, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd imagine they were "considered objects of art with intrinsic aesthetic value" from the start, surely, so I'd rephrase what was novel in the Duke of Bavaria having a collection (which essentially was, just collecting them).
Have lessened the claim, against my better judgement tbh; gifted trinkets vs aesthetically pleasing historical objects of rare craftsmanship. Ceoil (talk) 20:29, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've fiddled to get "re-emerged in 19th century Paris, then the leading market for medieval and Renaissance art" - but my impression, depending a bit on date, is that Paris was where you went for medieval art, but London for Renaissance art, or certainly paintings.
Restated as "the leading market for medieval art." Ceoil (talk) 23:15, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong Rothschild, I'm pretty sure - you link to Edmond Adolphe de Rothschild, born 1926. Easily done - but you should check where all the links go as there have been a couple going astray already, & I haven't checked most of them. Are you sure you aren't looking for an "Alphonse R"? There are many of them, eg Alphonse James de Rothschild, a big collector.
have clarified here (you were right). Ceoil (talk) 21:01, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Update, have cut Adolphe, and added short section on Kenneth Thomson, though he probably deserves more. Ceoil (talk) 19:17, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"When the American financier J. P. Morgan purchased Baron Albert Oppenheim's collection in 1906, he acquired four boxwood miniatures, including a triptych with the Crucifixion and Resurrection, and a prayer nut showing the Carrying of the Cross.[72][73]" - and where are they now? Well, in the Met, and illustrated above! As well as the book ref, why not link to the Met pages on these? I presume "a prayer nut showing the Carrying of the Cross" is the one whose category I've linked to above, which the MET rather oddly treats as two "Half of a Prayer Bead"s: 17.190.473a (Carrying the Cross) and 17.190.473b (Crucifixion). Both were given by Morgan in 1917. If so, the other half should be recognised: "Carrying of the Cross and Crucifixion".

Johnbod (talk) 22:50, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks John, slowly working through all of these very attuned and astute points. Ceoil (talk) 20:43, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think there now. Johnbod would you mid revisiting pls. Ceoil (talk) 14:18, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At least three points above have no response. Johnbod (talk) 23:51, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All addressed now. Ceoil (talk) 03:02, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, ready to support now. If it was me I'd remove the 3 per row from the gallery format though. Nice article. Johnbod (talk) 14:40, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

Starting image review. Most of the images seem properly licensed. The following three use fair-use rationales:

File:Prayer Bead in the Form of a Skull.jpg
File:Adoration of the Magi, Triptych, Flemish.jpg
File:Rosary bead with the Vision of St Hubert and St George and the Dragon.jpg

I'm not sure what is usual for this kind of article, but I was wondering whether with so many free images in the article, there needs to be this many non-free images. (If, for example, there are precedents for this many non-free images—for instance among your other successful art FACs—that could be helpful to know.)

I'll continue the review after by looking at alt text, captions, etc. Moisejp (talk) 18:16, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All three images, but especially the first two, show types of objects with the subject that are not replicated among the free photos. Most art FAs concern architecture or painting, where the image issues are very different. I know it strictly speaking may not matter, but all three images are on a Creative Commons non-commercial license from the Ontario museum. Johnbod (talk) 19:04, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Have removed the third one - instead now have a single row gallery in the prayer nuts section. One thing, there are not that many objects with free images at it might seem; many used on the article are different views of the same piece. Two FUs seems reasonable, esp considering their dramatic novelty; it would be very difficult to use words to accurately describe the unusualness of either...ie i think their inclusion has significant utility for the reader. Ceoil (talk) 19:43, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mosiejp. To note that the difficulty of using alt text in this article (they are so detailed that there will be selection bias) has been discussed above. Ceoil (talk) 23:29, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, the arguments above are convincing. About the captions, it's a minor point, but I notice there's some inconsistency. Some have "Title", height: xxx. And others have "Height" (big H) later in the list of characteristics. "Prayer Bead with the Crucifixion and Jesus before Pilate" and "Prayer Bead with the Crucifixion and Jesus before Pilate" don't mention the height (possibly there's a good reason I missed). Miniature altar seems to be the only one that mentions material (boxwood and silver). The gallery pictures seem to have more irregularity still. It'd be nice if there was consistency in the details given, the order of information, and the presentation (e.g., small vs big H for "height"). Moisejp (talk) 06:43, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I see; your right about inconsistencies. Working through & will ping when done. Ceoil (talk) 00:31, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support and tiny comments from DBaK edit

I was gobsmacked and delighted by this lovely article, which I wish to support, and would like to add myself to the queue of people saying "I had no idea these existed, how great", an ting. I'm sorry I am late to the party but I have some very minor comments to offer (note here too boring for 99% of readers) so here, with apologies for their brevity and cluelessness, they are:

In the lead's 1st paragraph I was slightly bothered by the contiguous blue in Gothic boxwood miniatures are very small carved wood Christian religious sculptures – I thought that we tried to avoid doing this as to me it draws the eye to something which appears to be a link to an adjectival article title, carved wood Christian which to me looks odd. Could we possibly reword very slightly and split the blue?

Discussion on talk re this. Ceoil (talk) 17:29, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lead, 1st paragraph – micro carving seems clunky – should it not perhaps be micro-carving or even microcarving?

Yup, done. Ceoil (talk) 17:29, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In Formats/Prayer Nuts/4th paragraph I suspect that the Caps for His when referring to Christ are probably not appropriate here.

Done. Ceoil (talk) 17:29, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lead, 3rd paragraph and Attribution and dating/Adam Dircksz/1st paragraph – the two sentences here saying that Almost nothing is known about Dircksz seem to somewhat contradict each other, as the first is his signature and the second is the date of his works. So I think there could be a tiny sort-out of that?

Sorted Ceoil (talk) 17:29, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, in the example of Almost nothing is known about Dircksz above in the lead, I found the formula around outside of the signature rather awkward. That is, his signature just is: it is not exactly known, and then I find outside of his sig rather infelicitous – it is kind of physically awkward. If I had more time I would try to explain this better!
Still in the lead (you can see how I ran out of steam here!) I am struggling with this right at the end: Because of their rarity and the difficulty in discerning their intricacy from reproductions, boxwood miniatures are relatively understudied compared to other forms of Netherlandish visual art. To me, understudied is what has happenened to an actor's or singer's part when it's worked on by a person called an understudy. As in Oh yes darling I understudied Noye for Owen Brannigan with Ben or whatevs. (Note: I did not). Seeing it written here as one word meaning that something has not been studied much seems a really weird usage. I have not yet taken to my books to try to prove my point but I do honestly think it would be best avoided here.
Production/4th paragraph – Because of their diminutive scale, wood pieces were difficult to hold in place (brace) during carving. – I don't understand why it is worded thus. It seems unusual to give the technical expression in parentheses after you've defined it, indeed to me the other way round would make more sense: Because of their diminutive scale, wood pieces were difficult to brace (hold in place) during carving. or even just lose the slightly fussy parentheses and have something like Because of their diminutive scale, wood pieces were difficult to "brace" or hold in place during carving. ... or something. Update - and now I hate my quote marks too. Sigh. Just lose them?
I asked on Commons for the filename "Prayer nut with carrying of the cross and crucifixion - carryinig the cross.jpg" to be changed as the spelling was bugging the merry h*ll out of me and some nice person has come and done it here before I got round to it, so thanks!

Indeed! Ceoil (talk) 17:29, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Am I wrong to feel cautious about the use (3x) of microscopic? Is there really, literally stuff that small? I really don't have the optical knowledge to judge what this entails so if I am wrong just tell me to shut up!

have reworded two of the instances Ceoil (talk) 17:29, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am officially stfu-ing now as it is so charmingly put. I hope this helps. I love the article! Cheers DBaK (talk) 14:35, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the demands DBaK, these are most helpful always great to receive feedback and suggestions from you. Ceoil (talk) 17:29, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

& re had known nothing...your not alone [33] Ceoil (talk) 04:06, 10 December 2018 (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. --Laser brain (talk) 12:21, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 16:04, 20 December 2018 [34].

Limalok edit

Nominator(s): Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:38, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about another underwater mountain in the Marshall Islands which was formerly an atoll, similar to the other recent FA Wōdejebato, and has a similar history although it is located in a different part of the Marshall Islands: It's a former volcano in French Polynesia which became first an atoll as plate tectonics moved it north, then it disappeared below the water and is now a seamount at the southeastern end of the Marshall Islands. It's somewhat less known than Wōdejebato but IMO there is enough material on this seamount for featured article status as well. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:38, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A little postscript: While this is my fifth FAC it's the first one where I didn't ask for a pre-FAC prose review so that might need some more prose reviewing than my previous nomination. If folks think that its prose needs more rewriting than what can/should be done in a FAC, just say so. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:38, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Support by Ceoil edit

Will say so, Jo-Jo, and while my feeling is that this will pass, as you mention it will need a steer re prose. This is my first geography article review, so be patient :)

Overall its not phrasing so much as the claims seem jumbled up and hard to follow at times - I note your FAC blurb here (which I just read) is clearer than the lead (which I have spent the last hour trying to tease apart). Go figure, but maybe think of a reader who is slightly less intelligent and technically proficient than you have been aiming for.

I did a do-over on the lead. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:32, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Much improved. I'm a bit confused by it lies southeast of Mili Atoll and Knox Atoll which rise above sea level and is joined to them through a volcanic ridge - is it Mili or Knox Atoll that is joined to them. Ceoil (talk) 22:06, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The sources only discuss Mili, but given that the bathymetric map shows that Knox is basically a portion of Mili, all three are. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:44, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do we really need footnote "e" (Among the species of foraminife) with its I dont know how many red links

"Footnote e" originally was part of the article text but I moved it down as it's almost certainly of no interest to most readers. I don't think it's really needed although someone with keen interest in foraminifera may be interested. Do we think it's useful for them? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:32, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No frankly Ceoil (talk) 22:07, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it's gone. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:44, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

lead: Can you trim File:Micronesia and Marshall islands bathymetry.pdf so it does have the illegible text to the right

I've yanked the bathymetric map in-text as it didn't really add much. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:32, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

After the volcanic episode - can we say eruption or activity or something, rather than episode, as it seems obtuse

Rewrote the "episode" part. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:32, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lead: "a phase of erosion" - needs explanation; what happened and over how many years

There is no time constraint, but I can say that Limalok was flattened so that's now in. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:32, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is believed - may have
Removed the "believed". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:32, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
After a hiatus, sedimentation commenced on the seamount and led to the deposition - leading to. Is commenced right? Maybe "sediment formed on the seamount..."
I think "commenced" is a good word to use. "Formed" sounds a bit off, as if rocks appeared out of nowhere. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:32, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Link needed for Atoll. Ceoil (talk) 19:16, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Currently there is a link in the lead for "atoll".Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:32, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Similar with "which then became barrier reefs " - over what length of period

The development of barrier reefs is a general process that doesn't have a set starting or stopping point, so I don't think we can say "when" or "how long". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:32, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes volcanic activity occurred - dont like "sometimes" as it gives no approximation of frequency

The source does not specify how frequently renewed volcanism occurs, and it'd be difficult to tell anyway as most seamounts have not been researched enough. Hence "sometimes". I don't like the weasel wording either but that's all I can do.

Then say that. Unknow frequence is better than "sometimes" Ceoil (talk) 20:18, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did a thing; is that better? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:32, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

modified by phosphate - vague, explain the effect of the modification.

Put in an explanation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:32, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

After a hiatus - vague, x million years presumably.

Added the timespan. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:32, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- drowned 48 ± 2 million years ago (during the Eocene) - above in the blurb you make this much clearer re the sequence, also drop the (brackets).

Replaced the lead text with some text inspired by the blurb. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:32, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thermal subsidence lowered the drowned seamount to its present depth - "further lowered"; can we not say "drowned" again; submerged is another word but maybe just "seamount"

I removed the "drowned" from the preceding sentence. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:32, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The seafloor ~~beneath Limalok~~ is 152

It's gone. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:32, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

where the carbonate platforms were lifted above sea level erosional features such as channels and blue holes developed - maybe more that the rising of the platforms can be seen in above sea level features....

I am a bit confused on what maybe more that the rising of the platforms can be seen in above sea level features.... means. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:32, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Doh! That wasn't meant verbatim. What I, and I hope you, mean is that the impact of the rising platforms is evident on the landscape, as seen in features such as...It was the "sea level erosional" combination that confused me. Ceoil (talk) 21:45, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Added a comma there. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:44, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Pacific Ocean seafloor, especially the parts that are of Mesozoic age - didn't check but presume seafloor has already been linked (yes extreme nick-picking)

It wasn't, but there was an earlier mention so I've moved the link up. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:32, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

the region of the Marshall Islands was located in the region of present-day French Polynesia during the time of active volcanism. Both regions display - prose: vary the language, here region(s) appears 3 times

Added some variance. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:32, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Limalok was one of the seamounts targeted for drilling during the Ocean Drilling Program;[6] the low recovery rates during the oil excavation have made it difficult to reconstruct its geologic history - Understand that drilling would impact the physical formation, but why you attribute low recovery rates (I assume yield, but that makes it even more puzzling) whatever they are, is unclear.

"Low recovery rate" I believe is jargon for "not all material is pulled up". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:32, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But how did "not all material is pulled up" make "it difficult to reconstruct its geologic history" - I suspect sources are jumbled here, or at least there is an unexplained technical connection. Ceoil (talk) 03:20, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've put in an explanatory footnote. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:06, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Limalok has erupted basaltic rocks[10] which have been classified as alkali basalts,[41] basanite[34] and nephelinite.[42] Minerals contained in the rocks are apatite,[43] augite,[36] biotite,[43] clinopyroxene, olivine,[44] nepheline[43] and plagioclase,[44] and there are ultramafic xenoliths.[45] - holy moley. Please please please trim this down, and do we not have one single source that can be used to back each of the individual rock and mineral claims....it seems unlikely that only one of each would be mentioned in each available source, and an accusation of ref stacking could be made

I've stripped down the number of sources a bit; now there are only three. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:32, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The term "carbonate platform" appears 24 times in the article.
Would replacing it with "platform" in some cases help? That's the technical and sorta-intuitive term for such things. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:32, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes please. Ceoil (talk) 03:24, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They have been trimmed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:06, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Am enjoying reading this. Ceoil (talk) 15:19, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Working through these, a few notes:

[Nevermind, moved them underneath every comment in Ceoil's list]

Also, Ceoil, the seamount was drilled for drill cores, not for oil. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:54, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NP. will revisit in a few days. Sorry for posting several hundred times on this page; was distracted. Ceoil (talk) 19:58, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

S'OK. Also, per your edit summary I've moved each of my replies below the bullet it is addressing so that it's clear what I've done and what not. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:32, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. that makes it much easier from this side. Ceoil (talk) 21:35, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of backtracked hotspot locations, the first hotspot; "hotspot" x2 and dont like "In terms of".

Remedied it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:06, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Catching up on your work since last weekend. Looking better, but my overall impression is that it remains slight, in part because you are assuming that the general reader is familiar with all the technical blue links, and you are not walking them through enough. Ceoil (talk) 02:51, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I got the most recent things done. Regarding the technical terms, I think I'll need to put in footnotes or in-text explanation for at least some of them (I was thinking "flood basalt", "Ocean Drilling Project", "Volcaniclastic", "blue holes", "fringing reefs", "hotspot", "lithospheric", "crystal fractionation", "cementation", "diagenetic", "breccia", "paleomagnetism", "oncoids", "rhodoliths", "hardgrounds", "photic zone"), are there other parts which are problematic? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:06, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Given the quick responses, hope to be able to close out this review today or tomorrow. Ceoil (talk) 17:33, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ceoil: I think I got these now. Some sections are really meant for more technical readers so I didn't expand in there. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:16, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying that "the low recovery rates" in "low recovery rates[e] during the drilling for drill cores have made it difficult to reconstruct its geologic history" means yield, but once again, how does this connect with "made it difficult to reconstruct its geologic history". This encapsulates my remaining issue with the page; you have made great strides wrt to prose, but there are still some (to me) logical gaps. I note, you seem to prefer putting these in notes, I prefer in the article body; as a casual lay reader, when I'm reading a page and something doesn't makes immediate sense, I don't go to the footnotes, I click out and google. Footnotes should be (to me) for interesting asides, not making basic connections. Re some sections are for technical people only, the article is 2000 odd words long, so a ten minute read; I don't think that "are really meant for more technical readers so I didn't expand in there" cuts it or is wise; maybe in an article twice this size with a very delineated TOC. I'm beginning to suspect we are talking past each other. Ceoil (talk) 21:42, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like that ("we are talking past each other") might be the case. To me it sounded like you were complaining about overly technical text which is a concern other people have noted with my writing in the past. I did try to mend the logical gap now in the drill core statement; does it work now and are there additional things that need explanation?

The reason why I put the explanations in footnotes is mainly because I know (from User talk:Iridescent) that some readers read an article offline so they can't click on a link or google a term. And because in many instances trying to explain a term inline would jerk the flow of the conversation.

When I was talking about the "more technical readers" section I was thinking "Composition". I've added explanations for some terms but I can't find any definition for "fractional crystallization" other than the one on our page on it.

Ceoil Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:27, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll wait a few days to let other reviewers weigh in, and see how it pans out. Note I take the points in your last post, but not totally convinced. Re technical terms, its sometimes helpful to include a snipit form the lead sentence of the linked article to give the reader grounding. I'm still leaning support however, have really enjoyed the article, and learned a lot. Ceoil (talk) 19:08, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support: We have a few minor differences in preference around the presentation of technical terms, but they are that only -preferences, and as the nominator, the primary author of the article, has made their case thoughtfully and after consideration throughout this review, that's good enough for me. Ceoil (talk) 08:11, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Suggest scaling up the non-lead maps

Suggest using the specific USGS tag for the lead image

File:Pacific_Basin_Island_Geography_Hotspots.jpg: what is the source for the data presented in this image? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:19, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Upscaled one map, removed the other as mentioned above. I've removed the hotspot map for the same reason that it was removed in Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Wōdejebato/archive1; for some reason I didn't remove it from Limalok after that. Changed the tags. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:08, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ceranthor edit

Will post these asap. ceranthor 00:58, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some thoughts from a first pass:

I'd add or Harriet to "formerly known as Harrie"
Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:22, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Limalok (formerly known as Harrie) is a Cretaceous[a]-Paleocene[b] guyot/tablemount " - why guyot/tablemount if they're basically the same thing?
Because "tablemount" is a bit more intuitive. This is a change I did after a relative comment in the Wōdejebato FAC. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:22, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"with a 636 square kilometres (246 sq mi) summit platform" - |adj=on
Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:22, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Located at a depth of 1,255 metres (4,117 ft), with a 636 square kilometres (246 sq mi) summit platform, it lies southeast of Mili Atoll and Knox Atoll which rise above sea level and is joined to each of them through a volcanic ridge." - lots of info... might be better to split into two shorter sentences
Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:22, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"nutrient rich" - think this should be hyphenated
Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:22, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Limalok was formerly known as Harrie Guyot[3] and also known as Harriet Guyot;[4]" - grammar seems a bit off here, for the "and also known... bit"
Remedied. I am wondering if "Harriet" is a typo by the source, as an aside. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:22, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"by obtaining drill cores from the oceans.[7][6]" - nitpick, but switch to ascending ref order
Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:22, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"forming a 636 square kilometres (246 sq mi) " - |adj=on
Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:22, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"guyots (also known as tablemounts[25])." - nitpick, but why the reference inside the parentheses?
Because it only sources the content of the parenthese; the rest of the sentence is carried by a different citation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:22, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"95-85 million years ago, followed by the Rurutu hotspot and the Society hotspot by 75-65 million years ago.[40]" - think these have hyphens rather than endashes, should be switched if so
I'll admit that I am not certain which to use. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:22, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Aragonite, pyrite[58] and organic material formed by alteration of living beings within the clays and limestones.[59]" - this is a fragment
Joined it logically to the preceding sentence. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:22, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
" Argon-argon dating has yielded ages of 69.2[62] and 68.2 ± 0.5 million years ago on volcanic rocks dredged from Limalok,[63] that is it existed by the Cretaceous;[33] Mili Atoll is probably not much younger than Limalok.[64]" - lots going on in this sentence. might be better split into two, and removing the semicolon?
Rearranged this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:22, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"56 - 33.9 million years ago" - same note about the endash
Commented above. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:22, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"After a Paleocene phase with open sea or back-reef conditions lagoonal environments developed on the seamount during the Eocene,[72] which periodically emerged above sea level leading to erosion of the platform[54] although the existence of evidence for such an emersion has been debated.[73]" - seems like a bit of a run-on
Broke it up. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:22, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you need to link storms
Unlinked. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:22, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"The duration of the platform is about 10 million years,[77] " - honestly unsure what "duration" means here - age?
Reworded it. I am a bit unclear how to word this; it's supposed to say how long carbonate was being deposited on Limalok. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:22, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ceranthor 17:43, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actioned. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:22, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Second pass:

From footnote b: "Between 66 and 66 million years ago." - uh...
"south[3]-eastern " - why hyphenated instead of just saying "southeastern"?
Nitpick, but date ranges should all have endashes rather than hyphens (e.g. "152[20]-158 million years old,[21]")
"A number of hotspots such as the Macdonald hotspot, the Rarotonga hotspot, the Rurutu hotspot and Society hotspot may have been involved in the formation of Limalok." - lots of "hotspot" in one sentence
Refs look reliable. Going to try and do some spot checks tomorrow.
Arnaud-Vanneau is hyphenated in one ref but not in others.
Stay consistent with using people's initials or full names. Don't switch between the two.

ceranthor 23:49, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ceranthor Did most of these, but I can't find the spelled out initials for some and have to run now. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:41, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did a few more. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:38, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Third pass, reference comments only:

Some of the sources still have full names, while others just use initials for first/middle names. You should be consistent throughout.
Spotcheck 1: "Limalok was formerly known as Harrie Guyot[3] and is also known as Harriet Guyot;[4] Limalok was a traditional chieftess of Mile Atoll.[5]" - 3, 4, and 5 all match
Spotcheck 2: " Mili Atoll is located 53.7 kilometres (33.4 mi) from Limalok,[3] between the two lies Knox Atoll as well.[13]" - 3 and 13 match (side note: this is a run-on sentence! :))
Spotcheck 3: " Volcanogenic sandstones[53] and traces of hydrothermal alteration also exist on Limalok.[49]" - 53 and 49 match
Spotcheck 4: "Argon-argon dating has yielded ages of 69.2[63] and 68.2 ± 0.5 million years ago on volcanic rocks dredged from Limalok,[64] Mili Atoll is probably not much younger than Limalok.[65] " - 63, 64, and 65 match - this is also a run-on, though, without a semi-colon! One slight note about the ref vs. the article here. The article says "Mili Atoll is probably not much younger than Limalok[65]", but the source actually refers to "the edifice beneath Mili Atoll"
Spotcheck 5: "Until the Miocene, sedimentation on Limalok was hindered probably by strong currents.[94]" - matches ref

More prose comments shortly - want to make sure I didn't miss other run-ons! ;) ceranthor 19:14, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've resolved the standardization issue by shortening the full names. Regarding Spotcheck 4 that is deliberately so; in the context of the Wikipedia article we are discussing the volcano that Mili Atoll developed over, I could clarify by saying "Mili Atoll volcano" instead of "Mili Atoll" in the Wikipedia article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:44, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I think that's fine. Or Mili Atoll edifice? Either works for me. ceranthor 19:47, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Went with "Mili Atoll volcano"; previously I often used "edifice" in such contexts but Mike Christie recommended against that so I don't use it anymore. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:53, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support - on prose and references. ceranthor 22:55, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mike Christie edit

I'll copyedit as I go; please revert if I mess anything up.

The name was used for one of the seamounts targeted during the Ocean Drilling Program: this makes it sound as though it's unclear whether the targeted seamount was actually the subject of this article.
the size of the two volcanoes and their connection have been compared to Tahiti: not sure what this is telling me. If it's just saying that the combination of Mili Atoll plus Limalok would make an island about the size of Tahiti, then it doesn't seem worth including unless I'm missing something.
It is not clear whether the Cretaceous guyots were atolls in the present-day sense but many of these seamounts were, which today still exist. I don't follow the second half of this. If it's not clear whether the Cretaceous guyots were atolls, how can we say many of them were? And what does the last part refer to -- the seamounts which still exist were atolls? What seamounts don't still exist?
I did strip out the last sentence and also moved a bit of it around. It seems like the source calls Limalok explicitly an atoll but then says It is not certain that these Cretaceous guyots had a true atoll morphology during much of their development. advice on how to word it? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:17, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Does the "during much of their development" qualification mean that they were atolls during some of their development? If so I think you can just cut the sentence starting "Whether" in that paragraph (that sentence is incomplete in any case) and also cut "or atoll-like landforms" from the next sentence. If it appears the source is saying we can't be sure if any given guyot was ever actually an atoll, rather than just an atoll-like landform, then some more rephrasing will be needed. I was thinking about that and noticed that our articles on fringing reefs and atolls indicates that a barrier reef is not the same as an atoll, so I'm now wondering if we need to change "which were then replaced by barrier reefs as the volcanoes subsided and turned into atolls"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:54, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Christie:It would need some more rewriting - per the source the issue is that atolls by definition have an enclosing barrier such as Eniwetok while for many guyots it's not clear whether they had an enclosing barrier or a barrier on just one side of the platform. Also, need to remember that I've written this same text in Allison Guyot, Horizon Guyot and Resolution Guyot so I'll need to install any rewrite there as well. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:11, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the article discusses the question of whether an atoll was present in the "Platform carbonates and reefs" section, I'd say we can cut this discussion down. How about just cutting the sentence starting "Whether"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:36, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Moved it down to a note. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:02, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That works. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:00, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
...the hotspot theory, which discusses the formation...: "discusses" seems too weak a word; it explains the formation, though "explain" has been used earlier in that sentence so some rephrasing would be necessary.
I'm not keen on the way that paragraph is structured -- it starts by saying that the formation of Limalok has been explained by the hotspot theory, but then it says Marshall Island seamounts don't appear to have originated from "such simple age-progressive hotspot volcanism", and then describes a multi-hotspot explanation. This is a little back-and-forth, and it would be nice if we could lead the reader through it more linearly. Here's a possible rewrite of the first couple of sentences of that paragraph that attempts to fix those points.
The formation of many seamounts has been explained with the hotspot theory, in which a "hot spot" rising from the mantle leads to the formation of chains of volcanoes which get progressively older along the length of the chain, with an active volcano only at one end of the system, as the plate moves over the hotspot. Seamounts and islands in the Marshall Islands do not appear to have originated from simple age-progressive hotspot volcanism as the age progressions in the individual island and seamount chains are often inconsistent with this explanation.
I've adopted that text with the sources inserted. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:17, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~"Based on reconstructions, the first hotspot..." is a bit vague; can we make it "Reconstructions of the area's geological history suggest that..." or something like that?~~
About 8 hotspots have formed a large number of islands and seamounts in that region, with disparate geochemistries, that geological province has been called "South Pacific Isotopic and Thermal Anomaly" or DUPAL anomaly. Run-on sentence. How about "...with disparate geochemistries; the region has been called..."?
~~Carbonate, clay, manganese phosphate Crust materials and mudstones have been found in boreholes...: should there be a comma before "Crust"? And I assume that should be lower case?~~
Actually, no, there shouldn't be a comma as they are explicitly "manganese phosphate crusts". Unfortunately manganese crusts which would include the phosphate variant is a redlink. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:17, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The volcanic rocks were emplaced in the form of breccia, pebbles encased within sediments, but especially as lava flows: I'm not following the intention here. If the lava flows are the main source of the volcanic rocks, shouldn't we mention those first, or at least put a qualification such as "partly emplaced" in the mention of breccia?

-- More to come. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:48, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved some issues and commented on others. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:17, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More:

After the activity[69] and erosion of the volcanic island...: "the activity" is vague; I assume this means volcanic activity? If so, how about "After the shield volcano was formed and subsequently eroded..."?
Reworded that. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:02, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Better, but now I think we can compress a bit since 57.5 mya is Paleocene. I think "stage of volcanic activity" is a bit wordy, and in fact, given that we say above that the erosion follows the formation of the volcano (a point that's fairly obvious to the reader anyway) I think we can cut it. How about this for the first couple of sentences: "The erosion of the volcanic island was followed after some time by the beginning of carbonate platform growth. Sedimentation began in the Paleocene with one or two events in which the seamount was submerged; the start of sedimentation has been dated to about 57.5 ± 2.5 million years ago." This assumes that those two soruces (Arnaud & Vanneau and Jenkyns & Wilson) can be combined like that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:00, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like, so done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:08, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
although the existence of evidence for such an emersion has been debated: a bit wordy, but I'm hesitant to reword without the source in front of me. Can we just say "although the evidence for this has been contested"?
The text of the source (which at least to me looks publicly accessible) is Schlanger et al. (1987) postulated that Eocene sea-level changes, apparently derived from the eustacy curves of Vail et al. (1977), resulted in emergence and later resubmergence of the carbonate platform. Lincoln (1990) attempted to constrain the history of emergence and subsidence across this carbonate platform by examining the carbon and oxygen isotope compositions of the limestones in Dredges KK81-4 and KK81-6. Analyses on both the primary fossil components (foraminifers and red algae) and the cements failed to support the existence of a subaerial exposure event affecting the limestones capping Limalok, nor did they provide any additional information on when or why this carbonate platform failed. I don't think any other source has a definitive answer to this question. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:02, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Should we be so definite as we are now then? We say "Periodically, the platform emerged above sea level leading to its erosion", which is subsequently qualified, with a citation to a different source. How about "It is possible that the platform periodically emerged above sea level, leading to its erosion", cut the "although" clause, and cite to both Arnaud & Vanneau and Bergerson? Saying "although the existence of evidence for such an emersion has been debated" doesn't really give the reader any more information than "possibly". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:00, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Did this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:08, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~recording the and lasting through: something wrong here.~~
I see you cut "the", but shouldn't it just be "and lasting through"? What does "recording" mean here? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:00, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Christie:It means that while the Limalok carbonate platform continued to thrive during the PETM, carbonate deposits were nevertheless influenced by it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:08, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see. I think the phrasing is a bit opaque; readers who don't understand that these deposition sequences provide a climatic record will not follow this, and it would also help them to know what the PETM is. How about "The deposition of the platform lasted about 10 million years, spanning the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), a period of about 20,000 years in which atmospheric carbon dioxide levels dramatically increased. Drill core evidence shows that the PETM had little impact on carbonate deposition at Limalok, implying there was little change to ocean pH and temperature at that time." Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:56, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Christie:I've applied a modified version of that proposal, with the explanation of PETM in a footnote as IMO it would otherwise have undue weight. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:21, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That looks fine, though I think you could add "and temperature"; the source mentions both temperature and pH. Not a big deal though. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:58, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Other lifeforms were as well as: also here.~~
Its seamount is the most recent carbonate platform in the region to submerge, whereas the similar platform at neighbouring Mili Atoll is still active. Not sure what this means. Mili Atoll is not submerged yet, so "active" means "still accumulating carbonate"? And platform here means seamount?
No, platform here means "carbonate platform, formed by biological activities similar to coral reefs". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:02, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~In the "Drowning..." section, does "drowning" refer to the point at which the platform is too far below sea level for further carbonate deposition? I think a definition would be good if so.~~
Yes, done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:02, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Better. How about this: "A carbonate platform is said to 'drown' when sedimentation can no longer keep up with relative rises in sea level, and carbonate deposition stops. Limalok drowned during the early-middle Eocene, soon after the start of the Lutetian, 48 ± 2 million years ago. It is the most recent carbonate platform in the region to submerge: the similar platform at neighbouring Mili Atoll is still depositing carbonate." Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:00, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:08, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~What does "modified by phosphate" mean?~~

-- That's mostly it for a first pass; I need to re-read the last section but would like to get your responses to these points first. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:08, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Got most of this done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:02, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:03, 16 December 2018 (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. --Laser brain (talk) 16:04, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 15:05, 16 December 2018 [35].

Ragnar Garrett edit

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk) 09:32, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Belatedly following on from John Wilton and Reg Pollard, I present another chief of the Australian Army. Like Wagner conceived his Ring Cycle, I seem to be doing things in reverse chronological order. Unlike Wagner, I can stop at three episodes, because Garrett's predecessor is already FA. While we're talking Wagner, one leitmotif unifying the stories of these three chiefs is the Army's short-lived experiment with the pentropic divisional structure -- Garrett enthusiastically initiating it, Pollard reluctantly implementing it, and Wilton mercifully killing it... Any and all comments welcome! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:32, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley edit

Meets all the FA criteria in my view. Thoroughly and widely sourced, as well illustrated as one could expect in an article about this period, and in top-notch and highly readable prose. Not the longest FAC I have read, but the text seems comprehensive. Happy to support promotion to FA. Tim riley talk 20:29, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Tim! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:28, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:53, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks as always Nikki! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:12, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tony1 edit

1a: Support. You know how to do this!

A few things:

"it "affected me more than the bombing... I was very sorry to lose Garrett, who served me splendidly over the hectic days of the recent past"." I think there must either be a space before the three ellipsis points as well as after, or a point (if at sentence-end), a space, and the three points, and a final space.
born at Northam—more usual to write "in", but I don't mind. Born at Northam Hospital.
"He oversaw the brigade's return to Australia prior to its disbandment in March 1946." Well, perhaps we all should be ditching the Latin—me too. Nominator tkbrett, below, linked me to this short vid of the sadly departed David Foster Wallace on a few items he didn't like.
In that frame, you might consider "On retiring" rather than "Upon retiring", plain and simple. Tony (talk) 09:03, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Tks for those Tony, I think I've actioned all -- I try to encourage brevity/simplicity in others' writing but seem to use "prior to" almost unconsciously so am happy to be reminded, and I don't know how "Upon" escaped my attention so long... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:20, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from AustralianRupert edit

Support: This looks pretty good to me, Ian. I have a few minor comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 08:25, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

do we know if Garrett had any siblings?
- ADB says he was a second child, but as that didn't discount other children I thought I'd leave it...
  - Ok, no worries. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:52, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if it could be made clearer that service in Greece and Crete was in combat/during the fighting against the Germans?
- Fair point but my key source for these bits, the ADB, seems to take for granted we know who he's fighting -- I was hoping that linking to the campaigns would suffice for the broader picture.
  - Ok, I wonder if potentially it could be made clearer that he was there when they were actually fighting, though? For instance, briefly seconded to Savige Force, which fought in Greece, under Brigadier Stanley Savige. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:52, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:43, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
ext links all work, and there are no dab or dup links
in the References, perhaps consider adding the edition number for the Dennis work?
same as above for the Dexter and Long works
- Will add editions.
course at Staff College, Camberley: --> "course at the Staff College, Camberley"?
- Done.
He died on 4 November 1977: do we know what he died from specifically?
- ADB doesn't say and searching Trove didn't help either, I'm afraid.
"File:Ragnar Garrett 064074.JPG": the caption (in the article) for this says "April 1944"; however, the AWM source indicates it was taken on 4 February 1944. The description page on Commons says "2 April 1944", so I wonder if the 2 and 4 haven't been transposed?
- I think you're right -- altered in Commons and in the article.
the citations appear consistent, and the sources look reliable to me
citation density appears good to me
as an aside, the role of "adjutant/quartermaster" is not fun at all. Garrett seems to have had this role for many years, with different units, so I assume he was a humourless, dour man... ;-)
- Well I daresay he was very serious in his younger days -- per Stretton, perhaps he loosened up a bit as he advanced and had less to prove (it can happen!) Tks for taking a look Rupert. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:40, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

FN2: why the double entry title?
- God knows, I'm sure it didn't when I first put this together -- made more consistent now.
Be consistent in when you include access dates
- Done, I think.
Is OUP in Melbourne or South Melbourne or South Melbourne, Victoria?
- Well the last-mentioned is just plain inconsistent, and I've eliminated "Victoria". I've double-checked all OUP instances and there are some cases where it says South Melbourne and others where it just says Melbourne.
The second Long book appears to have the wrong OCLC number
- Fixed.
Can you double-check the publication date for Palazzo? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:11, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. Tks for all your thorough checks, Nikki. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:40, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Hawkeye7 edit

Support Looks good to me too. I have one suggestion: instead of linking Birthday Honours and New Year Honours, link 1957 Birthday Honours and 1959 New Year Honours. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:48, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Will do -- tks Hawkeye. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:47, 1 December 2018 (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. --Laser brain (talk) 15:05, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 15:04, 16 December 2018 [36].

Battle of Neville's Cross edit

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 15:46, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a battle from Edward III's annus mirabilis of 1346. During it the English defeated the French dauphin at the siege of Aiguillon, the French king at the Battle of Crécy, and the Scottish king at Neville's Cross. By the end of the year they were besieging Calais, which they were to take and hold for two hundred years. A large and well equipped Scottish army marched into England, spurred by Philip VI of France to intervene under the terms of the Auld Alliance in order to take pressure off northern France. Little opposition was expected, but the English marcher lords raised an army half the size of the Scots, marched rapidly north and met them on the edge of the northern English city of Durham.

The Scots mishandled their army, they were goaded by longbow fire into attacking across broken ground, part of their force fled without engaging and they were routed with heavy loss. The Scottish king was taken prisoner; he was to be held for eleven years. The battle was part of the Second War of Scottish Independence, which continued, bloodily, but strategically the English had cleared their rear and were able to concentrate on the war with France.

The article has just completed an A class review and I am hopeful that it is up to scratch. It is my first submission for FA, so be gentle with it. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:46, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM edit

This article got a pretty thorough going-over at Milhist ACR, so hopefully most of what gets picked up here will be prose-related. I have a few comments:

I don't think the years of reign are needed in the lead

Removed. Inserted after first mention in main body. Let me know if I have misunderstood and should simply have deleted.

remind me why Scottish King is capitalised?

It seems to have happened during ACR. Relooking at it I can't think why. Done.

suggest "InBy 1346, England"

Done.

unless we end up with more Philip's and David's the ordinal can probably be dropped after introduction

Gah. I will if you insist. In a previous ACR an experienced assessor asked me to always include ordinals and I have consistently done it in all of my articles since. I don't see that it harms, so long as I am consistent, and it does occasionally avoid confusion: Edward's son (the Black Prince) was called Edward; the English-backed pretender to the Scottish throne was King Edward (Balliol); the king of Navarre at the time, who swung between England and France and who had arguably the best claim to the throne of France, was King Philip. And so on.

I don't insist, but be consistent. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:03, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

suggest Gascony instead of "south-west France" if that is what is being referred to

No, it means south-west France. As it says in the note straight after, a major part of the French difficulty was the loss of Poitiers, the capital of Poitou, 200km from Gascony.

note 3 should be "military service of approximately..."

I changed that, reread it, and realised that I actually meant "in". If you don't think that it works, I could easily rephrase.

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:48, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest changing the notes to lower alpha instead of [note 1] etc, as using numerical notes and numerical footnotes together is potentially confusing. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:19, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This would also use less space, [a] instead of [note 1], and therefore break up the flow of the text less. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:25, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it is my aging eyesight, but I really dislike notes in the style [a]. I all too frequently read straight past them, either not noticing them or mistaking them for citations and am left not fully understanding something. The point of a note, it seems to me, is to attract the readers attention to something which may be of interest but which is not essential. This will break up the flow of the text, that is part of the point. If I am going to make it easy to overlook them, why am I including them at all. I note that the Wikipedia how-to guide on creating notes - WP:REFGROUP - uses the long form that I adopt, while accepting that this is not definitive.

Generally, IMO notes are often overdone, as they sometimes include information that is germane to the subject of the article, and should be in the body rather than a note. I tend to use notes mainly for technical matters, and this explains our differences in this area. Personally, I would have thought that note 1 could be included in the body, for example. As long as you have not included information in a note that really should be in the text, it isn't a problem, I just suggest that you re-examine the information in the notes, and ensure it couldn't be given in the body. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:22, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peacemaker Thanks for taking this on. You seem to be impressively tireless. Responses to your comments above. I am not always agreeing with you, but given my inexperience I am more than open to discussion/persuasion. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:10, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Everyone sees things differently, and I am trying to emphasise that the way you choose to do things can be more or less useful to the average reader, and you should challenge your choices regularly, as we are not average readers. You'll no doubt get a different perspective from other reviewers. IMHO, the idea is to question your editing practice and improve as you go. Things I did with my first FA, I've gone back and fixed, and wouldn't dream of doing now. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:22, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67: One of the best things about editing Wikipedia is the amount of genuinely well intentioned challenging that I receive. If I ever respond negatively to anyone's friendly challenge to anything I do, please trout me. Certainly I winced a couple of months ago when I looked back over my first half dozen GAs. No doubt I will do the same with this in six months time. Ah well, I suppose that means that I am improving. I am by now quite used to telling other editors to aim their prose at the mythical ordinary reader, but strongly suspect that I do not manage to be as critical of my own work. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:42, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notes reduced from six to two in line with your suggestion above.

link Kirk Merrington, as that appears to be the relevant village

I thought that I had. Strange. Done.

not sure about the capitalisation of Cathedral here. Suggest using Durham Cathedral in full, as that is the proper noun

You are the second experienced editor with that view, so clearly I am wrong. Done.

once you've established them as battles, use that term, rather than units or formations

Done.

the commanders of the English forces are bestrewn with commas. Suggest treating them the same as the Scottish battles to break it up a bit

Done.

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:38, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neville is given as Lord Ralph Neville, and then as Ralph, Baron Neville in a very short period of time. Was he elevated in the interim?

A battlefield promotion? No. Consistency imposed.

perhaps "Neville remained in overall command." as you've already said he was in command of the force.

Done.

suggest "Their fire prompted the Scots to attack."

Wording changed. You may wish to check.

which Scottish battle was the one that was first to reach the English lines? Randolph's?

Yes. Done.

suggest ", the third battle, under the Earl of March (you've already linked Dunbar, so a link to the title probably isn't needed here)..."

Done.

there's a David that needs a II

Done.

since he's been introduced, "John Randolph, Earl of Moray" could just be "the Earl of Moray", in the list of dead notables

I tried it, but my eye kept stumbling over the inconsistent naming of the two earls. But I am probably too close, so if you are (fairly) sure I'll change it.

link William Douglas, 1st Earl of Douglas

He's already linked, as William Douglas, Lord of Liddesdale. (Stumbling across the English in the mist.)

drawn then hanged? I thought it was the other way around?

Well now. There is some modern confusion around this, specifically around the meaning of "drawn". The first paragraph of Hanged, drawn and quartered#Execution of the sentence discusses this. My source, Sumption, states "drawn, hanged and quartered" and I am not inclined to argue with the penal pedantry of a member of the UK Supreme Court. I also note that the article on him (John Graham, Earl of Menteith), differently sourced, uses the same order.

the indenting of the Sources is rather odd. Generally they are bulleted rather than indented.

This is genuinely intended to be helpful for the reader. It may, again, be my failing eyesight, but I struggle with Wikipedia's bullet pointed bibliographies. I will scan up and down with my eye not picking out the one I want, especially when there are several works by the same or, worse, similarly named, author(s). I have seen indention used in several articles and use it in mine when the number of references goes over 12-15. I find that with most or all of the relevant surnames protruding it is much easier to pick out the one wanted. I would actually like this to be generally adapted as good practice as an accessibility issue.

Do any of the Further reading sources have anything unique to say about the lead-up to the battle, the battle itself, or the aftermath?

Being critical, and thinking about reliability, no. So I have deleted. I have used one to source the addition "The site of the battle has been listed as a registered battlefield by Historic England."

That's me done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:54, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67: All comments addressed. See above. An embarrassingly high level of sloppiness from me. Thanks for bearing with it. I am telling myself that from here I can only improve. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:33, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fresh eyes always pick up things we miss. This is an excellent article, well done. Supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:57, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67: Thank you for that, and thanks for the support vote. It is in good shape now. However, I do enough work at GOCE to recognise lack of rigour when I see it. I can do better than that, and shall try to next time. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:25, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley edit

It seems to me that this article meets all the FA criteria. A few minor quibbles, which don't affect my support:

Lead
- "approximately 6–7,000 men" – I am not at all expert in the arcana of the Manual of Style, but this looked a bit odd to me, and I wondered if "6,000–7,000" might be more the thing. Quite prepared to be told I'm wrong.

You are quite right - MOS:NUMRANGE. I should have known that. Done.

- "Strategically this freed ..." – I had to stop in mid-sentence and go back to the beginning to get the intended meaning; a comma after "against France" would break the sentence into its constituent parts more clearly.

Done.

Background
- It's unlikely that many readers will imagine King David's army was massing in Western Australia, but I might blue-link Perth nonetheless.

Done.

Prelude
- I'm not convinced by the quotation marks in the fourth sentence: the sources you mention didn't unanimously use the exact words you quote. I don't think anyone is going to accuse you of plagiarism if you remove the quotation marks.

Sumption has exactly those words. But I typo'ed the reference; I had page 551, it should have been 550. The first sentence of the first full paragraph here. He references the single sentence to the hilt. Given its context in the article I am unsure which way to go and would appreciate your advice in the light of the new information. And apologies for cocking up the citation. (My other source, Wagner, describes it as "the largest Scottish invasion force of the century", as I suspect you have already discovered.) Perhaps I should simply reword?

I'm not doubting that all your sources corroborate the statement. My only (minor) point was that what your text says is they all used the actual words in quotation marks, which of course only one of them did. Knocking off the quotes will remove the objection, and, as I say, is not going to get you accused of plagiarism. Tim riley talk 21:20, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Quote marks removed, text slightly tweaked. Forgive my first FAC nerves.

- "Richmond" – London SW14 is not as remote as Western Australia, but it would do no harm to mention in passing that the one mentioned here is the Richmond in Yorkshire.

Good point. Done.

Battle
- I think the sentence beginning "Seeing their first attack..." is trying to do too much, and I might turn the parenthetic description of Robert Stewart into a footnote or by some other means move this information from this rather involved sentence.

Another good point. Done.

- "less than 100 were taken prisoner" – there are those who get frightfully exercised about "less than x", when x refers to people or anything capable of being enumerated, and insist on "fewer". There is a perfectly sustainable case that "less" governs the number itself rather than the people or things numbered. Nonetheless, I find it saves grief to preempt attempts at pedantry by going for "fewer" in such cases.

You are quite correct. (Only this morning I corrected another editor doing the same thing in a GAN.) Sloppy of me. Thank you.

Aftermath
- "Legend has it" strikes me as bit of a cliché: I'd prefer something less hackneyed, such as "according to legend".

On reflection (geddit?) this is a bit WP:Peacock, so reworded.

- "large scale raids" – I'd be inclined to hyphenate this double-barrelled attributive adjective.

This is a marginal judgement call, IMHO. Unless you wish to push it I am inclined to leave as is.

- "an old Anglo-Saxon stone cross" – perhaps lose the "old"? Not many new ones about.

Most sources refer to it that way. I assume to distinguish the old cross, which was Anglo-Saxon, from the new one installed by Neville. Ie there was an "old" cross on the site, later replaced by a "new" one. "old" in the sense of no longer extant, replaced by another; rather than aged. I could reword?

As long as you're happy with it, that's fine with me. Tim riley talk 21:20, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- "St. Margaret" and "St. Cuthbert" – not sure why the antiquated full stops are wanted.

Done. (I was brought up with unstopped punctuation: eg, ie, etc, P G Woodehouse, etc, and struggle a little with what seems to me Wikipedia's slightly random approach.)

Me too! Don't get me started on the absurdly antiquated punctuation Wikipedia insists on! I blame Uncle Sam. Tim riley talk 21:20, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notes
- Note 5 – "A significant number..." – what did the number signify? A pity to waste the word "significant" as a mere synonym for "large". (I think the other "significant", in the lead, is fine, because the significance is evident.)

Tricky. "No less than 30" who reported their prisoners failed to hand them over; at least on first asking. The number of prisoners unreported is, obviously, unknown. (Cus they weren't reported.) But there were a number of attested cases and the (believed) total was high enough to infuriate Edward - at least one lord had all of his lands confiscated - and significant enough that a royal commission was set up. There is a lot of detail in King. So while very much taking your point I am struggling for a more felicitous phrase. Suggestions would be welcome.

Though I dislike seeing "significant" used unthinkingly when "large" or "important" is meant, I don't think it does any real harm in your note, especially given what you say about the difficulty finding a more satisfactory and accurate word here. "Considerable" came to mind, but if you don't think that fills the bill, by all means leave this "significant". Tim riley talk 21:20, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's all from me. Nothing, as I say, that stops me supporting promotion, but perhaps worth considering. I enjoyed this article, and learned a lot, too. Applause from me. Tim riley talk 11:47, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Tim riley: Many thanks for the assessment, the insightful comments and the kind words. Responses to your points are above, and include a couple of areas where I would appreciate your further input. |Gog the Mild (talk) 14:10, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tim. Quote amended as noted above. The other two I am inclined to leave as is, but I will sleep on and review. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:40, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Urselius edit

It appears to me to meet all FA criteria, it is a succinct account of the battle and is well written. I have only two minor quibbles.

The sentence: "Another 3,000 Yorkshiremen were en route to reinforce the northerners." This could be construed as implying that Yorkshiremen are not northerners - and woe betide anyone who implied that. I would suggest 'the northern army' or 'the other northerners' be introduced.

I am tempted to stand by my entirely accurate description, but I shall bow to your narrow provincialism.

The English combination of well-armoured, dismounted men-at-arms and longbowmen was still a relatively novel military partnership. The Scottish had fewer men-at-arms, being a poorer country, and the bulk of their army would have been spearmen. It might be worthwhile mentioning the contrast in troop types between the two armies - if suitable sources are available. Urselius (talk) 19:45, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are they heck. At GAN someone asked after details of "Many had modern weapons and armour supplied by France." But that sentence, and the English being "dismayed" is the sum total of what I can find on equipment. I could have a very convincing stab at how the two armies were equipped, even the proportions of troop types. I would be fairly confident about it. But it would be OR. I could even source it, but that would be the more popular authors making their own informed guesses. You will have noticed the absence of the word 'schiltron' from the article. Because I can't source it, even though I am certain they were there.

You may have gathered that I am frustrated about having had to gloss over the actual crunch of the battle, but if the sources ain't there, they just ain't there.

Happy to debate this further and would love to find something. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:33, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

The infobox image needs a proper description template on Commons (and could need a link to an online source, if possible). The rest looks good, sourcing and licensing-wise. FunkMonk (talk) 20:38, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi FunkMonk. Thanks for taking on the image review. I hope that you will bear with me while I try to climb the learning curve - I only learnt last week how to add a US PD tag. (On this very image.) By "a proper description template" do you mean something like the below? Which is taken from the Commons information on a different image from the same chronicle.

File information
Description	English: French army besieging the citadel of Auberoche, catapulting an English messenger over the walls
Source	http://www.guerre-de-cent-ans.com/1337-1364.php
Date	Unknown date
Author	style="background: #EEE; vertical-align: middle; white-space: nowrap; text-align: center; " class="table-Unknown" \| author
Permission (Reusing this file)	{{PD-old-100-1923}}

Yep, exactly. FunkMonk (talk) 15:06, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@FunkMonk: Done, I think. I would appreciate a check. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:13, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, I would incorporate the text hanging above the template into it, though. Seems you already put it in a note, so it can just be deleted. FunkMonk (talk) 17:36, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@FunkMonk: Oops. Sorry. Over focused. Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:51, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect! FunkMonk (talk) 17:54, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@FunkMonk: Good. Thanks. Any chance of a "Support"? ;-) Gog the Mild (talk) 18:08, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to read the article for that (can't support based on an image review), and that was actually what I was going to do until I saw it already had three reviews (which usually means a pass). But I'll have a look if it drags out. FunkMonk (talk) 18:10, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@FunkMonk: No, no. My error. My first FAC; I thought that an image review needed a support, as it does at ACR (at MilHist anyway). Thanks again for the input and for bearing with me. So, fingers crossed, a source review, which is the thing I am probably most relaxed about, and I have my first FA. Given the quality of the three reviewers who have contributed so far I am hopeful that they will be sufficient. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:17, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that surprises me, actually, since I've often seen you around the review pages. Well, good luck, having reviewed so much also gives good insight in the process! It's an interesting article, so I might come back for a review of the text. FunkMonk (talk) 18:22, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@FunkMonk: Thanks. I have been getting my QPQ in early. And, as you suggest, picking up tips. I got 30 GA under my belt before submitting my first ACR, so now have a queue of wanabe ACRs. I am restricting myself to two at a time, and will roll them straight into FAC, if there is a space. You may want to hold back, or look at one of my ACRs (Siege of Berwick (1333) and Battle of Auberoche). I anticipate wanting to call in some favours for FAC assessing before too long. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:15, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See you there! FunkMonk (talk) 19:46, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if this Commons image could be of use:[37]

Thank you for that. I am not sure how I missed it. Unfortunately its nice neat depiction does not match any account of the battle I have come across and bears little relation to the account in this article. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:47, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from AustralianRupert edit

Support: G'day, Gog, just a couple of minor nitpicky comments. Apologies if these have been raised and discussed earlier in the review, I typed these out whilst travelling, so these may have progressed since I wrote them. Anyway, hopefully they help in some regard: AustralianRupert (talk) 13:14, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

in the References/Sources, there usually isn't a need for accessdates for courtesy links (see Brown)

Removed

remove "p. 330" for Maxwell in the long citation (in the Sources section) as it is not required here

Done.

slightly inconsistent: "Faber and Faber" or "Faber & Faber"?

I just copy what WorldCat says ;) . Now consistent.

the hyphenation of some of the ISBNs appears to be different (e.g. compare Sumption 1990 with Wagner)

Frankly, I am all at sea with hyphenating ISBNs. Now both consistent and correct, but I am unsure if FA compliant.

Fraser appears to be self published -- is there a need to use this, or is there anything that can be pointed to IOT demonstrate it is a reliable source?

Well, now. The evidence is a bit bitty, but the Sir William Fraser Chair of Scottish History and Palaeography is named after him, see here. The Dictionary of National Biography seems to like him, see here. Note that he drew up most of the reports on Scottish historical manuscripts for the Royal Commission on Historical Manuscripts for twenty years. He was the (full time) deputy keeper of sassines and subsequently deputy-keeper of the records.

There is more. Let me know if you would like me to dig it out.

Given that, it seems ok to me. Equally, Fraser is only being used once now, along with a ref to another source, so it should be ok, IMO. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:02, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The information cited to refs 26, 27 and 28 is sourced to works published between 1776 and 1913 - is there anything more recent that could reference this?

This came up at ACR. I commented then "Dalrymple (1776) and Fraser (1878) are only used to support the list of Scottish prisoners. Older sources are fonder of listing noble involvement than more modern ones and I consider them reliable for this, limited, purpose." For Fraser, see above. I have, a little reluctantly, replaced Dalrymple and Fraser with Oman. (I am not keen on using Oman as I don't really trust him. But that is probably just me and he is widely considered a reliable source.)

Ack, no worries. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:02, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maxwell - remove the space before the colon in the title

Done.

"J. Maclehose and sons" --> capital letter for "Sons"

Done

long as possible.[37][25] --> suggest reordering the refs numerically

Drat. I thought that I had caught all of those. Done.

Good day to you AustralianRupert. It is good to hear from you. And many thanks for stoping by to look at my first FAC. I am nervous, as you might expect, and a little annoyed at all of the things I have missed. Your points addressed above. See what you think. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:37, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just a couple of follow up points: AustralianRupert (talk) 00:02, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dalrymple is now not used as a citation, so should probably be in a Further reading section

I have removed him. He was only there to evidence the Scottish dead, now covered by Oman. He doesn't otherwise add much IMO.

Note 2 appears unreferenced - suggest adding a citation

Oops. Done.

Citation 19 (Prestwich & Rollason 1998) lacks page numbers -- is it possible to add these in?

Sloppy, sloppy. Done. Thanks for picking that up. Embarrassing.

@AustralianRupert: Additional points addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:40, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work. All my points have been addressed, so I have added my support. Thanks for your efforts. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:58, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done edit

Lead says half a mile from Durham, text says less than half a mile - which is correct?

Done.

Be consistent in whether page ranges are abbreviated

Done.

Previous discussions around Measuringworth have raised doubts as to its accuracy and value

I didn't know that, but am not surprised. Nevertheless I think that it helpful to give a reader an idea of the value of money amounts, both in inflation terms and earning power, however arguably flawed the methodology. A raw figure, 100,000 marks, or even £1,000, is either meaningless or positively misleading in my opinion. Would you like me to take the inflation and earning power comparisons and notes out? I notice that the MoS says under money that "In some cases, it may be appropriate to provide a conversion accounting for inflation or deflation over time. See "

I think the note about expected wage is useful. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:32, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FN15: what is the significance of "n"? Is it a footnote on the given page? If so, suggest saying that explicitly

Done.

The Boardman and Webster refs are both to ODNB but don't match in formatting

Webster removed.

Don't mix {{citation}} and the cite family of templates

Done.

Why include county for Ware but not East Linton? Why country instead of county for Harlow?

Done.

Brown: don't be over-precise on publication dates for books

Done.

The Sadler ISBN corresponds with an edition from a different publisher than the one listed, and the Sumption citation lists the same ISBN.

Done.

Er, looks like the Sadler ISBN still corresponds to a different publisher edition? Sumption is now correct. Nikkimaria

@Nikkimaria: According to WorldCat they match - click on the link. Unless I am being unusually stupid - which I am perfectly willing to believe. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:54, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. Not sure Worldcat is correct on that point - multiple ISBN searches, including the Worldcat link from Special:BookSources, say that ISBN is for the Routledge edition. Can you verify in whichever edition you consulted what the correct ISBN and publisher are?

@Nikkimaria: I am a little confused, but if that is not the ISBN, then it is 9781405840224. Although I note that Google Books gives Pearson Education as the publisher and 2006 as the date, while WorldCat gives Pearson/Longman and 2005. I am not sure what to make of that, and suspect that this discrepancy may be why I ducked the issue and attempted to refer to a different edition; I don't recall. I have not, yet, changed the ISBN in the article. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:01, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of discrepancy, we should include the publisher and ISBN of whichever edition was actually consulted, as recorded in that edition. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:31, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: I only added it a week ago, in response to a request on this page. I am not sure how I botched it, but have now redone it from scratch. (It is only there to establish that Robert was David's nephew and I could easily lose it, but it is now a challenge.) I have copied the ISBN directly from the title page, so hopefully this is now settled. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:13, 10 November 2018 (UTC) Nikkimaria (talk) 21:08, 10 November 2018 (UTC) (talk) 19:32, 10 November 2018 (UTC) Nikkimaria (talk) 16:38, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nikkimaria. Thanks for taking this on for my first FAC, and apologies for the large number of beginners errors. I look forward to the results of your spot checks. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:46, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: Hi there. You are usually remarkably prompt with your responses, so I hope that you won't think that I am hassling you if I give you a reminder. If you are aware of the position and I am in a queue, apologies. (My first FAC and this is the last "tick" needed, so I am probably exhibiting an unbecoming puppy-like over enthusiasm.) Gog the Mild (talk) 23:56, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GtM, looks like the point about MeasuringWorth above is still outstanding? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:21, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nikkimaria. As I said in response above, "I notice that the MoS says under money that 'In some cases, it may be appropriate to provide a conversion accounting for inflation or deflation over time.' " The MoS then refers to the template I use. I also explained that in this case I consider it appropriate: "I think that it helpful to give a reader an idea of the value of money amounts, both in inflation terms and earning power, however arguably flawed the methodology. A raw figure, 100,000 marks, or even £1,000, is either meaningless or positively misleading in my opinion." I also asked if, in spite of this and to move the review along: "Would you like me to take the inflation and earning power comparisons and notes out?"

If there is anything missing from my response that leaves the point outstanding then I am no doubt being my usual slow-on-the-uptake self and would appreciate your rephrasing the question/point. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:45, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Right. What I was saying was that the earning power comparison ("To give a very rough idea of earning power" etc) was useful. I don't agree that the inflation bit provides significant value on top of that. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:54, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria OK. I think that I was missing the point because the MoS explicitly permits the inflation bit, but the earning power comparison was my own cheeky addition. Personally I think that the inflation template is, in this specific case "appropriate" in line with the MoS. And considerably more immediately informative than the EPC. I think that explaining why would just be going over ground already covered more eruditely elsewhere. If it is a deal breaker for my first FAC, then obviously it goes out, MoS or not; just let me know. (It is 1.00am here so if there is an 8 hour delay to my response it is not because I am sulking.

) Gog the Mild (talk) 01:05, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, let's see if anyone else wants to weigh in on this point. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:06, 26 November 2018 (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. --Laser brain (talk) 15:04, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 15:03, 16 December 2018 [38].

Sloan–Parker House edit

Nominator(s): West Virginian (talk) 23:52, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article details the history and architecture of a significant historic property on the National Register of Historic Places in Hampshire County, West Virginia. This article is consistent with other NRHP-related articles in Hampshire County that are Featured Articles, including Capon Chapel, Capon Lake Whipple Truss Bridge, Hebron Church (Intermont, West Virginia), Literary Hall, Old Pine Church, and Valley View (Romney, West Virginia). I welcome your reviews and suggestions to further improve this article so that it fulfills FA status. Note to reviewers: I have addressed issues noted during this article's first FA candidacy. Thank you in advance! -- West Virginian (talk) 23:52, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tony1 edit

1a, lead and a bit further:

"The Sloan–Parker House (also historically known as the Stone House, the Parker Family Residence, and the Richard Sloan House)"—Do you need "also"? (You do need it in the first section, though.)

Tony1, first and foremost, thank you so much for taking the time to engage in this thorough review! I appreciate your guidance and suggestions, and I will be addressing them all as soon as I can. Because the alternative names do not fit neatly into any of the sections, I have moved them into an explanatory footnote. Please let me know if this is acceptable. -- West Virginian (talk) 11:52, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is the link to a list of all US states of any relevance to readers at this point? Or, frankly, at any point in this article? Does "Ireland" need to be linked?
"was erected in about 1790" might be a smoother ride for readers; up to you.
In the tradeoff between bumpiness and rhythm/meaning, what do you think about removing the first comma? "Sloan eloped with Van Horn's daughter Charlotte, and they settled in the Mill Creek valley, where they built the original "Stone House" of the Sloan–Parker House."
But here, you might consider inserting a comma before "who": "The Sloans had ten children, including John and Thomas Sloan who each represented Hampshire County in the Virginia House of Delegates." Children in the legislature? How modern. ", who both went on to represent"?
"Counterpanes"—very unfamiliar, but linked to the whole article "Quilt". Probably a link is good, but please, why not to the section "Block designs" at that target article? And if it were me, I'd write "[[Quilt#Block designs|counterpanes]] (quilts with block-designs)" to save us the trouble.
Do we need "stage" and "line" twice? Maybe, but not if we don't: "operated a stagecoach line on the Moorefield and North Branch Turnpike stage line".
"and its use as a stagecoach stop ceased after the completion of the Hampshire Southern Railroad in 1910."—maybe, but "ceased" is a marked word (cease and desist). Need to be that strong? "ended" would be more neutral.
Do we need "positioned"?
"The majority of the stone section's flooring"—we're calculating percentages here? "Most of ...".
"approximately": English can be ugly. "about"?
"upon" ... whilst, amongst, within. Choose the plain version where possible.
And way down, a caption I noticed: "North and west elevations, as seen in July 2016". How can that be freed of redundant fluff?

I'm not saying this deserves to be withdrawn, but it would be a good idea, soon, to print it out and go through it in detail with a slashing pen. Commas, linking, redundant wording. Tony (talk) 09:02, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tony1, thank you again for your review and helpful suggestions above. I have addressed each one, and I will continue to remove superfluous language as I find it. Please let me know if you have any further guidance in the meantime. -- West Virginian (talk) 12:07, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Vami_IV edit

This article was a pleasant read, very nicely portrayed some vintage Americana. –♠Vami _IV†♠ 10:44, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vami_IV, thank you so much for your kind words and for taking the time to review this article and provide your guidance and suggestions below! I will post here once I am finished addressing each and every one! -- West Virginian (talk) 13:55, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"They paid each of their laborers a wage of 6½ cents per day of labor." Irrelevant?
"became well known in the region." What region exactly?
"He also served as a justice of Hampshire County from 1824 until 1828,[20][23] a surveyor of Hampshire County in 1827,[24] a sheriff of Hampshire County in 1839,[20][25] and a member of the Virginia House of Delegates representing Hampshire County from 1825 to 1827.[26]" There are three too-many mentions of Hampshire County in this sentence.
"Frederick, Hampshire, and Morgan counties." Link to Frederick and Morgan counties here.
"The Sloan–Parker House, as of 2018," Is the property subject to change?
"as is the old rear door on the stone section's south elevation." Move to the paragraph on the south facade.
"This fireplace, along with an outdoor summer kitchen, was used for cooking." Superfluous, remove.
"Widely spaced unhewn logs" This links to "Log house", but doesn't actually say loghouse. Is that what you meant?
"The Sloan–Ludwick Cemetery[49] is approximately 415 feet (126 m) northeast of the Sloan–Parker House, and is located in a grove of trees at the edge of an agricultural field." Simplify

Vami_IV, thank you again for your review and suggestions. I've addressed each and every one in the article's prose. I incorporated all your suggestions, and where there was a question or recommendation to remove, I removed that content. Please let me know if you have any further comments or suggestions in the meantime! -- West Virginian (talk) 14:22, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"The south elevation (rear façade) of the stone section remains intact, and serves as the northern wall of the wooden frame section. A window in the stone section's second story was removed to connect the second story of the wooden frame addition. Likewise, what used to be the stone section's rear door now connects the first floor of the stone section with the wooden frame section.[48] This door is also topped by a four-pane transom window.[48]", "They still contain markings of letters and numbers that enabled the proper placement of components as they were lifted from the ground during construction.[48] The majority of the stone section's flooring, and the hardware on the doors, are original.[48]" and "The interior of the stone section contains two floors, each with two rooms, in addition to a basement and attic. The former kitchen and dining room (or "keeping rooms") are on the west side of the basement level, and feature a large fireplace.[48] The east side of the basement serves as a large storage area.[48]" Combine citations here. There is a lot of this in the prose. –♠Vami _IV†♠ 15:15, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vami_IV, thank you for your continued review of this article! Your time and guidance are much appreciated. I have modified this section so that there are not so many redundant citations. Please take a look and let me know if you see any outstanding issues. Thanks again! -- West Virginian (talk) 15:29, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:16, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria, thank you so much for taking the time to perform this review of the image licenses. -- West Virginian (talk) 13:55, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from KJP1 edit

An interesting article. Some comments/suggestions below.

Lead

"who each (later) represented Hampshire County in the Virginia House of Delegates" - following an earlier point, would "later" work here?
"and a wooden frame addition (built c. 1900) perpendicular to the original stone section" - here, and in the Architecture section, you use "perpendicular" where I'd use "at a right angle". Just ignore me if it's a US/UK thing.
The chronology of the lead stops c.1910. Should it not have a line on the later Parker history, opening etc.?

Geography and setting

This is very detailed. Too detailed?

Sloan family ownership

"After encountering healthy cattle from Old Fields in Hardy County, they decided to relocate there" - this sounds rather odd. Did they meet on the road and exchange pleasantries? "observing" / "noticing" or some such?
"the large house afforded the couple sufficient space to raise them. The house also provided the family with the necessary space..." - to avoid the close repetition, could you replace the first "space" with "room"?

Parker family ownership

"She and her husband opened the Sloan–Parker House for tours in 1962 and in July 1976 when..." - I don't get the timing here. Did they open just in 1962, and again in June 1976? What about 1963-75, and post-June 76? Could the wording be clarified?
The full list of the present owners' children almost strays into Facebook territory for me. Does it really have any significance in relation to the house?

Architecture

Sources - as a general observation, this section is heavily reliant on the single source (48). I well appreciate the challenges around finding sources for minor buildings; most of my Monmouthshire Grade II*s are sourced to Pevsner and the CADW site. And that's sometimes it. Are there any other sources available? My guess is not, otherwise you'd have used them.

Stone section

"The majority of the stone section's flooring, and the hardware on the doors". You could link hardware. I see it's US usage, but it's less clear to us Brits, and I suspect even less clear elsewhere.

Ancillary structures

"Widely spaced unhewn logs are located within the barn's interior and on its south elevation". This threw me and I'm still not sure I get it after reading Source 48. At first I thought they were just logs strewn around for decorative?/illustrative? purposes. But the source says "on" the interior, not within. Are they actually cladding? I think it needs clarifying.

Sources

Waybacked newspaper clippings, e.g. 39, 41, 44 - it may be my machine but these don't work for me. They don't let me get into the actual articles, just the first bits.

Images

The two images of the North & West elevations are very similar. You don't have any of the other frontages?

All in all, a well-researched article on an interesting building. I'll be happy to support after you've had a chance to consider, but not necessarily action, the suggestions above. KJP1 (talk) 10:00, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KJP1, thank you so incredibly much for your review of this article. I have indeed actioned most of your suggestions, which have greatly improved the article's flow and quality! Unfortunately, the archived NewspaperArchive.com newspapers are not rendering properly at the present. Do you have any suggestions for how to handle this in the citations? Perhaps remove the archive links and add the subscription templates? I also kept perpendicular after trying right angle. Everything else has been integrated into the article per your guidance. Thank you so much for your time and expertise! -- West Virginian (talk) 14:22, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KJP1, I went ahead and removed the archival links from the NewspaperArchive.com source, and added the subscription required template. -- West Virginian (talk) 15:12, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All looking good to me. It's a shame about Wayback as I don't generally like using paid-for sites if they can be avoided, but probably better that than the frustration of not being able to get in. Pleased to Support. KJP1 (talk) 18:04, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KJP1, thank you so much for taking the time to review this article and for providing your guidance above! I share your frustration, and will continue to look for a solution to this issue in the meantime! -- West Virginian (talk) 23:43, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Usernameunique edit

I reviewed this article at GA and supported its first go-round at FAC, a nomination that appears to have failed largely because of an inconveniently-timed period of inactivity by the nominator. It was a very good article then, as it is now, and I believe well deserving of being designated a featured article. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:32, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Usernameunique, thank you tremendously for taking the time to review this article for its GA candidacy, its first FA candidacy, and this one. I always appreciate your guidance and expertise. Thanks again! — West Virginian (talk) 08:41, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comments by Dudley edit

I doubt whether this article needs a full review as I see it already has three supports but I have a couple of comments on the lead.
" it was Hampshire County's first property listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1975." You have already said this above.
"a wooden frame addition (built c. 1900) perpendicular to the original stone section" I am not sure what "perpendicular" means here. Would adjacent be a better word? Dudley Miles (talk) 18:50, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dudley Miles, thank you so much for taking the time to review this article and provide the above suggestions! I concurred with both and made adjustments accordingly. Thanks again! -- West Virginian (talk) 11:19, 13 December 2018 (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. --Laser brain (talk) 15:03, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 15:02, 16 December 2018 [39].

Killdeer edit

Nominator(s): RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 21:01, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a (primarily) North American shorebird. It is found both inland and on the coast. I became interested in it after I saw a few at school last spring. Recently, I tried to bring it to FA status, but failed. I have improved the article and gotten a GA review, so I hope it is better now. RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 21:01, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From FunkMonk edit

Seems many issues were fixed by the GA review, so definitely the way to go before FAC. I'll review this soon. FunkMonk (talk) 21:19, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if this is a clearer, or at least more dramatic, photo of the injury faking:[40]

It definitely displays the "broken-wing" better; added. RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 00:53, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's always good to show how a bird looks in flight (can aid birders, for example), how about one of these?[41][42] Perhaps under habitat?

Added the first one, as it more clearly shows the underparts and underside of the wing. RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 23:54, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, looking again, maybe th Cuban image should be moved under distribution then? Since the point of it is to show a local population. Now it is kind of crammed under the taxobox. FunkMonk (talk) 00:29, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be the last point. FunkMonk (talk) 06:02, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've been thinking about this one, and I think I agree with you; moved. RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 23:03, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You made a point of adding location to image captions at the GAN, why not in the taxobox caption?

Added. RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 23:54, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"This binomial has not been changed" I don't think this needs to be its own sentence, it could be better tacked onto the former sentence as ", a name which has not changed since" or some such.

Used a semi-colon to connect the two sentences. RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 23:54, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"an account of it" Give year.

Done. RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 23:54, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Introduce people mentioned.

Done. RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 23:54, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"in the fourth-century Vulgate" Add "bible".

done. RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 23:54, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"The specific vociferus" Spell out specific name.

Done. RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 23:54, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"C. v. peruvianus (Chapman, 1920)" If the parenthesis is because it was originally described as a separate species, this should be mentioned.

It seems that it described by Chapman under the genus name Oxyechus, at least according to AviBase. RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 23:54, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In that case it needs a mention. FunkMonk (talk) 00:29, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Added as a footnote. RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 00:53, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"The killdeer's name" Common name.

Done. RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 23:54, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seems some of those external links are redundant. If the article contains all the same info, we don't need extra links.

Removed 3 external links. RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 00:53, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No word on most closely related species and evolution?

Nope; I can't find anything on it. RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 12:41, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A quick Google search gave me these[43][44], sure there is more. FunkMonk (talk) 12:46, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I didn't see that first one. Thanks; added. RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 23:54, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The description is a bit of a wall of text. Perhaps split it at "The female's mask"?

Sounds good. RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 00:53, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"and very locally south to Panama" What does this mean?

It's basically what HBW said; I assume, though, that it means while it does breed to Panama, it only does so on an irregular basis. RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 00:53, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"and those with cattle"? Why?

Added in parentheses. RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 00:53, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Behaviour" This section is usually called behaviour and ecology in bird FAs, with predators as a subsection.

I don't think that's correct, most bird FAs actually have just "Behaviour" Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:37, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"although another estimate... gives about two million" Why "although>", it doesn't contradict that the population is large, but confirms it.

Fixed. RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 06:12, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

" While egg-laying" This is ambiguous. Do you mean brooding, or laying eggs?

Not specified; I'm pretty sure it means the period of egg-laying itself; changed "while" to "during"

"until a normal response is calling at a stand" What does this mean?

I seemed to have misread the source a tidge; it said "standing calling". I removed "at a stand". RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 00:59, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"and charges at the intruder." With the rump first?

"While in this crouched posture, the bird lunges towards the intruder in an apparent effort to halt its approach." It seems so, heh. RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 00:59, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Ground chases occur when a killdeer has been approached multiple times by another killdeer; similarly, flight chases occur when an individual has been approached from the air. Both are forms of territorial defense" Is any of this related to breeding, though?

Yes, as they forms of territorial defense; I have no information on them being used as a mating display. RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 00:59, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"keep the nest cool or to help conceal the nest." Last "nest" could be "it".

Done; also removed last "to help". RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 00:59, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"and there are occasionally two broods" What is meant by this? In the same nest, or in separate nests?

I couldn't find this, but I found that they usually laid in the same nesting territory; added. RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 01:48, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"In these two parents broods" Parent's? And why is "two" needed? It is a bit oddly worded this sentence.

Removed "two parents"

"The young are brooded, until about 15 days after hatching, during rain, and, until about 18 days after hatching, at night." I'm not sure what this means. They are brooded less during rain and more during night?

It means that if the young are under 15 days of age, they are brooded during rain, and if they are under 18 days of age, they are also brooded at night; rijigged and replaced "at" with "during". RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 00:59, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Swedish naturalist Carl Linnaeus in the 10th edition of his Systema Naturae." Too much detail for the intro, the name of the describer is enough there.

Removed extraneous information. RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 01:49, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

""the originally described population)" That would be the originally described subspecies. Population is not the same.

Ok; changed. RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 00:59, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"The nest itself is a scrape" Only stated in intro.

Added to body. RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 00:59, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"This likely evolved because of increased insect abundance and reduced predation during the night." Evolved is a bit strong here, "this is likely because" would probably make more sense.

I agree; changed. RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 00:59, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A "why" tag has been added after the sentence "About 53% of eggs do not hatch", which should be dealt with.

This has been dealt with. RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 11:04, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support - looks fine to me now. FunkMonk (talk) 15:17, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tony1 edit

1a: I reviewed this not long ago, right? Hmmm ... the lead is still faulty.

"there are two black breast bands on the breast"—do we really need "breast" twice? And there's a third two seconds later, awkwardly making est est.

Done. RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 21:28, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a good sentence: "It is seen year-round in the southern half of its breeding range, and the subspecies C. v. ternominatus is likely resident to the West Indies and C. v. peruvianus inhabits Peru and areas of the surrounding countries throughout the year." and and and trips us up. Have you thought of creating two sort-of sentences using a semicolon? I can't digest it. And "likely" (meaning "probably"), an Americanism I've never been happy with in formal prose. Why? Because it creates a grammatical fork ("is likely to?") that has to be disambiguating shortly after.

Done. I don't really understand your reasoning for not liking "likely", but I've changed it anyways. RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 21:28, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you ditch the "However-comma" and replace with simple "But ..."?

I've done that for its first occurrence in the lead, but not for the second, as "but" occurs shortly after. RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 21:28, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Any chance of avoiding our need to hit the link to "nominate"? ... by (glossing) it?

Done. RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 00:53, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So, looking through, it's much better than it was. Probably good enough for FA this time, in prose. Possible to use range dashes for numerals? "2 to 6 °C (36 to 43 °F)" -> "2–6 °C (36–43 °F)" ... simpler to read. Tony (talk) 06:09, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I personally prefer using "to" for consistency. RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 00:53, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that one of the "breast" is redundant in the forth sentence. --Boothsift (talk) 05:33, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Jim edit

~~I'm short of time, so just few points for starters~~ Read through nowJimfbleak - talk to me? 16:04, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What about its parasites? No mention at all in your article: Jackson, B., J. Jackson. 2000. "Killdeer (Charadrius vociferus)" pp. 1-28 in A Poole, F Gill, eds. The Birds of North America, Vol. 517. apparently claims it hosts at least 13 species (I don't have access)

I finally found the paper on it; added some information. RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 23:20, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

According to a 1999 mitochondrial DNA study, the killdeer is closely related to the rufous-chested, and semipalmated plover, and the black-fronted and hooded dotterel—this concerns me. Two species from other genera are considered to be closest relatives, rather than others in its own genus, notably common ringed plover, itself the closest relative of semipalmated. I can't access the full reference, but I note that it's nearly 20 years old

Removed; I personally did have a few reservations about this (it doesn't even include the whole genus!), so I've removed it. RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 01:54, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The female's mask and breast bands are generally more brown than those of the male.—that's not quite what the source says. HBW has "tends to have", which is much less positive than your statement implies. Hayman, Marchant and Prater 1988 p. 287 has "sexing is not usually possible, but some breeding females show much brown admixed with the black on the face". Non-breeding males also often have some brown in the plumage, so I'd definitely hesitate to sex birds in that plumage

Changed to "tend to be". RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 01:51, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are three subspecies, including the nominate .—clunky here, why not just leave at There are three subspecies and then later have The nominate (originally described population) subspecies of this plover breeds from southeastern Alaska and southern Canada to Mexico, which clarifies what is currently an incorrect statement.

Done. RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 23:54, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~The killdeer winters from its resident range south to Central America—should be the North American breeders winter from their resident range south to Central America~~

Changed. RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 23:54, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The killdeer was described in 1758 by Swedish naturalist Carl Linnaeus as Charadrius vociferus in the 10th edition of his Systema Naturae;[2] this name has not been changed—clunky, try The killdeer was described in 1758 by Swedish naturalist Carl Linnaeus as in the 10th edition of his Systema Naturae as Charadrius vociferus, its current name

Done. RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 01:54, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

About 53% of eggs do not hatch—as it says, why not?

~~Specified. R~~ileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 23:44, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

range of about 26.3 million kilometres (16.3 mi)—you are using a linear instead of area measure for the range, should be sq km and sq mi, also I think that 26.3 million kilometres is a tad more than 16.3 mi!!

Fixed both. RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 23:54, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Average/maximum life span, survival rates etc?

I found the maximum life span; by the way, this site I just found seems to be really useful (I found the paper I used through this), if you didn't already know about it. RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 23:42, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}, I wasn't aware of that, it looks useful. In practice, I usually write about species with a presence in Europe, where the Euring database does the job, but I guessed that there must be something out there for other regions. Anyway, that's my last point dealt with, so changing to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:25, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SupportComments from Tim riley edit

I'll be back with more detailed comments shortly, I hope, but meanwhile I am wondering what variety of English the article is intended to be in. It seems mostly to be in BrE (behaviour, centimetres, coloured, metres, colour, millimetres) but some AmE spellings pop up here and there (southeastern, defense, feces). Tim riley talk 11:53, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's mostly in British English. I've changed defense and feces now, but "southeastern"? RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 19:50, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd hyphenate "south-eastern" etc, but there's nothing wrong with "southeastern" if you prefer it. Tim riley talk 18:58, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments, as promised. First an apology. I ought to have made it clear in my passing remark, above, that given the habitat of these birds, AmE would seem to me to be the logical choice. I don't think it's mandatory, though, and if you prefer BrE I doubt if anyone will object. Here are a few general comments, down to the end of the "Habitat and distribution" section:

Lead
- "Its upperparts are mostly brown with rufous fringes" – I could make a fair guess at what upperparts are, but rufous could do with a link too, I think.

Linked. RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 18:38, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- "The belly and the rest of the breast is white" – singular verb with plural nouns.

Fixed. RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 18:38, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- "resident to the West Indies" – is that a technical term? Ordinarily "resident in" would be expected.

I'm not sure, to be honest. It just means that it stays there year round. RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 18:38, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think "resident in" would be right in that case. Tim riley talk 18:58, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds so weird to me, but I've looked it up, and it seems you're right; changed. RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 12:27, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- "West Indies" – if you're going to link (which I'm not sure is needed) you should link at first, not second, mention.

Linked at first mention. RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 18:38, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- "fledge" – might be helpful to link? Borderline, perhaps.

I'd say it's probably better to link than not. RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 18:38, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Description
- "lores" – definitely could do with a link, I'd say.

linked. RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 21:10, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- "The killdeer also has a white collar that is black on its upper border" – I'm not sure I understand this. Do you mean a white collar with a black upper border?

Yep; changed. RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 21:38, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- "more pale and grey" – "paler and greyer"?

Changed. RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 18:38, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Habitat and distribution
- "very locally south to Panama" – I'm not quite certain what this means. Is it that breeding is mostly in the first three countries but is occasionally known in Panama too?

It means that it breeds south to Panama, but not as widespread as it usually is found. RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 21:38, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You could make this clearer, I think. Something like "with some less widespread grounds further south, in Panama". Tim riley talk 18:58, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Changed. RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 12:27, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More to come. – Tim riley talk 12:14, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tim, just picking up on the variety of English point you made earlier, there are eight or nine English-speaking countries in the Caribbean part of the killdeer's breeding range that use BE, so it's just as appropriate as AE for this species, and the latter is certainly not necessary Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:14, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Jim. Point taken. Tim riley talk 18:58, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Resuming

Breeding
- Next-to-last sentence: "It has" – means the bird, not the breeding, I infer. Best make it specific.

Changed. RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 12:27, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if it's because it's Friday night and I'm accordingly cheerful, but although there are quite a few drafting points I'd prefer written differently I don't think I need single them out, let alone ask for changes. The repeated use of "likely" instead of "probably" seems unidiomatic to an elderly BrEng user, but the meaning is clear, and the prose flows well enough.

I know nothing of ornithology, but as a layman I find the sourcing impressively wide and (many JSTOR refs – always a good sign) evidently authoritative. The prose is clear, and the illustrations splendid. As the coverage of the topic seems to me thorough, I am happy to support. Tim riley talk 18:58, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 12:27, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

File:Killdeer.jpg: source link is dead. Same with Charadrius_vociferus.ogg. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:20, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Found the archived version of the latter, and switched on Commons to reflect. I could not find the source of the former; however, the copyright seems to check out according to this. RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 19:18, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: Is the article ok now? RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 13:10, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the gallery of which the former was a part is still on the site, minus this image; the image also appears elsewhere on the web without this attribution. Is anything more known about its provenance? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:45, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just found it here and here. I'm not too sure about this file, but I'll defer to what you think; if it has to be replaced, I think that this photo would do well. RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 22:46, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and support from Gerda edit

Thank you for a good-looking article. I read the lead so far, and am mostly happy. It has several brackets, and I am not sure if they are all necessary, please check. The combination of "However" followed by a close "but" (close to the end) is not to my liking ;) More to come. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:20, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology ...

"vox" means "voice".

According to this source (found on the wiktionary page for vox), "cry" is an appropriate translation. RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 22:38, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"The common name comes from its frequently heard call." - so much in between that "its" is not immediately clear.

Added "killdeer's" before "common name". RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 13:09, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Habitat ...

"... and very with some less widespread grounds further south, to Panama" - don't understand "very" in it.

Fixed, and shortened overall. RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 13:09, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Got to finish feeding, but need sleep. More to come. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:41, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Responses ...

"The parents use various methods to distract predators during the breeding season." - How about: "Breeding killdeer use various methods to distract predators." or some other way to begin with "The parents".

I'd prefer to keep it as it is, as starting the sentence with "Breeding killdeer" seems to say we are only talking about birds who are copulating. If you don't like how it starts with "The parents", I could change it to "The killdeer" (and I would then make the sentence singular).

I suggest to first describe the responses, then when they peak.

Done. RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 22:38, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"by the killdeer" seems redundant at this point

Removed through reordering to accomplish above. RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 22:38, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The voice in the little movie is so much more convincing than in the short sound file, that I'd go for dropping the sound-only.

I'd disagree; the voice in the sound file sounds much more like a bird screeching than the one in the video. RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 22:45, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not happy with text squeezed between images. Do you have one more, for a little gallery?

Done. RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 22:38, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fine article, thank you! I guess we don't have any killdeer in art? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:57, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! We don't really have anything about it in art, unfortunately. RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 22:45, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, support! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:35, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note edit

Source review? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:03, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Basilar source review edit

I take https://www.hbw.com/ is a reliable source?

Yep; it's used very frequently on bird FAs. RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 01:09, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see that some sources sometimes have DOIs and other times don't. I was thinking The Wilson Review especially.

I cannot find DOIs for some sources (like The Wilson Review). RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 01:09, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Same for ISSNs.

Done. RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 02:24, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't notice any unreliable or questionable sources.

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:33, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Thanks for the review! RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 02:24, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Spot check edit

coming up....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:42, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FN #12 - used twice. material cited and faithful to source. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:48, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
FN #31 - used twice. material cited and faithful to source. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:51, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
FN #35 - used twice. material cited and faithful to source. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:52, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ok I'm happy....

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain (talk) 15:02, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 15:01, 16 December 2018 [45].

History of the Nashville Sounds edit

Nominator(s): NatureBoyMD (talk) 19:57, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the Nashville Sounds Minor League Baseball team that has played in Nashville, Tennessee, since 1978. It is currently listed as a Good Article, and I believe it meets the criteria to become a Featured Article. I have put a lot of work into this article and am prepared to quickly address any issues. NatureBoyMD (talk) 19:57, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A quick look shows that the prose is good. I was expecting to trash it. Tony (talk) 05:07, 15 October 2018 (UTC) PS I'd insert a comma after "logo" in the upppermost caption. Tony (talk) 05:08, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done. NatureBoyMD (talk) 12:54, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support – I reviewed this article and copy-edited it during the first FAC, and I'm glad to see that the prose has received some praise. Having checked the additions to the article since the first FAC, everything added appears to be at the same level as the content present when I last saw the article; I only made one minor change in the new material. Overall, I think that all aspects of this article are now up to FA standards. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:12, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber edit

Taking a look now....

~~The Sounds led all of Minor League Baseball in attendance in their inaugural season and continued to lead the Southern League in attendance in each of their seven years as members of the league.~~ ~~- repetitive. Can we phrase part of this a different way? "draw the largest crowds"? or something similar?~~

~~...began to be outshined by newer state-of-the-art ballparks being built in the late 1980s~~ ~~- I suspect "state-of-the-art" is redundant here..?~~

These are very minor issues - ~~looking good~~ Support on comprehensiveness and prose Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:48, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Casliber:I changed the first bit to "The Sounds led all of Minor League Baseball in attendance in their inaugural season and continued to draw the Southern League's largest crowds in each of their seven years as members of the league." ... "state-of-the-art" has been removed from the second. NatureBoyMD (talk) 22:23, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SN54129 edit

Support great article; comprehensive, in-depth and thoroughly referenced. The only thing that jumps out at me is that, in your images, you use pixels to determine their size, whereas, for the purpose of universality, uprights are prefered. If you haven't come across them, that's —and on that note, since your lede image effectively replaces an infobox (nothing wrong with that of course), I'd suggest enlarging it. Maybe by ~50%, as I did here (but then self-reverted). ——SerialNumber54129 18:35, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not very familiar with the use of uprights, but after a look at the related MOS, I assigned upright values to all images (1.3 to the lede per your suggestion, 0.8 to portrait images, and 1.2 to most landscape images). I welcome any editor to adjust the values as they deem fit. NatureBoyMD (talk) 21:09, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

Starting source review:

Ref 141 is a dead link

I replaced this with an existing reference. NatureBoyMD (talk) 19:01, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some references to milb.com give Nashville Sounds as the website and Minor League Baseball as the publisher, while others that seem similar give Minor League Baseball as the website. Is there a reason for this variation?

Where the page is located on the team's page, it's listed as website=Nashville Sounds & publisher=Minor League Baseball. Where it is not within the team's portion of the larger MiLB.com, its just MiLB as the website. I also went back and made this usage consistent through the article. NatureBoyMD (talk) 19:01, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain why SportsLogos.net would be considered a high-quality reliable source?

I replaced this reference with others. (FWIW, through my knowledge of the team, I know the information presented there to be factual.) NatureBoyMD (talk) 19:01, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Baseball-Reference.com references usually have the publisher as Sports Reference, but in some cases the publisher is missing. This should be consistent (you shouldn't need the 'LLC' for references).

Fixed. NatureBoyMD (talk) 19:01, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Refs 162-164 are to The Clink Room, which is the blog of a pair of designers who work on team branding. Even if this can be treated as a reliable source (which I doubt), the posts linked are to pictures of draft logos. If the textual narrative about what the design team was asked to do is based on these images, then that would seem to be original research.

I replaced this with a team-published source supporting the possible renaming. NatureBoyMD (talk) 19:01, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More to come, but those were the first concerns I noticed. --RL0919 (talk) 17:31, 9 November 2018 (UTC) Added two more to the list. --RL0919 (talk) 18:36, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the replies above; these changes look good. Spot checks for verification and paraphrasing have checked out OK. I only have a few additional notes:

There are several references to Sounds souvenir programs. This type of material is relatively difficult to obtain for verification, but given that other sourcing has checked out so far, I assume these are all good.
One of the references to these programs, ref 124, is formatted with the title in quotes. The others are in italics. These should be consistent.
A few of the titles for sources are in sentence case instead of title case. For example (but not limited to), refs 41, 160, 171. Suggest you do a sweep to use title case consistently.

Pending the format cleanup items, this looks good for sourcing. --RL0919 (talk) 07:00, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@RL0919: The above formatting inconsistencies have been remedied. NatureBoyMD (talk) 14:56, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The changes look good. I think this article now meets the FA standards for sourcing. --RL0919 (talk) 19:55, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ceranthor edit

Planning to read through the prose and post comments in the next day or so. ceranthor 00:26, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"On the field, the team won six consecutive second-half titles from 1979 to 1984 and went on to win the Southern League championship twice" - Why "went on to win" instead of just "won"?
"first, in 1979" - I think the first is implied, and then I'd cut the comma as well with removing that word
", and again in 1982" - I'd cut the comma there
"the team went on to win" - same note as above... you can tell I'm not a big fan of the phrase "went on to" :)
" in 1897, but relocated " -not sure the comma's needed here
"Getting a team and building a ballpark" - seems like a long title... any thoughts for a more concise way to say the same thing?

I'm stumped as to landing on anything more concise. Everything I think of is basically the same length. (I sort of like it how it is.) NatureBoyMD (talk) 02:10, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"when he observed the large crowds and sellouts the Chattanooga Lookouts experienced" - phrasing here's a little awkward... what about "the large crowds... for the Chattanooga Lookouts", getting rid of "experienced"? or replacing experienced with "saw"

changed to "when he observed the large crowds the Chattanooga Lookouts saw..." NatureBoyMD (talk) 02:10, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"would cost between $300,000 and $500,000;[17][18] but bids for the project ranged from $980,000 to $1.2 million.[17]" - why a semicolon rather than a comma?
"The Sounds led all of Minor League Baseball in attendance by drawing 380,000 fans in their first season.[14] " - for home games only, or away as well?

Inserted their home ballpark name here to indicate home. NatureBoyMD (talk) 02:10, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"by a circle of the same colors bearing the team name in a modern font.[105]" - "a modern font" seems arbitrary; any idea which font it is? does the source say?

Dropped "a modern font". No name given. The phrasing was intended to differentiate from the country music style font used previously. NatureBoyMD (talk) 02:10, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support on the prose. ceranthor 01:36, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All other changes made per your suggestions. NatureBoyMD (talk) 02:10, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coord notes edit

This has been open quite a long time but at this stage appears to be progressing towards consensus for promotion; before we get there:

We need an image review.
I'd like to see a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of plagiarism or close paraphrasing (this is not the nominator's first FAC but it's been awhile since their last spotcheck).
I'd encourage Ceranthor to post comments at their earliest convenience.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:57, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that RL0919 has performed a spotcheck of sources per his comments above. NatureBoyMD (talk) 14:29, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay tks, I no doubt searched for "spotcheck" without a space in the middle... Cheers Ian Rose (talk) 19:41, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did. I didn't elaborate about it in my comments because I didn't find anything to recommend fixing, which probably made it easier to miss the mention. --RL0919 (talk) 02:02, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian Rose: @NatureBoyMD: Sorry for my delay. I am intending to post prose comments tonight. ceranthor 17:16, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Many tks. Cheers Ian Rose (talk) 19:41, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian Rose: I'll be quite disappointed if this fails due to the lack of an image review. Is that a possibility? NatureBoyMD (talk) 15:59, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, lack of image review just delays things -- I wonder if Nikkimaria or Jo-Jo Eumerus could have a look? Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:36, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

File:OriginalNashvilleSoundsLogo.png: I am not sure if this image use complies with WP:NFCC#3 as it looks like it's already used in the parent article.

I've removed it from Nashville Sounds. NatureBoyMD (talk) 14:25, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nashville Sounds 1978 game 2 ticket.jpg: To me this file looks like it might be copyrighted; even such brief texts can have "selection and arrangement" copyright.

I don't know. There are many more examples of similar tickets (and much more elaborate) at commons:Category:Sport tickets under similar free licenses. (Yes, other stuff exists.) They're tagged variously under Public Domain, CC, commons:Template:PD-US-1989, and commons:Template:PD-Ineligible. I can remove the image if absolutely necessary, but I just don't believe that it is copyrighted. Are there other opinions? NatureBoyMD (talk) 14:25, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:GreerStadiumScoreboard2.jpg: Should probably be tagged as commons:Template:De minimis on Commons.

Done. NatureBoyMD (talk) 14:25, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[[:]]:

In general it looks like the images are all pertinent and captions are supported by article text, although some of them don't appear to. ALT text is fine. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:26, 14 December 2018 (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. --Laser brain (talk) 15:01, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 19:12, 11 December 2018 [46].

Phillip Davey edit

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:18, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is the third on a South Australian Victoria Cross recipient I've brought to FAC, part of an ongoing slow-burn project to get them all to FA. Davey was first awarded the Military Medal for bravery after rescuing a wounded man, and a few months later he killed an eight-man German machine-gun crew, saving his platoon from annihilation, for which he was awarded the VC. This article went through GAN in 2017, and was expanded considerably prior to and during its Milhist A-Class review in March this year. While relatively brief, it contains all that I have been able to find on him in reliable sources, and I believe it is comprehensive. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:18, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tony1 edit

You've missed the 100-year anniversary. The prose is ... ok. But needs a proper copy-edit. I've looked through a third to half of this rather short article (which uses "involved" three times ... one could be "participated in"?):

"Davey enlisted in the Australian Imperial Force in December 1914, and joined his unit, the 10th Battalion, before it landed at Anzac Cove, Gallipoli, on 25 April 1915." It's very bumpy with five commas. Why not ", and joined the 10th Battalion on 25 April 1915, before it landed at Anzac Cove, Gallipoli."?

Because he didn't join the battalion on 25 April, that was the date of the landing. I'm open to re-working the prose. Perhaps ending the sentence at December 1914 and starting a new sentence?

"Because"? I don't see that reasoning. My suggestion changes nothing in that respect, so there must have already been a problem with your rendering. Tony (talk) 05:35, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've added detail about what date he joined his battalion and where, hopefully that clears it up. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:04, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"and re-joined to his battalion"—what happened there?

Fixed.
- I hope the hyphen was removed. Tony (talk) 05:35, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is now. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:04, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"In January 1918 he was awarded the Military Medal for bravery in the field, which involved rescuing a wounded man under fire."—wouldn't it be simpler to write: "In January 1918 he was awarded the Military Medal for bravery in rescuing a wounded man under fire."?

Done.

"Phillip Davey was born on 10 October 1896 at Unley, South Australia, to William George Davey and his wife Elizabeth née O'Neill, one of at least five sons of the couple. His father was a carpenter. He attended the Flinders Street Model School and the Goodwood Public School. After his schooling ended, Davey was involved in well boring and opal mining in Central Australia, and at the outbreak of war he was a horse-driver." "he" is his father? Looks like it.
Phillip Davey was born on 10 October 1896 at Unley, South Australia, to William George Davey, a carpenter, and his wife Elizabeth née O'Neill; he one of at least five sons of the couple. He attended ~~the~~ Flinders Street Model School and ~~the~~ Goodwood Public School. After his schooling ~~ended~~, Davey was involved in well boring and opal mining in Central Australia, and at the outbreak of war he was a horse driver."

Done.

"On 22 December 1914, aged 18 ~~years~~, Davey enlisted as a private in the Australian Imperial Force (AIF), and was posted to the 2nd reinforcements to the 10th Battalion."—Do you need the comma after (AIF)? It's not a long sentence and there are no other ands. Check you do need to ... to. I guess you do. Also check "embarked in" (rather than "from"). I don't know the standard wording.

removed "years" and the comma. I think the to ... to is needed. Changed to "embarked at".

Unless "the 10th Battalion's 2nd reinforcement" is possible in standard wording for this topic. Tony (talk) 05:35, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"... was the first brigade ashore about 4:30 am.[5] Davey was involved in the heavy fighting at the landing and subsequent trench warfare defending the beachhead until, after several bouts of illness, he was evacuated to Egypt with enteric fever in early November." "at" 4:30am. Tendency to write over-long and complex sentences. Why not: "and subsequent trench warfare defending the beachhead; after several bouts of illness, he was evacuated to Egypt with enteric fever in early November." Tony (talk) 12:54, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Split sentence. Thanks for your comments so far Tony1, it is always good to have someone run a critical eye over my prose. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:18, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, the rest of it needs running over. Can you find someone? Tony (talk) 05:35, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes Dank takes a look at the prose of articles at FAC, but I generally find GOCE c/e's at FAC to be less than useful, and sometimes counter-productive. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:04, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on a new project, PM, that's why I haven't had time for FAC lately ... I don't see that changing in the near future. - Dank (push to talk) 13:17, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67: I'll take a look. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clikity (talk • contribs) 07:25, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The review has been canceled due to time restraints, Peacemaker67. Sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clikity (talk • contribs) 00:49, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed and supported at MilHist ACR and was planning to recuse and review here, just wanted to give others a chance to comment first. Will see how I go this week. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:35, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

File:Phillip_Davey_VC_MM.jpg: given the info provided by AWM, why do we believe this is AustraliaGov? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:27, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nikkimaria. I'm working off this and the fact that the AWM is a government entity. Does that help? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:35, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The specific description page for the image identifies that it is in the public domain, but doesn't identify why - I'm not certain we can assume it's AustraliaGov (rather than PD for another reason). Nikkimaria (talk) 12:43, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK Nikkimaria, if I use PD-Australia I need a date of publication for PD-1996, which I don't have. Do I need to move it to Wikipedia and use it under a NFUR? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:49, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is any more specific information about its provenance available? Do the contextual details support a tag of AustraliaGov or UKGov? Would AWM have any more info about the image? We know it's PD, let's see if we can figure out why before jumping to fair use. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:33, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Getting that information from AWM could take a while and they may not have much to add, but I have emailed them anyway. From what I know, after VC investitures at Buckingham Palace, photos were often taken back in the garden at AIF Headquarters, London, following the ceremony. In this case, it was eight days after the ceremony, which may explain why he is only wearing the ribbon of the VC (and MM), not the actual medal. I assume that was taken by an AIF photographer. Will report back once I receive an answer, but if it looks like being promoted, I may have to go to fair use. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:12, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nikkimaria, they are telling me there is nothing more to say about the photograph's provenance. I think I'll have to rely on AustraliaGov on the basis that it was most likely taken by a AIF photographer, or move it to Wikipedia from Commons and use a NFUR. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:29, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Have added a bit to the description covering the AustraliaGov licence. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:56, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by JennyOz edit

Hi Peacemaker67, only a few minor comments

fatigue duties - wlink?
was employed by the South Australian Railways - is 'the' correct?
Bullecourt - wlink?
to the Battle of Menin Road - pipe?
but returned to his unit of his own accord - does that mean he proactively requested to go back, or was he presented with the choice to stay/go?

I'm assuming that he didn't think much of training recruits and wanted to get back to fighting, but the sources don't say. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:24, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

during a "peaceful penetration" - pipe?
Les Carlyon - authorlink
All online refs are working
NAA ref - Bot just created red error

Thanks PM, JennyOz (talk) 05:03, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

G'day JennyOz. All done, except I'm not sure what you mean regarding the two "pipe" comments? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:24, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PM, I meant pipes to avoid the redirects (I'm not always 100% sure when/when not to.) Also, the last edit accidentally pasted brackets into British War Medal. Thanks for telling this fellow's story which I am happy to support. Regards, JennyOz (talk) 06:55, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think we're allowed to have redirects, just not dab pages. Fixed the brackets. Thanks for the review, Jenny! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:12, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mike Christie edit

Not an issue for FAC, but I was curious to know if the other NCO also got an MM? In other words, did Davey lead the other NCO, or was the medal awarded to both as they both did it?

This is quite possible, even likely, but because the other NCO is not named in the recommendation for Davey, and the way the records are organised by the AWM, this is very difficult to establish. I have checked the war diaries of both the 10th Battalion and 3rd Brigade, but an MM recommendation probably isn't a big enough deal to be mentioned. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:13, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just checking: the paragraph starting "Davey was promoted to corporal" has no cite till we get to the medal citation citation, if you know what I mean. Footnote 13. Since that appears to be an archive that contains the medal citation, can you confirm that it also supports the rest of the paragraph?

Very remiss of me, Mike Christie. I have closely cited this para using the war record and Lock.

That's all I can find to comment on; the article is cleanly written and concise. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:38, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look at this one, Mike! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:28, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:20, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Nick-D edit

Great work as always. I have the following comments:

Do we know whether Davey served in any of the various pre-war military organisations?

His docs say no. But given the enlistment form didn't specifically ask about cadets, it is possible he did the compulsory junior and senior cadet training. It is likely that given he was in Central Australia for some time after he finished school, he was exempt from compulsory service for some of the time before the war. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:17, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"and was then embarked to return to Australia the following month" - do we know whether this was due to his wounds, or was this part of the Anzac Leave scheme in which large numbers of the surviving soldiers of 1914 were sent home in about October 1918? (or both?)

I suspect it was due to his wounds, which were extensive and severe. His records state "Retd. to Aust per D24 (GSW Back) for furlough", so it is possible he was sent home with the rest of the 10th Battalion originals (regardless of his wounds), but it really seems to be a two-bob each-way situation, and the primary records and secondary sources aren't clear. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:17, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The World War I section seems to be focused on Davey's service record. Can anything be said about his personal experiences and reflections? (for instance, works which draw from letters, family oral history, etc?)

I haven't been able to find any. No personal records are held by the AWM or State Library of SA, so that might explain it. If he kept a diary or letters, they may remain in the hands of family members. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:01, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"as a labourer and linesman over three periods between 1926 and 1946" - does this mean that he was unable to find secure employment? Nick-D (talk) 22:11, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, he served with SAR from 1926 to 1938, 1939 to 1942, and 1943 to 1946. So really he was mostly employed by them between 1926 and 1946, with short breaks. It is possible that his health had something to do with the breaks, but I don't have any evidence for that. Do you think I should state the actual dates he was employed by SAR, as they are given by Burness? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:01, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Nick-D, just one query above. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:01, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the dates would be helpful - that's pretty much continuous employment, especially though the Great Depression. Nick-D (talk) 09:18, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dates added. Thanks for taking a look, Nick-D! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:46, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support My comments are now all addressed. This is a great article. Nick-D (talk) 09:10, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source check edit

General comments

I'm pretty sure that the Australian Dictionary of Biography is published by the ANU, not the University of Melbourne

It is edited by a project team based at ANU, but published by MUP. Weird, but true. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:20, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think that publishing has actually shifted to the ANU - the suggested citation states that the ANU is the publisher of the online version. MUP is the publisher of the original hard copy version. I'd suggest standardising on the ANU/Canberra if it's the online version you referenced, or MUP/Melbourne if it was the hard copy. Nick-D (talk) 08:52, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, changed to ANU. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:02, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All the sources are reliable, and include pretty much all of the works I'd expect to see on an Australian VC recipient of World War I (ADB, the relevant battalion history, and Wigmore). I'm slightly surprised to not see Bean there, but he may not have added much to the more focused sources.

I will check Bean again to see if there is anything I can add. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:20, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Added a bit about the aftermath of the operation from Bean Vol 6. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:39, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Spot checks:

Ref 5: wording is probably too close to that in the source, please rephrase

Have tweaked a little, but will endeavour to add something from Bean to expand this sentence. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:20, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

added a bit from Bean about the ships and how they got to shore. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:39, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 12: I can't see where the medal citation is in this source? I'd suggest referencing the Commonwealth Gazette or another source directly.

Not sure what happened there. Have fixed with a citation to his service record. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:20, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 13: Doesn't provide the date of the ceremony

In the header it says "London, Thursday". The paper was published on Friday 13 September, so the ceremony occurred on Thursday 12 September. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:20, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry: I missed that Nick-D (talk) 08:52, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 15: Supported by source
"Davey had sustained wounds to his back, abdomen and legs, and was evacuated to England" - supported by sources (and a good use of the NAA to augment an ADB entry) Nick-D (talk) 09:18, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the source review, Nick! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:42, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@WP:FAC coordinators: this one looks like it has all its ducks in a row. Can I have dispensation for a fresh nom please? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:12, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd still like to give this one a quick look for changes since my ACR review, so will leave this to Andy. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:13, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Peacemaker67: Sure thing! --Laser brain (talk) 13:32, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Ian edit

Recusing as coord, just a light copyedit and a few comments/queries:

I have to admit I prefer not to see more than three (ideally no more than two) citations in a row, and for the Early life para we have four -- can we not make things a little more granular? This was brought into sharp relief because I was curious about the "at least five sons" bit but I don't want to check up to four refs to see where it comes from and how the source expresses it.
I don't think we should be leaving it to the citation to tell us what he did to earn his VC. We briefly describe what he did to earn his MM before quoting the citation, we should be able to do the same for the VC action.
What exactly does "the overall 10th Battalion operation" mean? If it's the 10th, why do we say "Australian casualties"? Did the "overall" operation involve other nationalities?

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:59, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, Ian. Cited the section more closely, added a bit on what the VC was for, and removed overall and Australian. The latter were recent additions that I wasn't 100% happy with, so thanks for pointing them out. Here are my edits. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:30, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tks very much for that PM -- I didn't like the uncertainty of "at least five sons" so replaced with something more definite based on the Chronicle piece, hope you approve but rv if not. I had my say on comprehensiveness and other aspects at the ACR, so happy to support here -- well done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:41, 30 November 2018 (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. --Laser brain (talk) 19:12, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 07:54, 11 December 2018 [47].

Tom Thomson edit

Nominator(s): Tkbrett (✉) 01:31, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Tom Thomson, the Canadian artist inextricably linked with the Group of Seven. Tkbrett (✉) 01:31, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

There are a lot of images in this article - somewhat understandable given the topic, but I think we're stretching the bounds of WP:GALLERY

My basis for this page was the FA for Vincent van Gogh which seems to have a similar number of images (I haven't actually counted so I'm not certain on that). If you have something more specific then let me know and I can work on it. Tkbrett (✉) 07:58, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You can take or leave this but if image count become a further issue, and it might;

File:Thomson, View from the Windows of Grip Ltd.jpg could go as rather uninformative
Sandbank with Logs, Fall 1916 & The Drive, Winter 1916–17 are similar enough that one only could represent the style
The "Nocturnes" section doesn't have enough text to justify six image Ceoil (talk) 00:00, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest adding alt text

Adding alt text will take me a day or two given how many images there are but I will get on it! Tkbrett (✉) 07:58, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about this - with art articles like this the danger is repetition or original research. Or at least I would be sparing; the painting titles are pretty descriptive anyway for the most part. Ceoil (talk) 23:10, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the details provided in captions don't appear to be sourced anywhere, such as his spending habits

I added more to a sentence w/ a citation for the case you pointed out. Tkbrett (✉) 07:58, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Images hosted on Commons should have tags reflecting status in both country of origin and the US - some (eg File:TomThomson23.jpg) do not

Fixed. Tkbrett (✉) 07:58, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When/where was File:Tom_Thomson.jpg first published? For all newly added tags, check that sufficient information is provided to support them. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:04, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per the Library and Archives Canada entry, File:Tom Thomson.jpg was taken by Franklin Carmichael (died 1945) between 1914 and 1916, so it does not have any copyright issues given that Carmichael died 73 years ago. Tkbrett (✉) 22:51, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The tag currently in use requires pre-1923 publication for US PD status. Can that be demonstrated? Check same on other images. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:05, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note info below (qualifies for C:Template:PD-old-auto-1996). Tkbrett (✉) 19:16, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Young_Tom_Thomson.jpg: Thomson is the subject, not the creator

Done. Tkbrett (✉) 07:58, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If the author is unknown, how do we know they died over 70 years ago? When/where was this first published? Same with File:TomThomson23.jpg, File:Profile_of_the_painter_Tom_Thomson_wearing_a_hat.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:04, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All of the images of people (i.e. not paintings) on the page are from Library and Archives Canada and each page indicates "Copyright: Expired," "Restrictions on use: Nil," but not much more info. For example, File:TomThomson23.jpg. I'm not sure which tags to use to indicate that there are no copyright restrictions. Where I should I ask to confirm? Tkbrett (✉) 22:51, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You can try WP:MCQ, but I would expect that the LAC indications represent Canadian status, whereas for the purposes of Wikipedia we also need US status. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:05, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I started a thread in order to get help from people who understand copyright rules better than I do. I'll let you know when I hear back and can clear this up. Tkbrett (✉) 04:25, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I found instances of the photos being published early enough to qualify for C:Template:PD-old-auto-1996. They meet the criteria of (1) they were first published outside of the U.S., (2) they were published before 1 March 1989 without a copyright notice and (3) they were public domain on the URAA date. I updated the copyright info on the Commons. Here are the publications:

File:TomThomson23.jpg, LAC, published in Silcox & Town (1977)

File:Young Tom Thomson.jpg, LAC, published in Murray (1986)

File:Profile of the painter Tom Thomson wearing a hat.jpg, LAC, published in Murray (1986)

File:Tom Thomson.jpg, LAC, published in Little (1970), Murray (1986)

File:Tom Thomson with fish.jpg, LAC, published in Little (1970), Murray (1986)

File:Tom Thomson, standing on a rock fishing in moving water.jpg, LAC, published in Reid (1975) Tkbrett (✉) 19:16, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tom_Thomson_Memorial_Cairn.jpg: what is the copyright status of the plaque? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:10, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The plaque was designed and inscribed by J. E. H. MacDonald in 1917 (Hill 2002, p. 142). He died in 1932, so I do not think there are any copyright issues there. Tkbrett (✉) 07:58, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We'll need to add a tag to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the plaque. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:04, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not clear on what type of tag is needed to indicate this copyright status. Tkbrett (✉) 22:51, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, we can demonstrate both an author death more than 70 years ago and a publication date before 1923, so the tag that is problematic on the above images would work here. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:05, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I added the tag. Tkbrett (✉) 04:25, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Ceoil edit

Extensive, knowledgeable and wonderfully written article on an artist whom I had previously only known from a few isolated paintings. One quibble, the measurements debacle at the Go-Home cottage doesn't seem like the most inspiring way to open the "artistic peak" section - it breaks flow. I would remove or push up into the last section. Otherwise this is a yard stick for visual arts bios at FAC. The nominator has a lot of ability. Ceoil (talk) 23:38, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Measurements debacle moved up. Thank you for the kind words! Tkbrett (✉) 01:04, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. We get a better sense now at the start of "artistic peak" that he opened up. 05:50, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Other suggestions:

In the "Early recognition" section, ths detailing of his comings and goings outweigh and mask the more important internal difficulties with shyness he was going through. Similarly by the way details like the price of his rent ($22 a month (equivalent to CAD$480 in 2017)) breaks from the dialogue.

How exactly should I fix the dialogue breaking? Should I have the inflation calculations included a footnote instead or remove them all together? Tkbrett (✉) 01:04, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unless the rent was very high or very low (in which case say it was very high or low), I would cut such detail altogether and stick with the central drama. Ceoil (talk) 01:10, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've cut out the inflation calculations for his rent (While I see the $1 rent explicitly mentioned in almost every source and feel surprised at how ridiculously low it sounds, the sources don't seem to go out of their way to say that it's very low). Should I also cut out inflation calcs for purchases of his paintings? (There are three of these currently) Tkbrett (✉) 07:13, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No these seem fine. How do you mean "the $1 rent" - the article says $22? Ceoil (talk) 22:42, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

$22 was for the ground floor of the Studio Building while $1 was for the shack out behind. "In late November, [Thomson] returned to Toronto and moved into a shack behind the Studio Building that Harris and MacCallum fixed up for him,[128][129] renting it for $1 a month." Tkbrett (✉) 05:16, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I missed that. Have applied for a visa to Canada. Ceoil (talk) 09:08, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! Might want to retract your application. Tkbrett (✉) 21:20, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would keep the "notes" as brief as possible, as far as cutting down extraneous words were you can.

I cut out two notes entirely since they seem better suited to their own articles (one on Lawren Harris's WWI experience and the other on William Brodie who probably deserves his own page). I also worked to cut out extraneous words. Tkbrett (✉) 01:04, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The "Newspaper stories" in the references is unneeded, given they are not used, and we have google. Ceoil (talk) 00:18, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. It's gone. Tkbrett (✉) 01:04, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe more be more judicious and sparing in use of detail such as the following (unless it advances the narrative): Wadland has noted that if this timeline is correct, it would require "an extraordinary canoeist [...] especially on the open water of Georgian Bay, from the mouth of the French to Go-Home Bay (and back again). The difficulty is augmented by the fact of stopping to sketch at intervals along the way."[100] Wadland suggests that Thomson traveled via train at some points and by steamship thereafter.[98] Note this is an example only; I dont want the story bogged down in bio detail or blusterous later recounts.

I adjusted the sentence you mentioned and cut it down to "Wadland has noted that if this timeline is correct, it would require "an extraordinary canoeist," made further difficult given the constant stopping for sketching. Wadland suggests that Thomson traveled via train at some points and by steamship thereafter." I also cut some others slightly, but for the most part there are still those two paragraphs in the Early recognition (1914–15) section that deal primarily with his location and routes. I'm wondering how much you think they should be cut down, if at all? Tkbrett (✉) 07:13, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. FFIW, I went through a similar dilemma with Nick Drake, who also suffered from severe shyness and died young. There is a balance between conveying his personal and artist development and recounting his going hither and thither. Cut if not germain, though I get that a lot of it dove tails with his discovery of nature. Ceoil (talk) 09:04, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I cut out some unnecessarily detailed parts covering his traveling routes. If someone really wants to duplicate his canoe trips they should really just get the Addison & Harwood (1969) or Waddington & Waddington (2016) books instead of reading the Wiki page! (And listen to Pink Moon on the way too) Tkbrett (✉) 21:38, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hallelujah the John Cale piano inserts. Ceoil (talk) 22:45, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Overall you are probably top-heavy in quotes, maybe some could be paraphrased. Ceoil (talk) 02:04, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right and my writing is a little overly reliant upon quotations. I went through and paraphrased some. Let me know if you think any others ought to be. Tkbrett (✉) 07:13, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, your writing is excellent, as mentioned by perhaps our best arts FAC writer[48], and I have already supported; these points are just icing on the cake. Ceoil (talk) 09:32, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Watch out for overuse of the word "Thomson", when "he" would do; eg (now fixed) Thomson's financial future became uncertain. Thomson briefly looked into. Ceoil (talk) 09:04, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I went through and changed all the instances I thought warranted pronouns. Tkbrett (✉) 21:38, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

yes this is resolved now. Ceoil (talk) 22:46, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond being is not ideal
Reworded: "Primarily a fisherman's bible, the book also provided..." Tkbrett (✉) 19:22, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Once back in Toronto - 'on his return' or something
"Upon returning to Toronto, Jackson...", O.K.? Tkbrett (✉) 19:22, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
similar to the one illustrated in Henry David Thoreau's 1854 book, Walden, or Life in the Woods - as we are taking about a painter, should it be "described" rather than "illustrated" to avoid confusion; also "similar to that..."
Reworded. Tkbrett (✉) 19:22, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ben Jackson wrote of Thomson's character: "Tom" - more consecutive Toms! & "wrote of" seems also dated
Reworded: "Ben Jackson wrote: 'Tom...'" Tkbrett (✉) 19:22, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thomson was introduced to Dr. James MacCallum at MacDonald's studio - who cares where, "by MacDonald". Next sentence begins with "It was there", which is a bit dated, would merge the sentences so we can have "..where he met"
Reworded. Tkbrett (✉) 19:22, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
another eventual member - a later member

The Group of Seven had seven original members (hence the group's name) and three members who joined later on. I wanted to keep it clear that A. Y. Jackson was an original member so I went with, "MacCallum introduced Thomson to A. Y. Jackson, a later founder of the Group of Seven.... if that's alright. Tkbrett (✉) 19:22, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fine Ceoil (talk) 19:31, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

and decided to leave commercial art - "leave" isn't right, I'd prefer something more active, eg to travel around Ontario...
The next sentence covers that, so how about if I simply cut the bit about leaving commercial art? i.e., "Thomson accepted MacCallum's offer under the same terms offered to Jackson. He traveled around Ontario with his colleagues..." Tkbrett (✉) 19:22, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a good idea. Ceoil (talk) 19:31, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
engaged to Thomson ~~for a marriage~~ - Ceoil (talk) 10:19, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean this as a tautology: "Trainor was later rumoured to have been engaged to Thomson" is the first part of the sentence and "for a marriage in the fall of 1917" is the second part. I reworded it to avoid this ambiguity: "Trainor was later rumoured to have been engaged to Thomson with a wedding planned for the fall of 1917." Tkbrett (✉) 19:22, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect. Although, Christ, I think I should probably unwatch the article and this review as, even post support, I keep on coming back to torture you with nick-picks. Ceoil (talk) 19:31, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's all good with me! I've been glad see the prose of the article improving so much. Tkbrett (✉) 21:20, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To progress this, maybe ping Tony if he wants to support. You and him seem to be of a single mind. I might do the source review. Ceoil (talk) 21:52, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tony1 edit

1a, lead only:

"His painting utilizes broad brush strokes"—the simpler "uses" would be less ungainly.

Thanks for pointing that out. If David Foster Wallace were still around, he would no doubt smack me upside the head for doing things like this. Tkbrett (✉) 17:59, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wallace: excellent vid. I've saved it and will pass on to offending clients! Tony (talk) 05:10, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"and did not display any immediate artistic talent"—consider the simpler wording: "and displayed no immediate artistic talent"

Changed. Tkbrett (✉) 17:59, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

worked ... worked. Perhaps the second one could be "was employed in"?

Changed. Tkbrett (✉) 17:59, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is the first comma necessary? "There, he met those who eventually formed the Group of Seven, including J. E. H. MacDonald, Lawren Harris, Frederick Varley, Franklin Carmichael and Arthur Lismer." (Considering you're justifiably OK with no comma in this stretch, later: "paintings such as The Jack Pine and The West Wind have taken a prominent place in the culture of Canada and are some of the country's most iconic pieces of art.")

Changed. Tkbrett (✉) 17:59, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The very next sentence opens with another "there" wording. I can't see an alternative at the moment.

I haven't been able to come up with anything good either. Perhaps "In May 1912, he visited Algonquin Park for the first time. It was at the Park that he acquired..." Tkbrett (✉) 17:59, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"following the advice of MacDonald"—simpler as: "following MacDonald's advice"?

Changed. Tkbrett (✉) 17:59, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't like this: "Thomson is often considered an unofficial member with his art typically exhibited with the rest of the Group's." (i) Could we have a comma before the connective "with"?) (ii) there are two, close "with"s that have different grammatical functions (would it work as: "... member, and his ..."? (iii) the ending "the Group's" is pretty awkward. An ellipsis right at the end ...?

Do you think it would work better as two separate sentences? For example, "Although he died before the formal establishment of the Group of Seven, Thomson is often considered an unofficial member. His art is typically exhibited with the rest of the Group's, nearly all of which is located in Canada—mainly..." The problem with this is that it's ambiguous as to whether the "nearly all of which" is referring to Thomson's work or the Group of Seven's (although it is true in either case). I'm not sure how else to reword this, hmm... Tkbrett (✉) 17:59, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Much better. Tony (talk) 00:24, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Changed. Tkbrett (✉) 01:06, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Nearly all his work is located in Canada, mainly at the Art Gallery of Ontario in Toronto, the National Gallery of Canada in Ottawa, the McMichael Canadian Art Collection in Kleinburg and the Tom Thomson Art Gallery in Owen Sound."—You might consider "all of his", but it's a personal thing. Might it be easier to insert a dash after "Canada"? "located in Canada—mainly at ...". "located" is not watertight: it could, I suppose, refer to the subjects of his paintings, rather than "housed in Canada", or similar. But I could live with "located" if you're fine with it, too.

I added the "of" and added the dash. I think "located" should be fine since the paragraphs beforehand make it clear that his painting was done exclusively outdoors or in his studio, and the list includes only museums. Tkbrett (✉) 17:59, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I'd go for "Nearly all his work is still in Canada ..." or "remains in". Locating and housing, and still more residing, are best avoided for art - see WP:VAMOS. There's another "housed" elsewhere. I don't know why WP editors love these Time-Life expressions so much. You never see them in propper art history. Johnbod (talk) 17:09, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I changed "located" & "housed" into "remains in" & "found", respectively. Tkbrett (✉) 17:38, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've nit-picked, but it's fine writing indeed. It will be a support, but I'd like to return to look at more. Tony (talk) 14:01, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from SarahSV edit

Hi Tkbrett, I'm enjoying reading this, and I've tried to do a little copy-editing as I read. I've found a few of these, which are best avoided:

"The circumstances surrounding his death have been of particular interest to many, with unsubstantiated rumours that he was murdered or committed suicide becoming common ..."
He was known to be stubborn ... with his brother Fraser Thomson writing that ..."
"He did not yet take painting seriously however, with Jackson saying that ..."
"Much of his artwork from this trip ... has been lost due to two canoe spills ... the first spill being on Green Lake ..."
"Thomson often experienced self-doubt, with A. Y. Jackson recalling that ..."

It's usually better to use a semicolon: "he was known to be stubborn; his brother wrote that ..." Tony wrote about this somewhere (see User:Tony1/How to improve your writing), but I can't find it right now. SarahSV ^(talk) 05:59, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your edits and for the link to the guide. I've noticed these shortcomings in my writing for a long time but I've never been sure how to combat them, so the guide should prove helpful. I'm confident I'll eventually be able to tame a semicolon and get it to serve my wishes! Tkbrett (✉) 06:39, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Spot checks edit

There are quite a few citation errors (e.g. Jackson 1933b doesn't point to a long citation). If you add importScript('User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js'); to User:Tkbrett/common.js, you'll see them. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:55, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the script. I fixed the citation errors. A lot of them arose after I migrated much of the content to the new pages (Death and legacy and Artistic development). Tkbrett (✉) 18:15, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What does Silcox and Town, p. 49, say about the accidental drowning? Re: "Independent examinations of the body by a doctor and a coroner concluded that the cause of death was accidental drowning," another source (MacGregor) says that only one person examined the body (a professor of neurology who happened to be there on holiday), and that the coroner didn't. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:58, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little baffled as to how that citation ended up there since it doesn't really back-up the two independent examinations statement. Silcox & Town, p. 49 appears a few times in that paragraph but backs up the other information given. It says, "The official cause of [Thomson's] death was 'accidental drowning,' though it was noted that he had sustained a four-inch cut on his right temple and that his right ear had bled." The two primary sources provide more information (Howland 1917 and Ranney 1931), but given WP:PRIMARY I don't want to use them as citations unless it's to support a good secondary source. None of the sources I have on hand have mention the particulars of the post-death events, except to say that he was hastily buried, only to be dug up and moved away soon after. They seem so laconic partly because of their admitted weariness of advancing the alternative theories (Hunter and Silcox & Town come out and say this). Should we use MacGregor here for that information? I have been hesitant to use him because I did not want to lend too much credence to the alternate theories. Tkbrett (✉) 18:15, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing the citation errors. I'm not familiar enough with the sources to be able to advise about MacGregor. My question was whether it's correct that two people examined the body (a doctor and the coroner). I was also wondering what's meant by "independent" examinations. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:40, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I reworded that sentence to conform with the citation because I'm not completely sure given the secondary sourcing I have. Let me know if you think more detail is needed. Tkbrett (✉) 18:46, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's better, thanks. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:09, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that you cite several sources after apparently simple points, and I'm not always able to find the text in the sources. I did a spot check above of Silcox & Town, p. 49, and couldn't find the text attributed to it (the two independent examinations by a doctor and coroner, etc). There was nothing like that on p. 49 (although I know there are different editions, and Google Preview may not be showing me everything).
I'm now looking at this: "After Jackson moved out in December to go to Montreal, Carmichael took his place.[27][94][95] They shared a studio space through the winter."[96][97] First, do you need three sources for the first sentence? Re: the second, I can't find it in Klages 2016, p. 207, which is footnote 96 (again, this may be a Google Preview issue). Also, "they" who share the studio: that's Thomson and Carmichael, is that right? SarahSV ^(talk) 01:09, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I clarified that it was Thomson and Carmichael that shared the studio space. Tkbrett (✉) 06:00, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What does Silcox and Town 2017, p. 49, say to support the following? "It was noted that he had a four-inch cut on his right temple and experienced bleeding from his right ear. The cause of death was officially determined to be 'accidental drowning'." Also, why do you cite different editions of the same book (Silcox and Town 1977 and 2017)? SarahSV ^(talk) 01:15, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I see you've already addressed the first question above (about what p. 49 says). SarahSV ^(talk) 01:18, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Tkbrett, in which edition of Silcox and Town is that text on p. 49? SarahSV ^(talk) 03:46, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's from p. 49 of the 2017 edition. I have used both the original 1977 text as well as the 2017 "revised and expanded" edition b/c the texts are different in places while still containing useful information. Is it inadvisable to use multiple editions of the same text? The Klages citation you mentioned is from the print version and not the Ebook that appears on Google Preview. I can confirm that, I'll just need a few days before I can run over to the library and grab a copy. Should I limit how many citations I have per sentence? During the Peer review it was recommended that I limit things to three citations in a row. I haven't found anything directly in the MOS concerning this. Tkbrett (✉) 04:37, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding how many citations, there's no rule about sticking to three citations. The best thing is to offer one. That makes things easy for readers and reviewers. If you need to add more than one, it's helpful to explain what each source says. See WP:CITEBUNDLE. For example:

<ref>For year of birth, see {{harvnb|Smith|2017|p=1}}; for graduation year, see {{harvnb|Jones|2018|p=2}}.</ref>

If several sources say the same thing, you can bundle them without explanation: <ref>{{harvnb|Smith|2017|p=1}}; {{harvnb|Jones|2018|p=2}}.</ref>

There is no rule about this. You can cite however you choose. But it's hard to review an article when each source supports a part of a sentence or paragraph, with no sense of which ref supports which words.

As for citing different editions, I can't see a reason to do that. If there's something important in 1977 that's absent from 2017, you could consider it, but be careful in case it was removed because inaccurate. If you want to say "Smith alleged in 1977 that x, but in 2017 said y," then you can cite 1977. Can you expand on why you're doing it here? SarahSV ^(talk) 04:56, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I only use the 1977 version twice: the first instance is unnecessary since it's bundled w/ a citation from the 2017 ed., so I'll remove it. The second instance is for a quote that is present in the 1977 ed. but seemingly absent from the 2017 ed. The quote is found in Wadland (2002) so I've gone and used that instead. Where I have several citations in a row, they cover the entire sentence. Tkbrett (✉) 05:10, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They each cover the entire sentence (i.e. each could stand alone) or they cover it jointly? SarahSV ^(talk) 05:32, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The former. I'd have to look through and confirm it's true for all of them, but I believe so. Tkbrett (✉) 05:35, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks, that's good to know. It makes things a lot easier. SarahSV ^(talk) 05:39, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TKbrett, did you get round to checking Klages 2016, p. 207? It's for "Thomson and Carmichael shared a studio space through the winter." See footnote 99. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:12, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, sorry, I forgot to respond to this. I went back to my university's library a few days ago but unfortunately they don't carry a copy of Klages' book. Instead, I consulted with King (2010) and confirmed the other citation backs up the information provided. I'll remove the Klages citation since it's not needed. Tkbrett (✉) 04:39, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Spot checks continued edit

Thanks. Continuing the spot check:

footnote 33 (King 2010, p. 14) is fine;
footnote 69 (Klages 2016, p. 23) is fine;
footnote 55 is fine apart from the canoe trip; Klages 2016, p. 21, doesn't mention a canoe, but I assume the others in the bundle do;

They do. Tkbrett (✉) 18:16, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

footnote 99: Klages 2016, p. 207, doesn't include the relevant text (sharing a studio space) and is about his death;

Addressed above. Tkbrett (✉) 18:16, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

footnote 163 (Silcox & Town 2017, p. 49): "Independent examinations of the body by a doctor and a coroner concluded that the cause of death was accidental drowning". Failed verification; now removed.
footnote 175 is too large a page range (Klages 2016, pp. 274–297), but more importantly Klages 2016 is only 253 pages long, including footnotes (and I would change "substantiation" to "substance").

What a bizarre typo. It looks like the page range was from before I even started editing the page. My apologies, I should have done a better job reviewing things before leaving them in. I'll try to look through and see if I can find any other instances of this happening. For now, I'll simply remove the page range since this is the thesis of the entire Klages source. Tkbrett (✉) 18:16, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

footnote 238 is fine (Sloan 2010, pp. 70–71), but I wonder why you're citing three sources for a quote from Jackson. If it's that you haven't seen Jackson yourself, that should be cited as "Jackson 1958, cited in Sloan 2010, pp. 70–71".

I haven't been able to find the specific page within Jackson (1958), so I included the other sources (which say it's from his autobiography but unfortunately don't give a page). I've fixed the citation to confirm that it was quoted from another source like you suggested. Tkbrett (✉) 18:16, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

footnote 248: Grace 2004a, p. 96, says that Thomson is a "haunting presence" and "embodies the Canadian artistic identity" for Lee and Kiyooka, not for artists in general.

Fixed. I also added a David Milne quotation as well to further emphasize the point in that paragraph. Tkbrett (✉) 18:16, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SarahSV ^(talk) 05:51, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The most tedious part of nominating an article for FAC is doing the final check of the text-source relationship. Things get moved around during rewrites and copy editing, and older sources that seemed like a good idea at the time may need to be removed. I'm wondering, based on the spot checks and your comment above ("It looks like the page range was from before I even started editing the page"), whether you made that final check.
There was also a query about Silcox and Town, p. 49 (the four-inch cut). The edition I had didn't say that on p. 49 or anywhere near it; it was in the book but much later. But I didn't have 2017, so I accept that the pagination may have changed completely, so long as you're quite certain that p. 49 is correct.
I also wonder how we can verify the content of the letters, e.g. "Jackson, A. Y. (August 4, 1917). 'Tom Thomson' (Letter). Letter to Mrs. Henry Jackson." SarahSV ^(talk) 23:37, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have made sure that the citation and source information is accurate, but obviously the three mistakes above slipped through the cracks. I have again confirmed that the four-inch cut info is on Silcox & Town (2017), p. 49 (I'm looking at it right now). Keep in mind that the 2017 version is "revised and expanded" so the page numbers are quite different from the earlier version (to the point where some things that appear around page ~200 in the original '77 version are near the front of the '17 edition).
Many of the letters appear on Gregory Klages' (author of The Many Deaths of Tom Thomson) website, Death on a Painted Lake. Should I link instances of the letters to the sources on this page? Other instances are from publicly available archives, though I'm not likely going to be able to go and double-check them anytime soon. In anything from Reid (2002a), the specific letter is typically mentioned in a footnote, though I guess at that point the "so-and-so quoted in Reid (2002a)" format should be put to use, as is the case with the example you mentioned. Tkbrett (✉) 00:36, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for confirming the p. 49 issue. I take your point about three mistakes only (four if you count no mention of a canoe trip on Klages 2016, p. 21), but I suppose my concern is that it's a large percentage of the ones I checked, and checking isn't easy because almost nothing is online. Even works that appear to be online show very few pages; one source supposedly available for preview on Google Books shows only the front and back covers. Your use of multiple sources to support one point, without saying which source supports what, makes checking very difficult. Which source(s) would you say you relied on most?

I don't think your fix works: "Scholar Sherrill Grace has written that he is a "haunting presence" for Canadian artists Roy Kiyooka and Dennis Lee and that he "embodies the Canadian artistic identity" for them." Why quote someone quoting/paraphrasing them, rather than those artists directly?

As for the letters, the citations must include where they were published. The point of citations (for Wikipedia) is (a) to show that you're using reliable, published sources; and (b) to give readers enough information to find those sources. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:12, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am confident in the other citations given that I have them physically but have not been as lucky at finding a physical copy of Klages. I went through and added "quoted in" to make it clearer where some of the letters can be found. The most heavily used sources include anyone in Reid (2002a) (that includes Hill, Hunter, Murray (2002a/b), Stacey, Wadland), Murray (1999), Silcox (2015) (which is available in its entirety online) and Silcox & Town (2017).
Grace's (2004a) book is about Thomson's last impacting in the art world and Canadian culture in general. If it's a reliable source, I would think it would be acceptable to use for this purpose.
Do you I should link to the Canadian Mystery site then? I'm not clear. I've seen this done on pages like Vincent van Gogh. Tkbrett (✉) 01:49, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Sherrill Grace (will respond to the rest later), I'm not saying her book isn't an RS. It's just an odd way to write it. Did those artists say those things to her? If so, say "X told Sherrill Grace that ..." or just use her as the source without attribution if you know that she's quoting them. If they said it elsewhere, tell us where. As you've written it, suddenly they're mentioned, with their views attributed to someone else (under Legacy):

Since his death, Thomson's work has grown in value and popularity. Group of Seven member Arthur Lismer wrote that he "is the manifestation of the Canadian character".[198] Another contemporary Canadian painter, David Milne, wrote to National Gallery of Canada Director H. O. McCurry, "Your Canadian art apparently, for now at least, went down in Canoe Lake. Tom Thomson still stands as the Canadian painter, harsh, brilliant, brittle, uncouth, not only most Canadian but most creative. How the few things of his stick in one's mind."[246] Scholar Sherrill Grace has written that he is a "haunting presence" for Canadian artists Roy Kiyooka and Dennis Lee and that he "embodies the Canadian artistic identity" for them.[247]

Also better to say when they made those comments. And please add what year David Milne made his. Re: "contemporary", in what sense? People often use that word to mean "contemporaneous". SarahSV ^(talk) 02:03, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair. I've reworded it to simply, 'For Canadian artists Roy Kiyooka and Dennis Lee, he is a "haunting presence" and "embodies the Canadian artistic identity".' I don't think I'm going to be able to find any direct quotes from either artist saying this though; Grace is interpreting Thomson's constant presence within their letters and poetry.

You're right, it should be "contemporaneous"; Milne was an early 20th century Canadian painter, as well. I added the David Milne year as requested. Tkbrett (✉) 02:31, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how other editors here handle these things, but I don't add anything to "Works cited" (the section you call "Sources") unless I've used it directly as a source. So I would not include "Thomson, Tom (October 17, 1912). "Letter to McRuer" (Letter). Letter to Dr. M. J. (John) McRuer" (that's a confusing citation; why repeat the word "letter" three times?), unless I had seen it and could include the publisher. Otherwise, it's no use to the reader. As this is something that you're citing via someone else (see WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT), then I would write <ref>Thomson, Tom (October 17, 1912). Letter to Dr. M. J. (John) McRuer, cited in Murray 2002a, p. 297.<ref>, then I would include the long citation for Murray in "Works cited". Or I would just cite Murray, especially given that, in this case, you mention the letter in the text. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:27, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't understand your answer to my question about which sources you relied on most. You wrote: "The most heavily used sources include anyone in Reid (2002a) (that includes Hill, Hunter, Murray (2002a/b), Stacey, Wadland), Murray (1999), Silcox (2015) (which is available in its entirety online) and Silcox & Town (2017)". It's the "anyone in" part that confused me. What I'm trying to work out is which secondary sources you relied on the most when writing the article. I can't tell from looking at the sourcing because of the bundling. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:34, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

O.K., I will remove those sources that are not directly cited (mostly the "Archives and letters" sub-section) and instead cite only where I'm getting the information from. The confusing repetition is due to the unfortunate formatting of the Cite letter template; I'm happy to be rid of it!

Reid (2002a) is a book that is multi-authored, which is why those sources are given as, for example: Hill, Charles (2002). "Tom Thomson, Painter". In Reid, Dennis (ed.). Tom Thomson. Toronto/Ottawa: Art Gallery of Ontario/National Gallery of Canada. pp. 111–43. ISBN 978-1-55365-493-3. Here is the list of my most heavily used sources:

Hill (2002)
Hunter (2002)
Murray (2002a/b)
Stacey (2002)
Wadland (2002)
Murray (1999)
Silcox (2015)
Silcox & Town (2017)

Tkbrett (✉) 05:08, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thank you, that list is very helpful (and I understand that filling in the templates can be trying, especially as the output can differ in unexpected ways). SarahSV ^(talk) 05:14, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, more confusion. Reid 2002 (Tom Thomson) is a collection of essays, but the first footnote cites "Reid (2002a), pp. 52, 70, 113, 309, 324n21, 329n18", which leads to "Reid, Dennis, ed. (2002a). Tom Thomson. Toronto/Ottawa: Art Gallery of Ontario/National Gallery of Canada. ISBN 978-1-55365-493-3."

Reid 2002b is a paper in Reid 2002a: "Reid, Dennis (2002b). "Tom Thomson and the Arts and Crafts Movement in Toronto". In Reid, Dennis. Tom Thomson. Toronto/Ottawa: Art Gallery of Ontario/National Gallery of Canada. pp. 65–83. ISBN 978-1-55365-493-3. SarahSV ^(talk) 05:23, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in addition to editing the book, Reid also contributed an essay (which I designate as Reid (2002b), while the entire collection is designated as Reid (2002a)).

In the first citation, almost all of the essays in the book mention Cruikshank as possibly being Thomson's instructor. Since I already have three other sources (Murray 1986, Silcox 2015, and Silcox & Town 2017) I didn't want to have several more lined up and so joined them into Reid (2002a). This seemed a little too chaotic:

Hill (2002), pp. 113, 113n18
Murray (1986), p. 6
Murray (2002b), p. 309
Reid (2002b), pp. 70, 70n21
Silcox (2015), pp. 9, 100
Silcox & Town (2017), p. 43
Stacey (2002), p. 52

I thought that this looked cleaner:

Murray (1986), p. 6
Reid (2002a), pp. 52, 70, 113, 309, 324n21, 329n18
Silcox (2015), pp. 9, 100
Silcox & Town (2017), p. 43

Is any of this recommended? I realize I probably don't need seven sources for a single point, but I wasn't sure which to cut out. Tkbrett (✉) 06:09, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You can't cite "Reid (2002a), pp. 52, 70, 113, 309, 324n21, 329n18", when Reid is just the editor. He didn't write the material on those pages, unless they all refer to his essay, but given the page range, that's unlikely. You need to cite the authors. But why do you need to cite (a) so many pages in Reid, and (b) so many authors, for "Thomson may have briefly studied under British artist William Cruikshank around 1905"? The sources for that sentence are "Murray (1986), p. 6; Reid (2002a), pp. 52, 70, 113, 309, 324n21, 329n18; Silcox (2015), pp. 9, 100; Silcox & Town (2017), p. 43". SarahSV ^(talk) 06:17, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

O.K., I won't cite Reid (2002a) in that case.

Yes, those are the sources I cited—I listed them in my last post to question which ones I should keep. I'll just pick three as best I can then. Tkbrett (✉) 07:06, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I've read this through again and I thoroughly enjoyed it. The spot checks mostly checked out; the ones that didn't were to do with the trace of older versions or differing pagination between editions. The sources all seem appropriate, and the recent copy edits have smoothed out any minor issues. Very happy to support. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:43, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all the help! And also for holding my feet to the fire to make sure things are done right. I appreciate it. Tkbrett (✉) 05:38, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Minor issues (all resolved) edit

Tkbrett, you're welcome. I've noticed an inconsistency in the sources:

Wadland, John (2002). "Tom Thomson's Places". In Reid, Dennis. Tom Thomson. Toronto/Ottawa: Art Gallery of Ontario/National Gallery of Canada. pp. 85–109. ISBN 978-0-88629-304-8.
Stacey, Robert (2002). "Tom Thomson as Applied Artist". In Reid, Dennis; Hill, Charles C. Tom Thomson. Toronto/Ottawa: Art Gallery of Ontario/National Gallery of Canada. pp. 47–63. ISBN 978-1-55365-493-3.

Different editors, different ISBNs, same year, same title, same publisher. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:26, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, thanks. Fixed. Tkbrett (✉) 04:30, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for fixing that. I came back to look only because I was wondering why the article hadn't been promoted. Then I wondered whether one of us is expected to do more source reviewing (e.g. check for consistent formatting). So I took another look. It seems mostly fine. A couple of very minor things: you write "Fraser, J.S." but "Ranney, A. E." Decide whether to include a space or not. The MoS recommends a space. Also "pp. 92–7", but "21–24". Choose one or the other; I believe the MoS recommends writing out the numbers in full. For most books you include ISBNs; I assume that's because the others don't have ISBNs, is that right? SarahSV ^(talk) 21:26, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was going with the space between initials, so I fixed it to "J.S." Is there a way to find any other instances easily? In any academic writing I had done, I usually stuck with writing the last two pages if something was a continuation "pp. 300–01" rather than "pp. 300–301", and "pp. 92–97" rather than "pp. 92–7". I fixed the instance that you pointed out. If you'd prefer for me to write out all pages every time, just let me know. I included all ISBNs that I could find, so long as it was published when ISBNs were in use. Tkbrett (✉) 19:48, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tkbrett, that all seems fine, and thank you for being so attentive to these details. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:13, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comment Comments and Support from KJP1 edit

Just wanted to record my appreciation of a fantastic article. It reads beautifully and is amazingly well-researched and wonderfully illustrated. Having read it through twice shall certainly come back to review/support but can't get to it before next week unfortunately. In the meantime, many congratulations. KJP1 (talk) 19:21, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

"the stark beauty and vibrant colour of the Ontario landscape" - here, and sometimes elsewhere, e.g. "The tragic circumstances of his drowning", you apply adjectives that might just shade into POV. I'm all for "colour" in writing but I'm not sure the adjectives are necessary.

That's true, I've removed them. Tkbrett (✉) 18:39, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"was seen by his contemporaries as a tragedy of Canadian art" - "for" Canadian art?

Changed. Tkbrett (✉) 18:39, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"in the Park" - does Park need capitalisation here, and elsewhere?

A few people have noticed this in editing the page and I thought it was a little strange as well, but every source I've used seems to do it. Specific sources include: Silcox (2015), Silcox & Town (2017), everyone in Reid (2002a) and every book by Murray. Tkbrett (✉) 18:39, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"they illustrated an above-average ability with composition and colour handling" - "they illustrated an above-average ability in composition and colour handling"?

Changed. Tkbrett (✉) 18:39, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Through his development his later paintings vary in composition and have vivid colours and thickly applied paint" - not quite getting the meaning here. "Through his development" seems redundant and I'm not sure what the "vary" applies to. Is it that there are different approaches among his later works, or that his later works differ from his earlier ones?

Removed "Through his development". I'm trying to express that is later paintings have several different approaches. Would it be alright to write, "His later paintings use several different methods of composition, have vivid colours and thickly-applied paint."? I'm worried it's a little to wordy. Tkbrett (✉) 18:39, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"are some of the country's most iconic pieces of art" - to avoid the double "art", and the slightly odd "pieces of art", which reminds me of "pieces of eight", perhaps "are some of the country's most iconic works" or "artworks"?

Changed to works. Tkbrett (✉) 18:39, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"The tragic circumstances of his drowning on Canoe Lake in Algonquin Park, linked with his image as a master canoeist" - this puzzled me a bit. Did he have an "image" as a master canoeist? I see where you're going though and can't think of a better way to express it. Two other things - Algonquin Park, which you link here, is first mentioned in the para. above (and the lead). And would the 3rd and 4th para.s be better combined?

Is the word "image" your main problem here, or the sentence as a whole? If it's just the former, perhaps, ""The tragic circumstances of his drowning on Canoe Lake in Algonquin Park, linked with the public's perception of him as a master canoeist...". Fixed the linking. That's a good point, since they're both really about his legacy. I've joined them. Tkbrett (✉) 18:39, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Early years

"in the Municipality of Meaford" - do we need the capital M?

Fixed. Tkbrett (✉) 18:39, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"an appreciation for nature" - "an appreciation of nature"?

Changed. Tkbrett (✉) 18:39, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Thomson worked briefly as an elevator operator at the Diller Hotel" - you could bluelink the hotel.

Didn't realize it was that notable! Added, thanks. Tkbrett (✉) 18:39, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Exploring Algonquin Park (1912–13)

"According to Jackson, Thomson did not think painting "would ever be taken seriously" - painting generally or "his painting"?

Hunter (2002), p. 25–26 is ambiguous, so I went back to the original letter: "I do not think he ever had the idea his work would ever be taken seriously, in fact he used to chuckle over the idea." (my emphasis). Fixed. Tkbrett (✉) 18:39, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Early recognition (1914–15)

"would even throw burnt matches at his paintings" - I'm sure this is what the source says, but to what end? Lit matches would appear to make more sense.

Here's what the source (Hill 2002, p. 117) says: "'Tom had no opinion of his own work,' Lawren Harris later wrote. 'He might sit in front of a canvas that was set with thick paint and flick burnt matches at it in a kind of whimsical scorn...'" I agree that it makes more sense to throw lit matches, I'm just a little hesitant to change or interpret what Harris originally wrote. Tkbrett (✉) 18:39, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pff. I would just go and say lit. Hill may have needed a better copy editor for this sentence. Ceoil (talk) 01:28, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"the recognition was unheard of for an unknown artist". Not so unknown that the director of the NGC hadn't heard of him. "little-known"?

The source says, "Such recognition was remarkable for an emerging, unknown artist, though the money he received was not sufficient to live on." What you say is true though. Maybe it could be changed to, "...the recognition was unheard of for an emerging artist.", that way it still aligns with the source? Tkbrett (✉) 18:39, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Artistic peak (1916-1917)

"naivete" - does the source not have the accent, naiveté?

It does not have the accent. Should it be included anyway or quoted exactly as written? Tkbrett (✉) 18:39, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"and his work reveals himself to be a fine colourist" - again, a quote, but shouldn't it be "and in his work reveals himself to be a fine colourist" or "and his work reveals him to be a fine colourist"? But not, of course, if that's what the source says.

I double checked and that is exactly how it is written in the source. Should a Sic template be added? Tkbrett (✉) 18:39, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Thomson produced many sketches which varied in composition, although they all had vivid colour and were applied thickly" - perhaps, "Thomson produced many sketches which varied in composition, although they all had vivid colour and thickly-applied paint"?

Changed. Tkbrett (✉) 18:39, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Artistic development

"such as Vincent van Gogh, whose work he may have known from books or visits to art galleries". A query, does the source expand on where Thomson may have seen van Gogh's work? The Armory Show appears not to have got further west than Chicago, and from the article, Thomson appears not to have ventured further into the US than Seattle. It would be interesting if the source does have more detail.

The sources do not directly say this. I think this is a relic of an older edition of the page, which listed many artists that Thomson "may have known from books or visits to art galleries." I only found Van Gogh's name in my sources and removed the other artists, but failed to properly edit the rest of the sentence. I've fixed it now so that it only says, "Thomson's art also bears some stylistic resemblance to the work of European post-impressionists such as Vincent van Gogh." Tkbrett (✉) 18:39, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"that eventually brought international attention to his work" - I'd probably flip this, "that eventually brought his work to international attention".

Changed. Tkbrett (✉) 18:39, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nocturnes

"Thomson often spent his nights laying in his canoe" - "lying"?

Changed. Tkbrett (✉) 18:39, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Other times, given the difficulty of painting by only moonlight" - perhaps, "Other times, given the difficulty of painting only by moonlight", or just "painting by moonlight"?

I went with, "Other times, given the difficulty of painting by moonlight..." Tkbrett (✉) 18:39, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Flowers

" E. H. MacDonald—himself deeply invested in floral imagery—was so captured by the former that he kept it for himself" - which one is "the former" of the three cited?

There are only two paintings listed: (1) Marguerites, Wood Lillies and Vetch and (2) Wildflowers. It's made difficult to read because of the "and" in the title of the first, so I've simply specified the painting by name: "...was so captured by Marguerites, Wood Lillies and Vetch that he kept it for himself". Tkbrett (✉) 18:39, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies - my careless reading. KJP1 (talk) 21:10, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Industry in nature

"Thomson's and the Group of Seven's work is often absent of criticism for the typical Canadian attitudes of the time, namely that the available natural resources were meant to be exploited" - sorry, not quite getting this. I think it's something like, "Thomson's work does not challenge contemporary attitudes to the forestry industry, namely that natural resources were there to be exploited", but am not sure.

I'm trying to get across here that in Thomson's time and earlier, Canadian's saw the vast expanse of trees and rock in the north simply as resources to be exploited for profit. Today, some criticize Thomson's work for not criticizing those attitudes, and that is what Harold Town is responding to. Tkbrett (✉) 18:39, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The outdoorsman & Alternate death theories

This is purely personal preference, but I wasn't keen on this ending. Almost all of it, except the romanticised view of his canoeing ability, is/could be in the Death section and I'd probably briefly expand that to cover these points, ending the article with the Legacy and influence section. It's a great article on an important artist and, for me, concluding it with a discussion of "fringe" theories regarding his death doesn't quite work.

I hadn't considered the lingering sour taste that the current format may leave readers with. I've moved things around like you suggested; the Legacy and influence section was a bit empty as a result, so I expanded it with material that I had moved to the Death and legacy of Tom Thomson article. Tkbrett (✉) 18:39, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Much of the above is by way of comments/suggestions, and you are, of course, quite free to ignore them after considering them. It's a really great article and you've done a superb job, here and elsewhere, of covering Thomson, his works, and his death. The prose is of high quality, the sourcing is extensive and well-researched, and the article's beautifully illustrated. It is quite long but not too long, in my view. Above all, the passion for the subject shows through, which makes it such a good read. All in all, an incredible achievement for anyone, and for one who has only been here two years, it's amazing. Delighted to Support. KJP1 (talk) 11:22, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your kind words and for your help! I really appreciate it. Tkbrett (✉) 18:39, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The pleasure was entirely mine. And thanks for thinking about the ending. To me, it is now a much more fitting conclusion, to his life and to an excellent article. And really pleased it's getting the interest it deserves. KJP1 (talk) 21:05, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Johnbod edit

The lead immediately mentions that the main oeuvre falls into two groups, but these are not easy to distinguish in small images, and none of the captions give dimensions. This needs to be addressed somehow. The larger works should probably have both dimensions given. For the small sketches just giving the width is probably enough. Or you just adopt (and explain) a convention that if a caption calls an image "small" or a "sketch" it means the longest dimension is less than 30 cm (or whatever).

This is a good point. I'm worried that by including the exact dimensions it will make the painting info not immediately decipherable, so I would prefer a shorthand convention if possible. Maybe include the dimensions for larger works and write "sketch" for the smaller ones, along with an initial note that "sketch" refers to works around 21.6 × 26.7 cm (8½ × 10½ in.). I'm open to suggestions here. Tkbrett (✉) 23:45, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, try that. Johnbod (talk) 14:29, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

O.K., I added dimensions for the larger works, as well as the "sketch" designation with a note on the first instance. Should I also include inches in the dimensions or is it enough to simply provide cm? Tkbrett (✉) 20:44, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if there's a rule, but some people turn up & add conversion templates. Personally I'm ok with just cm; the two look rather cluttered. Johnbod (talk) 22:21, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Over the course of his short career, he produced roughly 400 oil sketches on small wood panels along with around 50 larger works on canvas." - mention the other stuff? At least that it exists. "oil sketches" links to oil painting not oil sketch, which would seem more appropriate. "on small wood panels" doesn't actually seem correct - the image files for the mini-gallery of 1912/13 sketches give a variety of descriptions for the support:

oil on paperboard

Oil on paper (with embossed canvas texture) on plywood

oil on canvas on wood

oil on canvas

oil on canvas mounted on paperboard

- but none are what is usually meant by a panel painting.

This division is the one used in most sources. For example, Silcox & Town (2017), p. 181: "Thomson's art can be divided into two main bodies of work: the small oil sketches on wood panels he did when he was 'on the trail,' canoeing through Algonquin Park or elsewhere in 'the North'; and the larger canvases he made when he was in his studio in Toronto. He produced about 400 oil sketches during his last five years, although the total number might exceed that. There are, in addition, only about fifty canvases,..." I'm hesitant to change this as sources don't describe it differently. Tkbrett (✉) 23:45, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The descriptions of the supports in the image files, evidently drawn from museum metadata in most cases, are sources too. Adding "mounted" before "on small wood panels" might well cover it. Are any of the works identified by the owning museum as actually painted directly onto wood, or prepared wood in the traditional style? This is actually a very fiddly and somewhat expensive technique, which is why the vast majority of artists switched to canvas some centuries before. I'm sure some of the sources must cover this with a a bit more precision than the one you quote. Johnbod (talk) 14:29, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct in noticing that he used a few different techniques in 1913 and earlier, but to give you a rather succinct answer: yes, with his sketches he was painting directly onto wood panels. In the Further reading section, Webster-Cook & Ruggles (2002) has a lot of information regarding his supports. Before 1914, he painted in many different ways, but by 1914 and on he was using either a composite wood-pulp board or a softwood panel (possibly from disassembled crates). Webster-Cook says that, "This is an unusual support for oil painting and may been manufactured as a bookbinder's board." The information regarding the supports is mostly on the Materials section of the Artistic development of Tom Thomson page. I can include some of this information in the Artistic development section on this page to help clear this up. (As a side note: all the information on the Commons was inputted by me with what I have found on the Tom Thomson Catalogue Raisonné and, if needed, from exhibition catalogues. Any errors are my fault in transcribing). Tkbrett (✉) 20:44, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it would be good to add. Johnbod (talk) 22:21, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What you've done to the captions looks fine to me, except that the note explaining what "sketch" indicates, currently note 6, is very easy to miss. I think it needs to be more prominent. You could either add it to the first one in each mini-gallery, or perhaps add the text in a box at the first mini-gallery to use it. Also refer to the captioning style in the text when describing the sketch/larger works split. I think it's worth adding more here on the progression from mounted on panel to painted on panel.

I've added more regarding the supports of paintings.

Would you mind helping me out with formatting of the "sketch" note, or at least pointing me to a similar example on another page? I'm not sure how to best make the note prominent. Tkbrett (✉) 23:41, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Added it one way as test - I had to move the pic above up a para. I'm sure there are other options. I'm actually not good at that sort of thing. Johnbod (talk) 04:22, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It seems good to me. If we wanted to make it more aesthetically pleasing I'm sure we could find someone—after all, this is in the Visual Arts portal! Tkbrett (✉) 05:21, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"They consist almost entirely of landscapes, depicting trees, skies, lakes, rivers and other nature scenes" - "and other nature scenes" seems a bit lame, & not sure what is left after the list - rocks I suppose. Maybe "They consist almost entirely of landscapes, depicting the trees, skies, lakes, and rivers of Ontario." Or something.

Good point. I've changed it to, "They consist almost entirely of landscapes, depicting the trees, skies, lakes, and rivers." I didn't include "of Ontario" because that is how the sentence that follows ends. Tkbrett (✉) 23:45, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"eventually developing rudimentary penmanship abilities" - hmmm, sounds like a primary school report. Penmanship is all about handwriting.

I believe that's what it's referring to; here's the full source: "There he picked up the rudiments of penmanship; a good copperplate hand was still a requisite for a clerk, private secretary or bookkeeper, despite the growing dominance of the typewriter." Of course, today no one seems to care much about penmanship so the sentiment may be lost. Should I expand the current sentence to make the context more clear or do you think it's fine as is? Tkbrett (✉) 23:45, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It reads oddly - the "rudiments of penmanship" would be covered at school, one would think, as they still are. I think at least one of "rudimentary" and "penmanship" needs changing, or a new approach: "learnt a professional clerk's handwriting" or something. Johnbod (talk) 14:29, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I changed both the body and lead phrasing of "rudimentary penmanship". It now reads, "There, he developed abilities in penmanship and copperplate—necessary skills for a clerk." Tkbrett (✉) 20:44, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"In May 1912, he visited Algonquin Park for the first time" - I'd give his age here. You might expand on Algonquin Provincial Park in case anyone thinks it is like Hyde Park or Central Park. After looking at its article, I'm still unclear how far from Toronto it is.

It would certainly help to have a sentence or two describing exactly what Algonquin Park is. I included some information near the beginning of the 1912/13 section to help clarify. I also included Thomson's age at the time of first visit. Tkbrett (✉) 23:45, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"While his earliest paintings were not outstanding technically, they illustrated an above-average ability with composition and colour handling." - reads a bit oddly. "ability with" for one thing, and the "above-average" idea. Something like: "While his earliest paintings were not outstanding technically, they showed a good grasp of composition and colour handling." Composition (visual arts) is linked, not sure we have anything for the other.

You're right, I've reworded it to your way. "Colour handling" is a paraphrasing of "handling of colour," so I'm not aware of any relevant page to link to. Tkbrett (✉) 23:45, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Through his development his later paintings vary in composition and have vivid colours and thickly applied paint". The second bit (after "and") has already been said, & the first bit seems confused - is that "through" as in "throughout"?

KJP1 mentioned similar issues with this sentence above that I fixed before I got to your response. It was reworded to, "His later paintings vary in composition and have vivid colours and thickly applied paint." Tkbrett (✉) 23:45, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"After Thomson's death, MacCallum worked to preserve and advocate for his work.[73]" - "worked ... to advocate for" is clumsy.

How about, "After Thomson's death, MacCallum helped preserve and advocate for his work." Tkbrett (✉) 23:45, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"In late April 1914, Thomson arrived in Algonquin Park, where he was joined by Lismer on May 9. They camped on Molly's Island in Smoke Lake, travelling to Canoe, Smoke, Ragged, Crown and Wolf Lakes.[102] He spent his spring and summer divided between Georgian Bay and Algonquin Park, visiting James MacCallum by canoe. His travels during this time have proved difficult to discern, with such a large amount of ground covered in such a short time, painting the French River, Byng Inlet, Parry Sound and Go-Home Bay from May 24 through August 10.[103] H. A. Callighen, a park ranger, wrote in his journal that Thomson and Lismer left Algonquin Park on May 24.[104] By May 30, Thomson was at Parry Sound and on June 1 was camped at the French River with MacCallum.[104][105]" - some indication of distances between these places would be good, also in the following section.

The sources I've used don't list distances. The closest I've found is a promotional pamphlet that says, "In this distance there are twenty portages of varying length." Mapping them out and figuring out the distance probably doesn't fall under WP:CALC, so I'm not sure what else to try. Tkbrett (✉) 23:45, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Any times in hours/days? Without some sense of scale the passage doesn't convey much. Johnbod (talk) 14:29, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is as specific as the sources get, giving the same time as the one I've written. Here's Wadland (2002), p. 105: "Yet no author has yet satisfactorily explained how he got to the sites where he painted images at French River, Byng Inlet, Parry Sound and Go-Home Bay in such a short time—i.e., between May 24 and August 10." It's in a footnote where he writes, "It is not impossible to do this, but one would have to be an extraordinary canoeist to manage it—especially on the open water of Georgian Bay, from the mouth of the French to Go-Home Bay (and back again)." Without it being directly written, I don't want to provide anything that may violate WP:NOR. Tkbrett (✉) 20:44, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(2nd tranche) "Many theories have gathered around the nature of Thomson's death...", reads a bit clunky. Don't know deaths have a "nature". Maybe "There has been much speculation about the circumstances of ...." or something.

Fixed to your version. Tkbrett (✉) 21:09, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Andrew Hunter has pointed to Robinson as being largely responsible for the suggestion that there was more to his death than accidental drowning." - presumably this is "Park ranger Mark Robinson", but this is the first mention of him.

Fixed. Tkbrett (✉) 21:09, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(3rd tranche) "including one at Wembley in London," - date would be nice.

Added a citation w/ 1924. Tkbrett (✉) 23:41, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Trees section - the "heroic tree" in art goes back at least to Dutch Golden Age painting, with works like The Three Trees (print) by Rembrandt and various by Jacob van Ruisdael and others. Then there's Caspar David Friedrich, with several such paintings. There is quite a lot of literature on this, & it would be nice to source a mention. There's one mention at the bottom of the page here "As a metaphor of the human condition, the lone tree is a subject that harks back to the early German Romanticism of Caspar David Friedrich. This heroic tree was given a Canadian twist with Tom Thomson's Jack Pine...". In comparison, "The theme of the single tree is common in Art Nouveau" seemed rather iffy & marginal to me, as Art Nouveau doesn't really do heroic.

What is the specific source of the second external link there? I would love to add on to this. Tkbrett (✉) 23:41, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See bottom of the page - where page 100 is I don't know. Maybe you have access to a paper copy. Johnbod (talk) 04:12, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I believe my alma mater carries the magazine, so when I stop in on Thursday to check Murray (2011) I'll also check for this. The specific article: Halkes, Petra (Summer 2003). "Richard Gorman". Canadian Art. 20 (2): 99ff. I'll keep you posted. Tkbrett (✉) 05:21, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I added content after I went to the library and found page 100 (there actually wasn't much more since the article was detailing the work of Canadian artist Richard Gorman). I also added a bit more concerning the influence of John Constable on Thomson. If you have any other suggestions, just let me know. Tkbrett (✉) 18:16, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see the article has a link to landscape painting btw. There should be one.

Added. Tkbrett (✉) 23:41, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Flowers section. All the 6 illustrated are "sketches". Are there any larger paintings? Worth saying. The same question for the "People" section.

All six flowers sketches are the extent of it. Joan Murray included a few others in one of her books but they aren't still lifes. As far as paintings of people, the only canvas that features a prominent figure is The Fisherman. (I took it out after the complaints about there being too many images arose, but since those complaints have been addressed I'll go ahead and put it back in). Any other canvas with figures has them far off in the distance (e.g., The Pointers, The Drive). Tkbrett (✉) 23:41, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"logging and the lumber industry" - link to something?

Done. Tkbrett (✉) 23:41, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've fiddled to remove the impression that alligators are found in Ontario (global warming isn't that far advanced)

Ha! Thankfully not yet. Tkbrett (✉) 23:41, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Thomson's and the Group of Seven's work is often absent of criticism for the typical Canadian attitudes of the time, ..." convoluted expression. Maybe "Thomson's and the Group of Seven's work typically reflects the typical Canadian attitudes of the time, ..." or "does not challenge" or something. Likewise "while Thomson and the other artists were not critical of industry, mining and logging, they did not glorify these issues and they took a relatively low profile within the art produced." This somewhat contradicts the previous para, where you refer to frequent coverage, & is oddly expressed - can you glorify an issue? Maybe "their work did not emphasize the industrial exploitation of the landscape", or something.

I've simply quoted Harold Town where he says that Thomson "did not glorify industry in the bush." Tkbrett (✉) 23:41, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

People section: staffage (= "figures far off in the distance") might be a useful link. Is The Poacher smoking fish? Worth mentioning if sourced.

Linked. Murray (2011) discusses what The Poacher is doing; I don't have the work on hand so I'll have to run over the library when I get a chance (probably Thursday). If I don't return to this then please ping me. Tkbrett (✉) 23:41, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've added two sentences describing The Poacher. Here's an excerpt Murray (2011) writes regarding this sketch: "In this sketch of a poacher, Thomson again sought to suggest a particular person and carefully recorded details of his outfit, from the hat that partially hides the man's face to the hunting vest and blue shirt. He is seated comfortably before a grill over hot coals and is drying something—likely venison cut into strips or whatever he has poached." Tkbrett (✉) 18:16, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've split a couple, but some paras are still rather long. Splitting can also reduce sandwiches. You might look at those beginning: The family were unsuccessful as farmers.. (currently sandwich filling for me), Algonquin Park was established in 1893 by, Thomson continued canoeing alone until he met with A. Y. Jackson, Thomson produced more nocturnes than the rest of the Group of Seven, These paintings, especially Marguerites, Wood Lilies and Vetch (single para section, as is "People").

I've split these paragraphs. Tkbrett (✉) 23:41, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod (talk) 14:49, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ready to Support. Good piece of work. Johnbod (talk) 15:32, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all the help! Tkbrett (✉) 18:30, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SupportComments from Tim riley edit

Deferring to KJP1 and Johnbod as experts on the visual arts, I'll put my inexpert two penn'orth in as a makeweight. I'll have more after a thorough read-through, but for now, two quick points on spelling from my preliminary canter through. First, just checking that Thomson did indeed spell "lilies" with three "l"s; and secondly ditto that the two "noctures" are not meant to be "nocturnes". More anon. Tim riley talk 20:51, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All were typos and have been fixed. Thanks. Tkbrett (✉) 22:02, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think you changed them back when doing some of my points though! Johnbod (talk) 01:20, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keen eye. Fixed them. Thanks! Tkbrett (✉) 03:09, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll need at least two goes at this, as there's a lot of text to scrutinise. These are my comments to the end of the Life section. Meagre gleanings, as the prose is of v. high quality.

Early years
- "including a respiratory issue" – "issue" seems an odd word. More a "problem", I'd have thought.

Changed. Tkbrett (✉) 02:14, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- "spent it relatively quickly" – relative to what? A pity to use this precise term as a mere synonym for "quite" or "rather".

The source is guilty of this as well: "He appears to have frittered it away in relatively short order..." I've simply removed it. It's now, "...but seems to have spent it quickly." Tkbrett (✉) 02:14, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Graphic design work
- "he left despite a good salary by the end of 1904" – I might be inclined to put commas in here for clarity: "he left, despite a good salary, by the end of 1904". Or reorder as "despite a good salary he left by the end of 1904".

I separated it into two sentences: "He eventually moved on to a local engraving company. Despite a good salary he left by the end of 1904." Tkbrett (✉) 02:14, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Painting career
- Not an important point, but does "squall" really need a link?

Fair enough. De-linked. Tkbrett (✉) 02:14, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- "In October, Thomson was introduced to Dr. James MacCallum by MacDonald" – I am not as agin the passive voice as some people are, but I do think this looks a bit effortful, and might flow better in the active: "In October, MacDonald introduced Thomson to Dr. James MacCallum". I admit this then presents the problem of how to start the next sentence, so ignore if you wish.

Your's is much better. I put it in and changed the sentence that followings: "In October, MacDonald introduced Thomson to Dr. James MacCallum. A frequent visitor to the Ontario Society of Artists' (OSA) exhibitions, MacCallum was admitted to the Arts and Letters Club in January 1912. There, he met artists such as John William Beatty, Arthur Heming, MacDonald and Harris." Tkbrett (✉) 02:14, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- "a later founder of the Group" – later a founder of the Group?

I'm worried how the entire sentence reads with that alteration: "In October 1913, MacCallum introduced Thomson to A. Y. Jackson, later a founder of the Group of Seven." I'm not absolutely sure here, it's just that to my ear it sounds as though something is "off". If you think it's fine I'm still O.K. to change it, I just wanted to double check. Tkbrett (✉) 02:14, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine to me, but don't change it if you're not comfortable with it. Tim riley talk 09:02, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- "planned for the fall of 1917" – the Manual of Style bids us avoid dating events by season if possible, as some readers in the southern hemisphere are put off by our northern hemisphere assumptions. When the seasons are relevant, as in your "Early recognition (1914–15)" section, it's fine to use them.

Wow, I had never even thought of that (someone in my family married a Kiwi so I should really know better). The source doesn't get more specific and writes, "Later, [Trainor] was rumoured to be engaged to Thomson for a marriage in the fall of 1917..." Should I write "late 1917" instead? Tkbrett (✉) 02:14, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think "late 1917" is both clear and safe. Tim riley talk 09:02, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Changed. Tkbrett (✉) 22:31, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I can find to complain about in the Life section. More anon. Tim riley talk 18:08, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Second and last batch of comments from Tim

Artistic development
- There's a lot of repetition in the early stages of this section: we've already been told about the graphic design, Grip and Dr McCallum. Mentioning them again here is harmless, and perhaps beneficial, but I think the text would flow better if written as though your reader had read the earlier bit: e.g. instead of "He was employed as a graphic designer with Toronto's Grip Ltd., an experience which honed his…" something like "His experiences as a graphic designer with Toronto's Grip Ltd honed his…" and so on.

I've made some changes to avoid the repetition. Tkbrett (✉) 22:31, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- "Thomson peaked creatively between 1914 and 1917" – Two points on this. First, I'm not sure if the peak refers to quality or quantity of output. Secondly, as the statement doesn't seem to be substantiated during the rest of the paragraph, it could do with a citation. (Looking back to the Life section I'm not sure the sub-header "Artistic peak (1916–17)" is wholly justified by the text that follows. I don't doubt that it's correct, but a bit of evidence is wanted.)

This was meant to refer to the quantity of output. I've reworded things to make it: "Thomson's produced nearly all of his works between 1912 and 1917. Most of his large canvases were completed in his most productive period, from late 1916 to early 1917." (Silcox & Town 2017, p. 181). Tkbrett (✉) 22:31, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- "his work is sympathetic" – unexpected tense. The past tense seems wanted here, unless I'm missing something.

Changed: "...his work was sympathetic..." Tkbrett (✉) 22:31, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- "400, and the second is of around fifty" – this is not a criticism, but I wonder where you, personally, draw the line between using words and using numbers for figures. I don't think the MoS lays down the law on this point.

Not sure how this crept in. Most style guides I've seen suggest switching from words to numbers after ten or (rarely) at twenty. Once you hit 50 though, you should be well past it. Changed. Tkbrett (✉) 22:31, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- "While the sketches were produced quickly, the canvases were developed over weeks" – I'd be cautious about using "while" to mean "although": it can lead you into what Fowler calls "the absurdity of seeming to say that two events occurred or will occur simultaneously which cannot possibly do so". I'm not sure that's quite avoided here.

Changed: "Although the sketches were produced quickly, the canvases were developed over weeks or even months." Tkbrett (✉) 22:31, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- "one to can see" – superfluous "to"?

Fixed. Tkbrett (✉) 22:31, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- "Although he sold few of the larger paintings during his lifetime" – but none at all after he was dead, presumably.

Changed: "Although few of the larger paintings were sold during his lifetime..." Tkbrett (✉) 22:31, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- "Described as having an 'idiosyncratic palette', Thomson's control of colour was exceptional" – there's a dangling participle here: it was no doubt Thomson, and not his control of colour, that was described as having an idiosyncratic palette. Changing the second part to "Thomson had an exceptional control of colour" or some such would solve the problem.

Changed. Tkbrett (✉) 22:31, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Trees
- "the effect of the seasons upon them" – this the fourth "upon" in the article. It's a perfectly good word, but one does begin to notice it on (or upon) repetition, and a simple "on" might be less conspicuous here and there.

Fixed. Tkbrett (✉) 22:31, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- "MacDonald in turn was likely influenced by the landscape art of John Constable, whose work he likely saw" – two likelys in the one sentence. Making one a "probably" would oil the wheels. (There are 12 "likely"s throughout the article, and perhaps a few of them as "probably"s would vary things nicely, too. Just a thought.)

Fixed. I've also some of the other instances as you suggested. Tkbrett (✉) 22:31, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Skies
- "capturing the lakes reflection" – possessive apostrophe missing?

Added. Tkbrett (✉) 22:31, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- "light on the sky" – can the sky have light on it, rather than in it?

Changed: "...adding depth to both the light of the sky..." Tkbrett (✉) 22:31, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- "inspired painter Edvard Munch" – not entirely sure anyone reading this article will need to be told that Munch was a painter, but this isn't a matter of great importance.

Fair. Removed. Tkbrett (✉) 22:31, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Flowers
- "his father John" – as opposed to other fathers? We've already been told Father's name, and don't need it here.

Fixed. Tkbrett (✉) 22:31, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- "his naturalist uncle Dr. William Brodie" – but Brodie was Thomson's grandmother's first cousin, rather than T's uncle, when we met him earlier.

The Thomson family referred to Dr. Brodie as "uncle". I had this in an earlier version of the page but removed it because it didn't seem that important or relevant. I've cleared up the confusion by rewording things: "...his naturalist relative Dr. William Brodie..." Tkbrett (✉) 22:31, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- "By placing flowers against black backdrops, the colours become more vivid" – another dangling participle, I think. It's the artist, not the colours, who placed the flowers.

Changed: "The black backdrop also causes the colours of the flowers to appear more vivid." Tkbrett (✉) 22:31, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's all from me. All pretty minor comments, and I look forward to supporting the promotion of this interesting and (to me) revelatory article. I had never heard of Thomson and am very glad to have made his acquaintance here. Tim riley talk 09:00, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help! I'm very happy to have brought at least one person to Thomson who had never heard of him before. Tkbrett (✉) 22:41, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support – very pleased to add my name as a supporter. As I have said above, I'm no expert on the visual arts, but I can see at least three other reviewers on this page who certainly are, and I leave technical and aesthetic comment in their capable hands. Meanwhile, this article seems to my layman's eye to be of the highest quality: a pleasure to read; well proportioned; balanced (not ducking adverse comment when called for); comprehensive without going on excessively; and conveying the main author's sheer pleasure in the subject. I hope we shall be seeing more from you, Tkbrett. – Tim riley talk 00:17, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Moxy edit

Great read.....but I take it the review will fix the image problems ? People do look at mobile view during the review right? Because its a scrolling gallery nightmare with 50 images that have fixed image sizes and 2 instance of sandwich text. Remember 50%+ are mobile viewers--Moxy (talk) 06:34, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned up in the image review that my basis for this page is the FA Vincent van Gogh and it seems to have a similar number of images and galleries. It doesn't have five images in every gallery though, so I've gone ahead and removed some of the ones Ceoil thought might warrant removal. If you have anything more specific just let me know. Tkbrett (✉) 06:47, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Moxy - Moxy's quite right - the needs of mobile readers need to be borne in mind. That said, I've just gone through it on my iPad and iPhone and they both looked fine. But I'm no expert on image accessibility, so I'll go and ask someone who is to take a look and advise. KJP1 (talk) 07:19, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I removed a some images (here and here). Moxy, what do you mean by "sandwich text"? I haven't been able to find this term in any guides. Tkbrett (✉) 07:24, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"sandwich text" is when images on the left and right partially overlap vertically and push the test into a narrow central band. I'm not seeing it in this article. Ceoil (talk) 17:12, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An article about an artist can be expected to have lots of images in it. The viewing figures for the last 30 days are:

desktop: 5,879 pageviews (190/day);
mobile web: 5,051 pageviews (163/day) (and the images look mostly fine on that; a bit crowded at the top);
mobile app: 100 pageviews (3/day).

Please don't remove images for the sake of three pageviews a day. SarahSV ^(talk) 07:29, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely agree. Art, and indeed architecture, articles benefit hugely from images and I wasn't in any way arguing for removal. But accessibility's also important and I've asked another editor, who's helped me greatly before on this issue, for their input. KJP1 (talk) 09:04, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at the images in desktop view and in mobile view on several mobile devices and emulators, as well as the Wikipedia App on my phone. Apart from the infobox image, only the gallery images have fixed sizes, and I didn't find a device or setting that caused me problems with how the images displayed, with two principal exceptions – on any screen around 800px wide there can be sandwiching of the text:

starting the Early years section between the images File:Young Tom Thomson.jpg and File:Thomson, Study for Northern River.jpg. This is apparent on desktop view if you hide the table of contents and on mobile view. The only fix I can suggest is either relocating File:Young Tom Thomson.jpg to the right side of the page or finding another place for File:Thomson, Study for Northern River.jpg. I don't think that forcing a break before the Life section would be aesthetically acceptable.
the text "Thomson peaked creatively between 1914 and 1917 ..." in the Artistic development section. You will always invite these sort of problems when you have an image left-aligned (File:Tom Thomson, Northern Lights.jpg) immediately next to another element (in this case, a quote box) which is right-aligned. I suggest you could consider relocating File:Tom Thomson, Northern Lights.jpg to the start of the following paragraph, "Thomson's artwork is typically divided into two bodies ...".

Otherwise, the layout remains good to my eyes at anything less than a 4K screen, but as it becomes increasingly difficult to cater for the extremes of screen sizes when you mix images and text on any web page, I think Wikipedia can be forgiven for assuming that nobody will be reading our articles at 100% zoom on any browser width above 1920px.

I hope this may be a help in resolving some of Moxy's concerns. Please let me know if you'd like me to elaborate further on any points. --RexxS (talk) 13:31, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing this, it's very helpful. Are they bad sandwiches? Some mild sandwiching on wide screens is inevitable & fine. About how many words per line do you get in the sandwich filling? Johnbod (talk) 14:08, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks RexxS, this is solid guidance. Ceoil (talk) 19:38, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to everyone in this thread for the help. I've followed RexxS's suggestion and moved the Northern Lights image lower. Tkbrett (✉) 21:16, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnbod: At its worst, it's pretty bad sandwiching, John. At a screen width of 860px in Desktop view with TOC hidden, Early years looks like this:

Thomas John
"Tom"
Thomson was
born in
Claremont, Ontario, the sixth of John and Margaret

. You can duplicate that yourselves on desktop by hiding TOC and narrowing the browser window bit-by bit while keeping the Life section in view. --RexxS (talk) 00:22, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - obviously that's bad. Do the changes Tkbrett has made improve things? Johnbod (talk) 14:24, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In my last edit, I moved File:Young Tom Thomson.jpg down to fix the issue and, just in case, also replaced the vertical Study for "Northern River" with the horizontal Black Spruce and Maple (a work Lawren Harris was particularly fond of and is completely deserving of a spot near the top of the page). Lastly, I also removed the quote box that was causing issues. Tkbrett (✉) 19:30, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All good.....after looking at a few FA articles about art and artists I see many galleries is the norm. Not sure it's very accessible friendly....but I guess if your here its because of the art to begin with. Sorry not familiar with art articles....was reading the article because of the Canadian aspect of the topic. --Moxy (talk) 19:35, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request edit

All, I hate to be a pain, but this has been open since 27 October and is still on going. Yes its a first nom and needs more scrutiny, but it has received heavy duty praise by some of our most forensic and/or subject area experts (Sarah, Johnbod, Outriggr (in lead up), Tony), but is dragging on...seems to me now to be process inhibited, yet its very unlikely an substantial problems will turn up at this stage. From a purely selfish art history community POV...want this rather talented and able new comer to continue with the project, and not get the impression that every FAC nom will an exercise in slow torture. I suppose I'm asking for still open reviewers to take a position and close out. From my vantage point, I'm seeing the editor tending to finer points on this when she/he could be doing so much else. Ceoil (talk) 19:40, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that Sarah supported on the 27 November; and while I have utter and utmost respect for the volunteer delegates, who cant be everywhere all the time, this seems to be slipping though the cracks. Ceoil (talk) 21:30, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're right Ceoil, this has slipped through the cracks but I'll try and take a good look at it today. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:15, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sound and no worries Ian man. Ceoil (talk) 06:30, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Aside from a few tweaks to prose that I made, as I usually find myself doing before promotion, I find the sandwiching quite pronounced in the Life section. I realise this has been worked on quite heavily above, and that different screen resolutions produce different results, but I wonder if things might be improved if Jack Pine and Black Spruce were simply moved to the gallery immediately below and the c. 1900 portrait moved to Early life. The 1905-10 portrait could stay its current subsection but go left so he looks 'into' the article page.

Also, I note several duplicate links in the article -- some may be justified but pls review and rationalise as appropriate (I can point you a duplink checker if that helps, let me know).

Neither of these points need hold up promotion but I'll give you some time to respond while I look over some other nominations. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:38, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I went through and removed duplicate links. I know it's alright to have a link appear in both the lead and in the body, but I wasn't sure if a link could also appear both below a gallery image and in the body. For example, I have "Edmonton" linked in the description for the painting The Fisherman as well as in the body ("Discovered in an Edmonton basement in 2018..."). Should I only link the first instance, or should I link both?

I included both The Jack Pine and Black Spruce and Maple just below the infobox because I thought they served as a useful visual summary of Thomson's work, similar to what is seen on the page for Vincent van Gogh. (The latter painting serves as an example of his sketches, while The Jack Pine is perhaps the most famous painting in Canada). I can move them back down into the body if you think the sandwiching issues make the current format a no-go. I have toyed with trying to get the c. 1905–10 portrait to be on the left so Thomson is "facing" the text like the MOS suggests, but I have had trouble getting it to look aesthetically pleasing since a gallery comes immediately below it. Someone better than me at formatting may have more luck here. Tkbrett (✉) 05:30, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, tks for that. Re. duplinks, I've seen them used in both text and accompanying tables/diagrams without complaint, so I wouldn't say one needed to avoid links in captions as a rule. Re. sandwiching, or other image-related practices that the MOS advises we avoid, it's really down to whether you have a rationale for exceptions -- you seem to have one (though it wasn't obvious to me when I first read the article) so fair enough. MOS is after all a guideline, and guidelines should always tolerate reasonable exceptions. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:52, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't bother waiting Ian, and as you say image placement been discussed (to death) above. Dup links, are very trivial matters and hardly grounds for further stalling a FAC that should have been closed 2 weeks ago. The last thing that is is need here is "some time"; note the basis for my original plea. I am loosing patience, and find this reply disappointing. Ceoil (talk) 06:42, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil, I genuinely appreciated your request for attention above but at this point I'd rather hear back from the nominator. I'm as keen as anyone to close this out, and to encourage a talented newcomer, so I'm really just after an acknowledgement to look at the points above, even if that takes place after promotion. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:33, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok grand, no problem and thanks as always Ian. Ceoil (talk) 02:06, 10 December 2018 (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. Ian Rose (talk) 07:54, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] Budge, Sir Ernest Alfred Wallis (1902). A History of Egypt from the End of the Neolithic Period to the Death of Cleopatra VII, B.C. 30: Egypt and her Asiatic Empire. K. Paul, Trench, Trübner & Company, Limited.

[1]