Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/December 2019

Contents

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 31 December 2019 [1].


Razing of FriesoytheEdit

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 16:51, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

In mid-April 1945 in NW Europe, the 4th Canadian (Armoured) Division burnt down the small German town of Friesoythe on the orders of the divisional commander. A minor war crime in a conflict thick with them. Surprisingly (to me) it seems to have hidden in plain sight for 75 years. There has been little attempt to cover it up, bar some fudging in the official history, but this article is the only specific treatment of it of which I am aware.

The first article I created (26.1.18), my first GA (24.2.18), and my first A class (14.8.18). After which it languished until Nick-D, bless him, added Briddiscombe and so provided the underpinning to tie the article together and, perhaps, hopefully, make it fit to be considered for FA. Given its history I am sure that it is riven with faults and will be grateful to all those who help to point these out. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:51, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by CPA-5Edit

Great to see another battle of WWII.

  • Link WWII.
See below.
  • Pipe Germany to Nazi Germany.
  • Pipe Canada or Canadese to the Dominion of Canada.
  • the division's commander, Major General Christopher Vokes "Major General" needs a hyphen.
No it doesn't. Did you click the link? Canadian usage.
  • Do the sources say it without a hyphen? Because I've heard that some Commonwealth countries before and in WWII use those kinds of ranks before they got old fashioned.
It is confused. Vokes doesn't hyphenate it in his autobiography, but the official history does. Let's assume that Vokes didn't know how to spell his own rank and I will hyphenate through out. (Good point.)
  • Link Soviet Union.
  • about the threat of a German resistance movement, and Soviet forces killed Link the German resistance.
I am unable to find an article on German resistance to the Allies. If you could point me to it I would be grateful.
  • Here a German resistance to the allies - Werwolf.
Thanks. Done. (I was typing in werewolf!)
  • 4th Canadian (Armoured) Division, Major General Christopher Vokes "Major General" needs a hyphen.
See above.
  • Link Rhine.
  • Link Allied/Allies.
  • circumstances as buoyant as it was recognised that British recognised here we should use Canadian English.
Good point. Done.
  • an assault crossing of the Ems river --> "an assault crossing of the Ems River"
No. River Ems; but Ems river. Honest. (Check it, you won't find an "Ems River" usage. You may find "Ems, River", that's different.)
  • I always am confused with both of them.
English, a language deliberately invented to confuse foreigners. It also confuses almost everyone else - as you prove a little below.
  • Primary units metric vs English?
I am not getting your point. Primary units are imperial. As used by Canadians at the time. Is that incorrect?
  • You're not wrong but I mean look at this sentence "The division advanced a further 25 kilometres (16 mi) to Sögel" which is written in metric units.
    • (talk page stalker) There's also "20 miles (32 km) west of Oldenburg", so these should be consistent. If you wish to preserve the source figure in the convert template, you can use |order=flip so that the input is displayed as secondary and the output as primary. – Reidgreg (talk) 21:01, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
  • west of Oldenburg, on the river Soeste --> "west of Oldenburg, on the River Soeste"
Ah! Done.
  • Got you. ;p
Yep. Dead to rights :-( .
  • Several hundred paratroopers from Battalion Raabe of the 7th Parachute Division No link for the Battalion Raabe?
No. An ad hoc battlegroup. It may only have existed for a few days. The article on the division is only 8 lines.
  • repelled an attack by the Lake Superior Regiment Same as above with the Lake Superior Regiment?
Strangely perhaps, no. (The articles on the last of the WWII divisions are still being created. It is probably expecting too much for all of the battalions to have been filled in.)
  • Argylls secured the town by 10:30 am --> "Argylls secured the town by 10:30"
  • headquarters by surprise at around 8:30 am --> "headquarters by surprise at around 08:30"
Both done.
  • the fucking place. Get the people the hell out of their houses first.'"[12][21] Re-order the refs here.
Done. (You do realise that there is no Wikipedia requirement for this?)
  • I do! But most sources use refs in numerical order and because this isn't included in MOS it shouldn't be included.
  • Canadian force was also authorised to burn down the village British authorised.
Done.
  • The Canadian army official historian Link Canadian army and capitalise "army".
Army capitalised. See below re link.
  • Be that as it may."[12][11] Re-order the refs here.
Done.
  • In the image "File:Moncel_and_Vokes.jpg" "Major General Christopher Vokes" --> "Major-General Christopher Vokes"
See above.
  • was used to fill craters in local roads to make them passable Change the "in" with "on".
Er, why?
  • Sounds better in my ears but if it doesn't to you then I do not mind having "in" instead of "on".
Yeah, craters are in a road. They might be on the moon, but off hand I can't think of another example.
  • forces destroyed German buildings on a number of occasions --> "forces destroyed German buildings on several occasions"
Done.
  • The British commanders disapproved of retaliations against civilians --> "The British commanders disapproved of retaliation against civilians"
No. In this case, "retaliations" is the correct usage. (A noun, rather than a verb.)
  • This was accomplished with several truck-loads of dynamite Remove the hyphen here.
Done.
  • eight hours and Friesoythe was almost totally destroyed Remove totally.
No. The phrase doesn't make sense then. How I have expressed it is acceptable usage - honest. "Almost destroyed" means something completely different.
  • According to one German assessment, 85–90 per cent of the town was destroyed British per cent.
Done.
  • the destruction to be as high as 90 per cent Same as above.
Done.
  • Canadian authorities of the damage or the civilian casualties --> "Canadian authorities of the damage or civilian casualties"
No. One needs both definite articles for the two nouns.
  • several 17-year-old youths with less than eight weeks military experience --> "several 17-year-old youths with fewer than eight weeks military experience"
No. Fewer is used when the intervals are discrete. And while weeks are, they represent time here, which isn't. So "less" is correct.
  • Strange because I thought fewer is used for countable nouns like weeks and less for uncountable?
Ah. this is a tricky one. So you might say "Should basic training last 12 weeks, or fewer?" meaning that it will always last a number of complete weeks. But "I wish that basic training lasted less than 12 weeks." meaning that this might be one day, 10 days, or any other period of time not related to whole weeks. IMO, the article is using weeks in the latter sense.

That's anything from me. Hopefully, we'll have more WWII battles here. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 14:29, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Probably not - more WWII battles that is.
  • Some of the suggested links above. I know that you have read MOS:OL, so why are you asking for so many links which are "[e]veryday words understood by most readers in context"? Eg WWII; USSR, Rhine; which are pretty much specifically included in the categories of things not to link. Am I missing something? I have linked as you suggest where I think that I have missed something, and thanks for catching those. Others I have left, pending discussion here.
  • I understand you wanna stay with unlinking those especially WWII. But the USSR and the Rhine are different. Believe the USSR is indeed really common but most people would say Cold War, Communism, Stalin and Russians. I do not think they know the rest of the former country especially the younger generations who never met the Cold War (like me). And speaking about the Rhine I do believe it is really common among us, Europeans like us, but would Americans, Canadians, Aussies, Kiwis or the rest of world know it? It's not the same as the Nile which is one of the important and longest river the world has.
    • (talk page stalker) I tend to favour the more-specific links. In the case of the Allied crossing of the Rhine in Operation Plunder the linking to the more-specific article is probably more useful to the reader, while Rhine is linked in the lead sentence of Operation Plunder so that it is still easy for the reader to get to that article. It's easy to work from a specific article to a general one; the reverse is not always easy or obvious. Linking both diverts attention, etc. "Canadian Army official history" could be pipe-linked on first mention in the lead and body; I wouldn't link only the "Canadian Army" part. Perhaps "Soviet Union's leadership" could be linked to something like State Defense Committee, if that's correct and felt to be useful. – Reidgreg (talk) 21:01, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
Edit clash with Reidgreg. Hi Reidgreg, I wondered if you might be watching this. I had just made the changes suggested by CPA-5, and added this comment here:
  • Done, but I think that you are using your common sense, rather than what it says in MOS:OL: "the following are usually not linked: The names of subjects with which most readers will be at least somewhat familiar. This generally includes major examples of: countries; geographic features; locations... " You are saying that "Canada" doesn't fit into one of those? (I have linked it anyway - see here.) Then again, possibly I overdo the not overlinking malarkey. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:21, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
@CPA-5: Phew. I seem to have given you quite a bit of work to do. Thanks for your usual very thorough review. All of your points addressed above, although I have disagreed with several and queried a couple. Gog the Mild (talk) 01:30, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks CPA-5. Much appreciated as always. I think that I have covered everything that you have flagged up. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:15, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
@CPA-5: Good afternoon. All of your points above have been addressed, some with queries or explanations. What do you think? Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:40, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
  • @Gog the Mild: Good afternoon mate sorry I had a really busy week. Yes all except one are addressed, you missed this one which unit should be primary in the article miles or kilometres? This is the only comment who's not addressed by you. BTW last comment here is it Razing of Friesoythe or Battle of Friesoythe? Because the infobox says something different. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:47, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
@CPA-5: No worries. real life happens. I knew that you were busy/distracted by some of your delays in getting back to things, but you do a huge amount of reviewing here, so who cares? I am more than grateful for what you do do.
Kms/miles: I am not happy, but the editorial consensus seems to be for km, so all switched. And yes, "Razing". Good spot, not sure how that happened. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:16, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Okay, I believe all of my comments are addressed so I reckon I can let it pass. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:28, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Source review by Fiamh—passEdit

  • This article says that reprisals are per se forbidden by the Hague Conventions. According to this article, it's actually disputed amongst legal scholars:

The Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 avoided the issue of reprisals for “fear that express regulation might be interpreted as a legitimation of their use.”54 Some contend, however, that Article 50 of the 1907 Hague Regulations is the first primitive effort to codify the law of belligerent reprisals. That article reads: “No general penalty, pecuniary or otherwise,shall be inflicted upon the population on account of the acts of individuals for which they cannot be regarded as jointly and severally responsible.”5

  • The post-war WWII trials tended to follow the position that reprisals were legal if they met certain criteria (p. 99).
  • Rogers, R. L. (1989). and Foster, Tony (2000) appear to be self-published sources, what makes them reliable?
Rogers is printed by the Lincoln and Welland Regiment. It is their official history. I don't see that as "self published".
Foster: I am not sure where you are getting that from. The first edition was published by Methuen and jointly authored by the Mazal Holocaust Collection, which is about as RS as I can imagine. See WorldCat
You might consider listing the regiment as the publisher, as Google Books does, although it's fine either way. Foster is currently listed as published by the vanity press iUniverse but as long as the previous edition was published by a credible publisher it is fine.
D'oh! I have no idea why I didn't do that. Even when you queried it, it didn't occur to me. Over focused I think - been working on this for too long. Done.
The copy I accessed was by iUniverse. I didn't realise that it was dubious - the book itself is so obviously scholarly. No idea how iU ended up printing an edition. I understand your point now, but the actual text is impeccably scholarly and RS. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:00, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Good point. Both done.

Other comments

  • Reprisal should be linked in the lede and first occurrence in the body
Reprisal links to "A reprisal is a limited and deliberate violation of international law to punish another sovereign state that has already broken them ... " That is not what is meant here. I couldn't find an article on reprisal in the Hague Convention sense, which is why it is unlinked. However, spurred by you, I have found collective punishment which more or less fits, and I could link it to there; what do you think?
  • Some German civilians joined the fighting and were believed to have killed several Canadian soldiers. This seems like an important detail. Shouldn't it be in the lede? Currently, if you just read the lede, you'd think that the only justification for this attack was the misattribution of the commander's death to German civilians.
That quote is from the "Context" section, sub-section "Battle for Sögel"; which was 4 days before the "Battle for Friesoythe" (new section) and 21 miles away. So it didn't justify the razing of Friesoythe. It was used as a justification for the illegal partial razing of Sogel, which is covered in the lead: "A few days earlier the division had destroyed the centre of Sögel in another reprisal and also used the rubble to make the roads passable." There wasn't even an attempt to use it to justify the razing of Friesoythe, for which, as you say 'the only justification for this attack was the misattribution of the commander's death to German civilians'. The Sogel reprisal is mentioned partly as part of the background and leadup to Friesoythe, and partly because it arguably (probably) put the Canadians "in the mood" to believe that they had been attacked by civilians - and perhaps it was easier to raze a town if you had done something similar a few days earlier. But the sources don't explicitly say that, so I am careful not to.
@Fiamh: I do like a reviewer who is rigorous and has a good poke at an article. Thank you. I have covered everything except your first major point about what a reprisal is. I want to save what I have so far, then get my thoughts and sources together for that; so I will be back with the balance of my response shortly. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:25, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
@Fiamh: My apologies for the delay on getting back to you on this. RL, my health and WP have all become busy. I am aware of this and should respond soon. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:28, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Fiamh. Apologies for taking so long to get back to you. Right then.

The paper you quote above is discussing "belligerent reprisals", which is something different from "reprisals". Belligerent reprisals are defined by the author as "Effectively, belligerent reprisals allow for derogation from the laws of armed conflict to ensure compliance with those same laws." They also distinguish them from "reprisals": "Belligerent reprisals, therefore, bear many of the characteristics of reprisals in general". To support my use of "reprisals with nothing to explain explain or qualify it I shall quote from some of the sources of the article:

  • Official History of the Canadian Army in the Second World War: "Accordingly, as a reprisal and a warning, a number of houses in the centre of Sögel were ordered destroyed"
  • The memoirs of the author of the official history: "a result a great part of the town of Friesoythe was set on fire in a mistaken reprisal. This unfortunate episode only came to my notice and thus got into the pages of history because I was in Friesoythe at the time and saw people being turned out of their houses and the houses burned. How painfully easy it is for the business of "reprisals" to get out of hand."
  • The Canadian Encyclopedia: "Vokes ordered the burning and levelling of the town's buildings in reprisal."
  • Briddescombe: "reported that the town had been burned down by American occupiers as a reprisal for persistent sniping."
  • Williams: "The Germans had to be taught a lesson – keep to the rules of war or suffer reprisals."

Another modern, popular source:

  • Atkinson: "When a sniper took a potshot ... Patton ordered German houses burned in retaliation."

Note that Hague IV, Article 23, prohibits acts that "destroy or seize the enemy's property... "

Not sure if I have fully addressed your point here, but see what you think. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:02, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

@Fiamh: While you are making your mind up on this can I flag up that in meeting a request by Nick-D I have added an additional source - Atkinson. I don't see that this will cause any problems, but I needed to let you know. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:42, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I would agree with you that the Friesoythe case was not a "belligerent reprisal" because the German side had not actually broken the law of war. However, arguably the Sögel case was, because civilians are unlawful combatants and it could be argued that burning the town was justified because it would discourage similar illegal actions in the future. I can't see the Briddiscombe source to see exactly what he wrote, but it might be an improvement on the current wording ("Vokes was aware that these actions violated the Hague Conventions") to say instead something like, "Vokes believed that these actions violated the Hague Conventions" or simply that he avoided issuing written instructions and let the reader draw their own conclusion. Fiamh (talk, contribs) 20:56, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Biddiscombe does not share your view that destruction of civilian property, outside immediate battle circumstances, ie ever legal. Vokes did this as a policy "even though he knew that this measure violated the Hague rules" (p 258). Brode, in Casual Slaughters and Accidental Judgements: Canadian War Crimes Prosecutions, 1944–1948 (another source in the article) says in passing of Vokes "Strict adherence to the Geneva Convention was not a high priority." (p 105). Google around and there are numerous examples of Vokes attitude. Specifically, I would like to stay with what the source states - "knew". But Peacemaker wants me to dig a bit to find supporting sources on the breach of the Hague Convention front, so that may through up something extra one way or the other. (I thought that I had cracked it "Vokes admitted that he had acted outside of the rules of war", but it relates to Friesoythe. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:10, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Image review—passEdit

@Fiamh: Thanks for taking this on. My responses below.
  • Quotebox. It doesn't on any of the six screens I have just checked it on. (And no one else has mentioned this.) So it is difficult for me to be sure if I have fixed it, but I have tweaked the dimensions and would be grateful if you could check if it resolves the problem.
  • Yes, one would have thought so. But, strictly, one doesn't. The images are from the Library and Archives Canada which state that the copyright has expired. I wrote to them and got the following response:
Your request for copyright permission for material from our collections has been received by Copyright Services of Library and Archives Canada.

Because the photos are Crown images that were published for over 50 years, the material is now in the public domain. Which means that the copyright protection has expired and there are no other restrictions applicable to this material. Therefore, it may be used freely without seeking permission or paying royalties. We would ask that you kindly acknowledge the source as follows:

Photo: Personnel of The Lake Superior Regiment (Motor) with a captured German flag, Friesoythe, Germany, 16 April 1945 Source: Library and Archives Canada/Department of National Defence fonds/a167250

Photo: Brigadier R.W. Moncel (left) and Major-General Christopher Vokes, General Officer Commanding 4th Canadian Armoured Division,observing a German counter-attack, Sogel, Germany, 10 April 1945 Source: Library and Archives Canada/Department of National Defence fonds/a159242

Please note that identifying our institution “Library and Archives Canada” in the credits will be sufficient when material is being used in video/film format.

Sincerely,

Eric Mineault

Spécialiste des droits et des licenses, Direction générale des services au public

Bibliothèque et Archives Canada / Gouvernement du Canada

The ACR image reviewer commented "I think it is fine regardless, though it would be nice if they give us the real publication date. The email you received was very clear." So I wrote again, asking for a precise publication date and was told, a little tartly:

As these photographs which were taken by Alex Stirton while enlisted in the Canadian Army, they are Government of Canada material. While we don’t know the exact date the photo was published, they generally would have been published (most likely around the date they were created) in Canada to inform the population of the activities of the Canadian forces in Europe.

Canadian Military Photographers:

http://www.bac-lac.gc.ca/eng/discover/military-heritage/second-world-war/faces-second-war/Pages/faces-second-world-war.aspx#e

Government of Canada photos can be used if the Government of Canada approves of the intended use. Government of Canada material does not fall under copyright restrictions of any other country (e.g. the 70 rule of the U.S. and Europe) as the copyright belongs to the Government of Canada.

Therefore, we consider these photos as © Expired (Crown material published for more than 50 years) and, because they are Crown photos, they are expired no matter where they are used. In fact, Wikipedia is full of expired Government of Canada material.

Please let us know if you have any additional questions with this request.

Sincerely,

Eric Mineault

Services des droits d'auteur

Bibliothèque et Archives Canada / Gouvernement du Canada

That seems definitive to me. If you would like a copy of the original email thread, drop me an email and I'll copy it to you.

Seperately, I note that what is actually required for the image to be PD in Canada is that it be created prior to the end of 1948. Which these were. (10 and 16 April 1945.) And that they are PD in the US if if they were in the public domain in its home country (Canada) on 1 January 1996, which these were. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:32, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Nick-DEdit

As noted in the nomination statement, I've added a para or two worth of material to this article and just copy edited it, so I won't vote. I'd like to make the following suggestions though:

  • The sentence starting with "However, SHAEF's manual Combating the Guerrilla" is a bit over-long and over-complex
Removed tangential material to simplify. Better?
  • The "context" section would probably benefit from material about attitudes by this stage of the war. The Allied troops were fed up by the irrational German resistance to inevitable defeat, especially when it led to casualties in the closing weeks of the war. The Germans had also committed retaliatory actions and other war crimes targeted at civilians on a vast scale across Europe. This led to there being very little sympathy for them.
I'll see what I can find.
I'll also try to dig some stuff up here. The last period of the war on the western front was much more brutal than is often recognised. If German troops and towns surrendered, as they usually did, the troops treated them pretty well. If they put up a fight or were associated with concentration or death camps the Allied troops were ruthless. Nick-D (talk) 22:16, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
  • The quote from Vokes in the 'Aftermath' section looks a bit NPOV. The Canadian troops did in fact conduct themselves very well, on the whole.
Well yes. As Vokes says. I am not sure that I see a POV issue in flagging up that Vokes praised the generally good behaviour of his troops and acknowledged Friesoythe and felt, forty years after the event, "[a] feeling of no great remorse over the elimination of Friesoythe." It seems to accurately reflect his views. We may consider them contradictory, but I don't think that I editorialise that in.
Although you and he may have got an argument on your POVs from the 1945 inhabitants of Sogel, Friesoythe and Garrel.
  • " Vokes heard the appeal against his death sentence of convicted German war criminal Kurt Meyer" - should 'his' be 'the' here? It would be odd for Vokes to handle an appeal against a sentence he handed down.
You are correct, and changed. In my defence, Vokes heard the appeal, and confirmed the death sentence. Later, in the bureaucratically different position of the senior Canadian officer (remaining) in theatre, he heard the final appeal and overruled his earlier decision[!] So technically/pedantically he was hearing the appeal against his earlier decision. Which is where "his" crept in from. But a reader doesn't need to know all that.

Nick-D (talk) 22:26, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Nick-D. thanks for the copy edit. Your points above addressed. I agree re point two and will have a search around. German units had also committed well-publicised massacres of Canadian prisoners in Normandy less than a year before, and I don't suppose that helped. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:51, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
@Nick-D: New section inserted as discussed. It could probably do with a fairly hard look over. Let me know what you think? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:39, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi Nick: Thanks once again for your help all along with this article. Any more suggestions or comments? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:09, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by PMEdit

I looked at this at Milhist ACR, and have reviewed the changes since then. I have a few comments:

  • suggest "attacked the German-held town of Friesoythe" also, as they are advancing into north-west Germany, "German" town of Friesoythe is redundant
True. Done.
  • "the 1st Battalion, The Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders (Princess Louise's) captured the town" also in the body when first introducing the battalion
Done.
  • suggest "Forty years afterwardslater"
Done.
  • in the infobox, "Photograph A Stirton, Library and Archives Canada" isn't required in the caption, it just needs to be on the image description page for attribution, same with the later photo
That wasn't how I read it, but so long as you're sure. (You need to tell that to all of the reviewers who insist that I add "from an illuminated manuscript by Froissart" to images from the 14th C.) Done.
  • in the infobox, given this involves the destruction of the town, a result of "Canadian victory" seems incongruous, perhaps "Destruction of the town" would be better?
I'm going for both. OK by you?
  • "Over the following six months they overran much of western Germany"
Done. Although that was deliberate. Surely they overran all of western Germany? (Or near enough. Plus parts of southern and central Germany.)
  • for "although this was in breach of the Hague Conventions" I would expect a more specialised source than Briddiscombe on the legality of reprisals under the law of armed conflict as it applied at the time. Briddiscombe is fine for the description of the manual, but the legal issue needs a legal source
I will see what I can find and get back to you.
  • "than any other Canadian unitformation" in the Commonwealth context a corps, division or brigade is a formation, a battalion is a unit
Done.
  • in general, I think there is an over-reliance on Briddiscombe for discussion of laws of armed conflict issues in the context section, these matters should be cited to specialist law of armed conflict literature, in preference to a book on the Nazi resistance to invasion, regardless of its obviously academic status
Biddiscombe seems a reliable enough source to me - [2] - and this work was his PhD thesis at LSE - [3] - so it will have received a good kicking.
I'm not saying it is unreliable, just that a better source would be preferred on the laws of armed conflict issues. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:47, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
Umm. Well I will dig into the sources Biddiscombe uses to support this and see what I can find. Gog the Mild (talk) 02:08, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
The big advantage of Biddiscombe is that he is explicitly discussing the laws of armed conflict as they applied to this and similar incidents. It's fairly difficult to apply more general sources here, given that the laws of armed conflict as they applied in World War II were complex and not always at all sensible (for instance, it appears to have perfectly legal to area bomb cities directly targeting civilians as long as the city was protected by any anti-aircraft defences - this wasn't outlawed until after the war). Nick-D (talk) 04:47, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
I've done a bit of a search for sources, and haven't been able to find anything comprehensive on the state of play in WWII, so I'm dropping this one. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:17, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Lake Superior Regiment (Motor)→1st Battalion, The Lake Superior Regiment (Motor)
Done.
  • "The paratroopers repelled an attack by the Lake Superior Regiment"→"The paratroopers repelled an attack by the 1st Battalion, The Lake Superior Regiment (Motor)"
Done.
  • resumption of the attack by the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders→resumption of the attack by the 1st Battalion, The Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders (Princess Louise's)

Done

  • "Vokes' executive officer" generally this would mean his GSO1 (head of the operations staff), I assume we are talking about whomever "Mac" was?
That was my assumption, but I am using the nomenclature of the source.
It's just a bit odd, because XOs weren't a thing in Commonwealth armies (I think they were in the US Army). Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:47, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
We had an edit conflict. I have rephrased and resourced. Hopefully it is now both more accurate and easier to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 02:05, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • The Algonquin Regiment→1st Battalion, The Algonquin Regiment, also, were these battalions all part of the same brigade, if so, which one?
Done.
I believe so. I will check. Why? Because that should be mentioned if so?
Yes, if they were all part of the one brigade I would say so. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:47, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
It turns out that they weren't, but I have included details of the main divisional components, largely via footnotes. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:48, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
  • who is Mark Zuehlk? historian/author?
Oops. Added
  • "the appeal against histhe death sentence"
Done. (But see above under similar point from Nick.
  • there are a couple of 13-digit ISBNs with missing hyphens
Replaced with what it actually says in the books.

That's all I have. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:53, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Peacemaker67. Thanks, that is great. More sloppiness than usual from me, so thanks for being patient with it. All points addressed; a couple I need to research and come back on. Gog the Mild (talk) 01:21, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
I've looked for sources on the one outstanding point, and haven't been able to find anything much, so I'm moving to support. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:17, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Comments by ReidgregEdit

A little copy edit from a fresh set of eyes:

Done. Always something new to learn from the MoS.
There's a lot of style variance on that in English; sometimes the final s is written and not pronounced, sometimes it's pronounced and not written. MOS includes it for consistency.
  • Other soldiers fanned out down side streets, throwing phosphorus grenades or improvised Molotov cocktails made from petrol containers into buildings. Could "made from petrol containers" be parentheisized or struck? Or would it work any better as: throwing phosophorous grenades or petrol containers, improvised into Molotov cocktails, into buildings. Come to think of it, that should probably be and rather than or if the soldiers collectively threw both kinds of devices.
What is the objection? Striking it loses the information that what was being thrown was very considerably nastier than a "standard" Molotov cocktail. Your rephrasing, forgive me, to my eye reads clunkily. Happy to rephrase some other way, but it would be nice to know why. "or" changed to 'and'. Although I and a little unsure that "other soldiers" is collective.
Would 'In the side streets, Canadian soldiers threw petrol containers into buildings and ignited them with phosphorus grenades.' work?
I don't think there's anything grammatically wrong with it, I just felt that it might be a bit much to digest and thought there might be potential to make it simpler or clearer. The object of the dependent clause phosphorus grenades or improvised Molotov cocktails made from petrol containers is a bit long and creates a lot of separation between throwing and into buildings, and some readers might pause at its construction. The alternative you suggested is much better (I might strike Canadian as assumed). From the original phrasing, I'd thought that the petrol containers had their own improvised ignition device and acted on their own as Molotov cocktails; the new phrasing is clearer and makes more sense. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:16, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Reidgreg Apologies if I am getting touchy. Now that you point it out, even a slow-wit such as myself can see the over long dependent clause. And I was certainly assuming more knowledge of the mechanics of mid-century military arson in a reader than was reasonable. Thanks for poking at it. Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:45, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
No need; it is my obligation to explain why a change would be an improvement. I had a laugh at mechanics of mid-century military arson (nice alliteration). Hope you are feeling better.
Thanks Reidgreg. You should see my actual poetry. I am, I think, fairly phlegmatic about the ACR/FAC process; but as the first article I wrote I suspect that I am overprotective about this one. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:11, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • The Brockhaus Enzyklopaedie, estimates the destruction to be as high as 90 percent. Lose the comma and change: be → have been.
Grr. Thank you. Done.

That's all I noticed that hasn't already been mentioned, above. Thanks again for this great article! – Reidgreg (talk) 21:42, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Reidgreg. As you know, I always feel happier when you have looked over an article. Your points above addressed, with a query against the second. Gog the Mild (talk) 02:04, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Comments from SnowFireEdit

This isn't a full review, just two quick grammar nits.

"In the event the village was spared."

Probably caught up in editing, but this is a sentence fragment that got cut off somewhere.

  • No. It has always been like that, and looks fine to me. However, I have changed the preceding full stop to a semi colon. Does that address your concern?
No, it doesn't, but I'm not sure what the sense of the sentence is, so I'm afraid to fix it myself. A semicolon is equivalent to a full stop, so this is still a fragment. This sets up a hypothetical situation but doesn't resolve it (Conditional sentence). It's like saying "If I went to the laundry." It's unfinished; it needs to be something like "If I went to the laundry, I would retrieve my clothes." So - what happened? Was Garrel spared? If so, I would rephrase along the lines of
... the battalion commander, Wigle's brother-in-law, ordered that "every building which did not show a white flag be fired". Regardless, the village was ultimately spared.
"In the event" replaced with 'Regardless,'.
(talk page stalker) FYI, my dictionary says "in the event" is chiefly British in use. I can see someone misreading that as "In the event that the village was spared" and expect more to follow. North Americans might say "as it turned out", which has the potential to be confusing as well. Is "as it transpired/occurred/happened" any better? "Regardless" works but might seem a little dismissive. My initial reading was that, while perhaps not every building showed a white flag (the record being unspecific on this), that no broad punitive action was taken; also, that the soldiers were put on high alert but didn't meet opposition. – Reidgreg (talk) 04:30, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Reidgreg, I was puzzled as to why SnowFire wanted me to change the sentence in a way which didn't seem to change its meaning but seemed to me to be clumsier. As Canadian English is not my strong suit I made the change, but now I understand why. The original is unambiguous in British English, but clearly doesn't travel well. How about 'Before it could be carried out the order was countermanded and the village was spared.'? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:35, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Ah, if that's what the sources say that happened, then yes. I'd hope most Canadians would have understood the original, but for an international readership some would probably have a minor stumble at it. – Reidgreg (talk) 13:10, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
It is. I was trying to be succinct, but as you say there is an international audience, so it needs spelling out. Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:39, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
There was no investigation by Canadian authorities of the damage or the civilian casualties. In 2010, the historian Mark Zuehlke wrote, "No evidence of a deliberate cover up exists."

This isn't responsive to the previous sentence. "Didn't bother to investigate" is different from "investigated, but then buried or modified the report." Needs clarification for what Zuehlke was responding to, or else a comment from a historian on the general lack of interest in investigating, or else actual claims a cover-up happened. SnowFire (talk) 16:57, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Again I am afraid that I am missing your point. The second sentence you quote isn't especially meant to be responsive to the first; no more does the first sentence you quote respond to the one preceding it. I am aware that the two you quote are communicating different things. I could add to the Zuehlke sentence 'In 2010, referring to the Friesoythe incident the historian Mark Zuehlke wrote, "No evidence of a deliberate cover up exists.' but I don't want to as I consider it to be clearly implied. Apologies if I am being slow, but could you elaborate your concern?
  • Nothing in the article even raises the possibility of a cover-up, so it's jarring to see a historian saying there's no evidence of one. Who was alleging this to begin with? What is this responding to in the article? It's as if the sentence was:
In 2010, referring to the Friesoythe incident, the historian Mark Zuehlke wrote, "No evidence that the 4th Canadian Armoured was actually the British Guards Armoured Division wearing Canadian uniforms exists."
Wait, what? Were we supposed to think that was a possibility in the first place? Zuehlke needs some clarification here - either add in who alleged a cover-up, or clarify what Zuehlke meant. (That there was no malice in not investigating the matter, I suppose?) . SnowFire (talk) 19:30, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
OK. Understood. (I think.) It is a couple of years since I wrote that, but rereading Zuehlke he is responding directly to the official history's summary. (Much as you had surmised might be the case.) So I have reworded it and moved it to immediately after this in the article. Better?
  • Hi SnowFire. Thanks for dropping by and for the comments. Both responded to above. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:25, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
@SnowFire: Further responses above. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:22, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Comments Support from AnythingyouwantEdit

  • The lead says, "During the fighting the battalion's commander was killed by a German soldier and it was rumoured that he had been killed by a civilian" (emphasis added). Should this "and" be a "but"? Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:44, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Weell. I could argue it both ways, but frankly, I am not sure it is that important. I have changed to "but", and added "incorrectly".
  • The lead says the town was "substantially destroyed." Many readers will assume that means the town's population was substantially destroyed. This is a key point, so the lead ought to be and could be explicit about it without saying much at all. For example, the town's buildings were substantially destroyed leaving X former inhabitants as refugees. Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:44, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I just don't see how this can be, reasonably, misread. The text reads "it was substantially destroyed"; why might a reader think that that involved any loss of life? If it weren't clear enough, it is in the context of "ordered that the town be razed ... and it was substantially destroyed" which to my reading makes it even clearer. Could you elaborate on how you think "Many readers will assume that means the town's population was substantially destroyed"?
Well, if you raze a house, it's kind of significant whether anyone was inside. Hiroshima and Dresden were razed, and a lot of people got killed as a result. The body of this article says, "During the fighting around Friesoythe and its aftermath, ten civilians from the town" were killed. Presumably that includes both the fight to take the town plus the subsequent action to raze it. This sort of info would be very relevant in the lead regardless of whether it was clearing up any misimpression, in order to help put this incident in proper perspective, and/but I do think it also clears up a potential misimpression because if Godzilla were to step on just about any town in the world, a lot of people would be killed, whereas a lot of people were not killed during this razing (perhaps because the houses were cleared before they were razed or because most inhabitants had already evacuated, or whatever). Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:16, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Anythingyouwant: OK. Adding something on civilian losses to the lead seems reasonable. But bear in mind that it is not known how any of them died. They could have been killed in the first attack; during the second; during the razing; some or all may have been executed by the German paratroopers; some may have died of natural causes. I have tweaked the lead. And tweaked the paragraphing while I was there. See what you think. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:10, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
  • The lead says, "There has been no investigation by Canadian authorities of the event." Normally, a lead should avoid saying what has not happened, or what has not been done, or what has not been said, because such things are always infinitely numerous and picking them out requires judgment and opinion. It would be much better to say something like, X called for an investigation by Canadian authorities but to no avail. Otherwise, it just sounds like a Wikipedia editor thinks an investigation might be wise, or should have been done. Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:55, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Fair enough. Removed.
  • The lead paragraph is kind of long. I would suggest inserting a new sentence after the first sentence, and then breaking off the rest into a new paragraph. The new sentence could briefly say why the event was (or is) noteworthy, e.g. this was one of only X towns known to have been razed by Canadian (or allied) troops during that year.
It is only seven short to medium length sentences long. However, happy to split it, which I have done. I can't add the text you suggest as it is not in the main article. And it's not there because I don't have a source which says that. If you have one then sharing it would be much appreciated.
This isn’t an area in which I have expertise. However, at the article talk page User:Nick-D said “while it was unusually cold-blooded, similar events occured across Germany....” Something like that would be great in the lead paragraph if it can be backed up by a reliable source. Of course, without a reliable source, it should not go in. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:11, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Anythingyouwant: Sorry, missed this. Yes, the article details at least a couple of others. There was Sogel for a start, the Americans were bad for this, especially Patton (mentioned) and the French worse. So I have added a sentence to the lead. And re-tweaked the paragraphs! Gog the Mild (talk) 23:22, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:00, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant: Many thanks for taking a look at this. Your points above all addressed, a couple with queries. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:27, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
My pleasure, cheers. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:11, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
My concerns have been persuasively addressed, flaws in the article have been redressed, and the opposite of a dressing-down is appropriate: I support FA status for this article. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:29, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Query for the coordinatorsEdit

@WP:FAC coordinators: Hi all. I was wondering if I could have permission to post another nomination. I am painfully aware that this one hasn't attracted a character's worth of review for a month, so if your view is that I should be scaring up further reviewers for here, rather than thinking about my next one, I would entirely understand. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:55, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Gog, I think we're at a stage where it'd be fair for you to start another. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:39, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

@Nick-D, Reidgreg, and SnowFire:, did you have anything to add? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:54, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Nothing to add from me; my lack of a support vote is to avoid bias as I've advised on this article for a while. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:16, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
I was just doing passing grammar nits - as noted that was not a review, and my later silence should not be taken as code for "I disapprove but don't want to say so." If there is a desire from the coordinators for another pair of eyes on some specific aspect I can take a look, but otherwise happy to stand back and let the article presumably be promoted. SnowFire (talk) 02:46, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
@Ian Rose: note that Nick hasn't edited since 26 December. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:17, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, he's out of town, it was really a courtesy ping. I'll aim to go through this one again sometime tonight my time. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:06, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Looking to promote but I think we can improve the opening...

The Razing of Friesoythe took place on 14 April 1945 during the Western Allies' invasion of Germany towards the end of World War II. -- Bit of a mouthful but gets the key points across so okay.
In mid-April the 4th Canadian (Armoured) Division, advancing into north-west Germany, attacked the German-held town of Friesoythe. -- With this we've mentioned German(y) three times in two sentences, I think we can safely lose "advancing into north-west Germany".
"advancing into north-west Germany" chopped.
The Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders of Canada captured the town. -- Nothing wrong with this per se but then...
During the fighting the battalion's commander was killed by a German soldier; but it was incorrectly rumoured... -- What battalion? According to the link the Argylls is a regiment. Also no need for a semi-colon before the "but" -- a comma would do fine, perhaps even nothing at all.
I'm assuming that the regiment/battalion query is rhetorical. (Let me know if not.) I have amended the opening paragraph to both, I think, flow better and cover this point. If that doesn't work for you, how about if I replace "the battalion's commander" with 'the Argylls' commander'. Would that be comprehensible to a reader without '(the Argylls)' being inserted after the battalions first mention in the previous sentence? (The mini-paragraphed lead happened during FAC.)
Semi colon removed. It accreted during the FAC process.
Tks Gog, yeah we needed to identify the Argylls as a battalion because we hadn't when it was first mentioned (you have now, tks) and anyone hovering over the link would have seen it identified as a regiment ("regiment" means different things in different armies but it's not synonymous with "battalion" in my experience). Anyway it's all good now AFAIC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:06, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:59, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Ian. Your points above all addressed. One with a query. (I hope that my comment re Nick wasn't taken as a nag, it wasn't intended as.) Gog the Mild (talk) 14:33, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Not at all... :-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:06, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments from Tim rileyEdit

A place-marker. I'll be back with comments shortly if the review is still open. Tim riley talk 20:48, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy to support. A few very minor quibbles:

  • Allied tactics
  • You and I, Gog, often agree to differ over what should and shouldn't have Wiki-links, but I really do think linking "Canadian formation" is decidedly WP:OVERLINK; in fact if I were Canadian I'd be a bit miffed to think my country was supposed to need a blue link, when "British" and "German" don't (and they certainly don't).
I am definitely an opponent of overlinking, and if you look at my responses to CPA-5 - the first reviewer, bless them, above - you will see that I was attempting to hold some sort of line. They requested the link for Canadian - the third bullet point of the page. I have unlinked it, and hopefully this will not cause CPA-5 to withdraw their support.
It's non-negotiable, really. The MoS (WP:OL) specifically says don't link major countries. Any editor maintaining that Canada is not a major country (I don't think Donald Trump edits Wikipedia – he's not smart enough) should take it up with Mr Trudeau. Tim riley talk 23:22, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Battle for Sögel
  • "a number of houses in the centre of Sögel" – "a number of" is a woolly phrase, that tells your readers nothing very much. A few? A lot? Some?
I entirely agree Tim, and would urge you to complain to the editors of the Official History of the Canadian Army in the Second World War from which it is quoted. Damn slippery folk these military historians. If you suspect that this is a euphemism for "we blasted the hell out of the centre of the town, but no hard feelings, eh?", then I couldn't possibly comment.
Ah! Point taken. Tim riley talk 23:22, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Destruction of Friesoythe
  • "The author Max Hastings" – second time we've been introduced to him and his job title
The dangers of dynamic editing. Fixed.
  • Civilian casualties and damage
  • I don't feel in the least strongly about it, but "percent" (twice) is, I think, more usually given as "per cent" in BrE.
You are no doubt correct. Changed.
  • Aftermath
  • The Lincoln and Welland Regiment – linked twice in successive sentences.
One can have too much of a good thing? For a total of three in the main article, and I have been inconsistent in capitalising their name. Corrected.
  • "panzerfaust" – surely needs a capital letter?
Opinion is divided, but much to my surprise an initial capitalisation seems to be favoured by scholars. (If not by the source from which I drew the account.) So changed.
  • Post-war
  • "the death sentence of convicted German war criminal Kurt Meyer" – clunky false title.
Ah. Changed to "Kurt Meyer, a convicted German war criminal". Better?
Much. Tim riley talk 23:22, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
  • "an attempt at a cover up" – the OED hyphenates the noun "cover-up"
I swear that the editors of the OED get some sort of thrill out of using hyphens. Dashed.

Nothing of any great consequence there. A sorry tale, scrupulously told. Well referenced and illustrated, carefully balanced and well proportioned. Happy to add my support. Tim riley talk 21:36, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for dropping by Tim. A sad tale indeed. If this was a normal fighting day for a Canadian division, one gets some idea of how dire war is. Your comments addressed. Amazing how much slop gets through to such a late stage. And thank you for your generous words. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:07, 26 December 2019 (UTC)


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

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


The Emperor's New SchoolEdit

Nominator(s): Aoba47 (talk) 08:41, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello everyone! This article is about a television spin-off to the 2000 movie The Emperor's New Groove. It aired for two seasons from 2006 to 2008 on the Disney Channel. In it, Kuzco is required to attend the public high school, Kuzco Academy, before he can become the emperor of the Inca Empire. Episodes use physical comedy and often break the fourth wall. Although the critical response was mixed, the cast did receive awards and nominations for their work. I would greatly appreciate any recommendations to improve the article. Thank you in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 08:41, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Comments by FrB.TGEdit

  • "In it, Kuzco is required to attend" - this reads too sudden in my opinion. I suggest rewording it to something along the lines of "The show centers on the character Kuzco who is required to attend".
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 21:11, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you for fixing my above edit for this. Aoba47 (talk) 21:37, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "disguises herself as the school's principal in an attempt to cause him to fail his classes so she can become empress herself" - by "herself" I assume that they are both competing against each other for the same thing - an emperor (male or female). Is that the case here?
  • I have removed "herself". The word "empress" is always used in connection to the character "Yzma" as opposed to "emperor" with "Kuzco". I hope that makes sense. Aoba47 (talk) 21:11, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "It was the first television series to have a debut across these four platforms; it was" - to avoid "it was... it was" I suggest replacing the second "it" with an "and".
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 21:11, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "The Emperor's New School received a mixed response; Malina's representation was one criticism" - I would like to see what aspects of the show received positive response.
  • There were a few points that received praise (the transition from film to television, the animated backgrounds, the humor, and the voice acting), but I am uncertain about putting these points into the lead because they were made by individual commentators and would not necessarily reflect a consensus from an overall critical commentary. I included the Malina criticism in the lead for instance because it was brought in two reviews. However, I would be more than happy to add something to the lead about the positive response, but I just wanted to explain my perspective first. I could be completely wrong. Aoba47 (talk) 21:27, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "Jeanne Spreier, writing for The Dallas Morning News, said the show based its humor in one-line jokes" - shouldn't this be based "on"?
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 21:11, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "According to Disney Channels' Worldwide president Gary Marsh" - this should be Disney Channels Worldwide's president in my opinion.
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 21:11, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "The Walt Disney Company first approached Gannaway about the series "a few years" after" - I am failing to understand the significance of "a few years" being in quotes.
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 22:05, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

More to come. FrB.TG (talk) 20:03, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Thank you for the comments so far, and apologies for some of the silly mistakes in the article. Hope you had an awesome Halloween and have a great start to your weekend. Aoba47 (talk) 21:27, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I read through the rest of the article, and don't have anything else to quibble about. This is a nice work. Support. FrB.TG (talk) 19:34, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Thank you for the support and the review. I hope you have a wonderful rest of your weekend. Aoba47 (talk) 20:22, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Source reviewEdit

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Some of the details in the infobox, for example the credit for Scharlach, don't appear to be cited anywhere
  • Revised. I believe that everything should be cited now. Aoba47 (talk) 18:15, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Some of the release details remain unsourced. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:19, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I am assuming you are referring to the picture and audio format parts? I just want to double-check first. Aoba47 (talk) 18:28, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I have removed those bits of information as I cannot find a third-party citation for it. Aoba47 (talk) 18:35, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • FN2: date doesn't match source
  • Are you refraining to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette citation? From what I can see the date in the article (January 26, 2006) already matches the date in the source (January 26, 2006). Aoba47 (talk) 18:08, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Source says January 25. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:19, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I have checked the source again, and I do not see where it says January 25. Under the byline (at least on my end), it says (JAN 26, 2006). Aoba47 (talk) 18:49, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Very odd - definitely says January 25 under the byline on my side. Perhaps it adjusts based on local time. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:16, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
  • That is very strange. Next to the date, it has the time (12:00 AM) on my end. Does it have a different time for you? What would you recommend that I do for this? Apologies for all the back-and-forth on my part, and thank you again for the help. Aoba47 (talk) 23:24, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Ah, it is a time-zone issue - mine gives 11PM. Let's just leave as-is. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:26, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the response. I will definitely make sure to remember this for the future. Aoba47 (talk) 23:27, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
  • FN5: should include page number, and is this an authorized publication?
  • I believe that Animation Magazine is an authorized and reliable source. I have added the page numbers. Aoba47 (talk) 18:08, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I was referring to the republication on Scribd. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:19, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I think it should be fine, but I have replaced the citation style with the one for journals and took out the url to avoid this. Aoba47 (talk) 18:26, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • FN14 should include agency
  • Is there any particular reason why the agency should be cited here? I was just wondering because I do not cite the agency for any of the other newspaper sources in the article. Aoba47 (talk) 18:16, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • If there are other cases where there is an agency, it should also be included. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:19, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I am really confused by this. I have never had to cite agencies when using newspaper citations in previous FACs. Is there any particular reason why this is necessary? I hope that I do not sound rude, but I was just curious about this because it was different from my prior FAC experiences. Aoba47 (talk) 18:41, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • In the case of FN14, the agency credit stands in place of the author credit in providing appropriate attribution. More broadly, technically the documentation for {{cite news}} states it should be included when different from work and publisher, although when there's an author named I tend not to fuss with it. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:16, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the explanation. That makes perfect sense to me. I have added the publication agency to the citation. Apologies for the confusion on my part. Aoba47 (talk) 23:22, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
  • FN15 should italicize work title
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 18:08, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • FN16: page?
  • In that case suggest including a location parameter. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:19, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • What is a location parameter? Aoba47 (talk) 18:26, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Never mind, the book does not use page numbers, but it does include an index that has the page numbers so I was able to locate it and add it to the article. Aoba47 (talk) 18:37, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • FN19: La is part of the surname, not given name. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:49, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Corrected. Aoba47 (talk) 18:08, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: Thank you for your review! I believe that I have addressed everything. Apologies for some of the silly mistakes. Have a great rest of your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 18:17, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

  • @Nikkimaria: Apologies for the second ping. Just wanted to make sure you knew that I responded to your points. I am only confused by two points (the publication for Reference 2 and the publication agency inclusion). Thank you again! Aoba47 (talk) 20:34, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Comments by KailashEdit

This article is in amazing shape, so I won't have many comments. Here are some for a start:

  • Though I prefer "show" over series, I still think "show" is informal.
  • Just wanted to check before making changes. Would you prefer if I replaced all the instances of "show" with "series"? Aoba47 (talk) 16:38, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • The lead says the series received mixed reviews, but the "Critical reception" doesn't use the word "mixed". Please maintain consistency.--Kailash29792 (talk) 05:04, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 16:38, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Support: I have no further comment. I'm pretty sure there are other guys to do proofreading. Also, please consult with others whether "show" needs to be replaced with "series". It was just my personal view, in the way that "movie" is often discouraged in favour of "film". --Kailash29792 (talk) 03:18, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Thank you for the support. I will go through the article shortly and replace the "show" instances with "series". I do not have a preference either way, but I understand your point and I might as well do it anyway. Let me know if you need any help with any of your projects. Aoba47 (talk) 05:00, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Comments from MoiseEdit

Hi Aoba. Overall, there's quite a bit of good content and writing in the article, and is within reach of FA quality. Some comments:

  • "Malina's representation was one criticism". Not sure about use of "criticism" here. Maybe "one thing that was criticized".
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 17:00, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Would be nice to have more variety of sentence structures in the second and especially the third paragraph of the lead. Currently there are a lot of subject-verb-object sentences so it feels a little choppy.
  • I have attempted to fix this, but please let me know if further revision is necessary.
  • "However, episodes focus more on Kuzco learning life lessons". Here I'd suggest something other than "episodes". Maybe "the series" or "the story arc" or such.
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 17:41, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • The second half of the first paragraph of "Premise and characters" could also benefit from more variety of sentence structure. The last four sentences are all s-v-o and the last two start with "Her".
  • I have attempted to revise this, but please let me know if more works is needed. Aoba47 (talk) 17:41, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "Despite their strained relationship". Maybe this needs to be qualified. How is it strained?
  • I have removed it as I think the "contrasting lifestyles" part covers it. Aoba47 (talk) 17:41, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "In one instance, Pacha trains Kuzco for a physical education class". I wasn't sure if this was meant to be an example of "school projects". If so, I'm not sure that a physical education class would normally be considered a school project. But if this is not meant to be an example of a school project, and is just another way that Pacha helps Kuzco, then OK.
  • It was meant to be an example of one of the school projects. I have changed it to "school assignments" to hopefully address that. Aoba47 (talk) 17:41, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "and is one of the few characters who scolds him about his attitude". Is it clear by this part of the main text how his attitude is bad? (I didn't see it but I may have missed it.) If not, maybe this needs to be clarified for the reader here.
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 17:41, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "Other supporting characters include the Royal Records Keeper and Mr. Moleguaco". The reader can probably imagine to a degree what the role of the Royal Records Keeper might be, but is there anything that would be worthwhile to mention here about Mr. Moleguaco?
  • Clarified. Aoba47 (talk) 17:41, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "Although it is a sequel, Kuzco retains his narcissistic personality, causing some critics to associate him with the phrase "it's all about me". It's not clear to me the relationship between "Although it is a sequel" and "Kuzco retains his narcissistic personality", nor why "it's all about me" is relevant to the question of sequels.
  • That is a good point. I removed the "it's all about me" part. It was a slogan from the first film so it is not important for this article. However, I do think it is beneficial to mention how Kuzco's character development was ignored for the series, and I have tried to revise that part to better address it. I have seen a few people question how the show could be a sequel since it ignores this plot line from the film completely while also making casual references to the film. Continuity-wise, it is very weird. Please let me know what you think though. Aoba47 (talk) 18:22, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "However, the show does include reference to the original film". I'm not sure this works well as is. There's one example before this of the ending of the film being ignored, but I don't think readers are going to assume none of the story points in the film were kept. So it probably goes without saying that there is going to be some coherency between the film and TV series. Maybe you can salvage this last sentence of the paragraph but I'm not sure the exact best angle for it; also, if you do keep it, maybe flesh out what "Kronk's spinach puffs" refers to.
  • To be fair, there are two examples before that sentence (the Yzma being human part as the second one), but I think the main issue is with the transition being too strong. I have tried to revise this pat to be clearer, but please let me know what you think. I think it is beneficial to note what elements/gags were kept in the show. Aoba47 (talk) 18:22, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

More comments to follow. Moisejp (talk) 07:11, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Thank you for your review. Apologies for the silly mistakes. I still have a lot to learn about being a better writer, but your reviews always make the articles stronger. Hopefully, I can grow more as a writer in the future. Hope you are having a great weekend so far. Aoba47 (talk) 18:22, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Consider shaking up the last two sentences of the lead, which feel a bit stale. This is what I came up with, although I don't know for sure that it's a big improvement (maybe if I had more time I could come up with something better, but unfortunately I don't): "The Emperor's New School received some critical praise, as well as Annie and Daytime Emmy Awards for its cast and crew; negative reviews mentioned elements including sexist objectification of Malina." If you don't like this particular suggestion, maybe at least try to twist the sentences around for a bit of variety in sentence structure. Another option could be to get rid of the last sentence. As it is, we don't find out in the lead whether they were important awards or possibly minor no-name awards. And removing the last sentence would help with the repetitiveness of sentence structure at the end. But if there's a good way to keep mention of the awards (my suggestion above or another way), that could be good too. Moisejp (talk) 04:57, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the comment. I was also uncertain about that part as I thought the awards/nominations sentence sounded a little too tacked-on. I have used a variation on your suggestion, but clarified that Kitt was the only one to actually win any awards. Let me know what you think, and thank you again. Aoba47 (talk) 05:06, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "Kuzco is often turned into animal by a potion from Yzma's lab so he cannot finish a school assignment." Should it be "animals", "potions", "assignments" in the plural, because it says "often"? Moisejp (talk) 05:00, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Good point. This is a running theme for many many episodes so the plural would be more appropriate. That part was a later addition (to give a better context to the secret lab mentioned later) so I admittedly did not review it as much as I should. Aoba47 (talk) 05:08, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "Kronk is Yzma's henchman, and poses as a student and Kuzco's friends". This means he disguises as multiple friends? It's a bit confusing (I was confused at first). If there's a way to write it so it's clearer, that would be great. Moisejp (talk) 05:02, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
  • The "friends" part was a typo of "friend", but I think it is confusing to add to two descriptives "student" and "friend" so I have consolidated to "Kuzco's classmate", which I think is a more apt description for his paper-thin disguise. Aoba47 (talk) 05:10, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Apologies for interrupting your review. I will refrain from editing the article to avoid any potential conflicts and give you the space/time to best review it. Aoba47 (talk) 05:15, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
  • It may just be me, but I don't know what a "heritage property" is in terms of a TV show, and I couldn't find an answer with a very quick Google search (maybe with a little bit longer one I could have, but I gave up soon). Can you wiki-link it to anything, or would you consider rewording it, if possible? Moisejp (talk) 03:16, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
  • The "heritage property" phrase just refers to the fact that this was a spin-off of a pre-existing Disney property. I had originally quoted it as I thought it was noteworthy, but upon further reflection, it does seem quite repetitive as I think that information is already well-established in the article elsewhere so I removed it. Aoba47 (talk) 04:57, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "The series is set in a school to emphasize Kuzco's lack of social etiquette." How about something like "The series is set in a school because the writers/creators felt this environment would provide good opportunities to explore Kuzco's lack of social etiquette." I think this would be clearer than just "emphasize". Moisejp (talk) 03:31, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Revised. Your suggestion is far better, and I think I was getting too caught up in going for conciseness in that sentence. Aoba47 (talk) 05:00, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "he said the main difference was it is led by a comedic character, a role usually given to sidekicks". Maybe "supporting character" would be more encyclopedic than "sidekicks", but then you would have "character...character". Could you possibly tell me what Gannaway's exact words were for this bit? The sentence is not so bad as it is, but I feel like maybe it could be made slightly tighter. If you could tell me what he says, I might have ideas. Moisejp (talk) 03:43, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, I no longer have access to the full reference. A Scribd user uploaded the entire Animation Magazine issue, and I could access the specific "Out of the Inca Well" article while putting together the article and revising it during the GAN and prior to the FAC. However, I lost access to the entire issue for some reason; I apparently need a Scribd account to view the article. The basic idea of Gannaway's statement was that other animated shows often used supporting characters for the humorous bits while keeping the lead more grounded, and Kuzco was the opposite since he was a comedic character that was the lead. I did struggle a bit with revising this so I would greatly appreciate any suggestions. I could request for the article at the Resource Request if necessary so I can provide the exact quote. Aoba47 (talk) 05:56, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "While Gannaway acknowledged viewers might initially dislike Kuzco because of his attitude". Is there any descriptive word you can add before "attitude" to add precision to what kid of attitude it was? Moisejp (talk) 03:43, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
  • It is still referring to the same self-centered/narcisstic aspects discussed earlier. I did not put a descriptor here because I was uncertain if it was getting too repetitive through the article. I have added one though per your suggestion. Aoba47 (talk) 05:14, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "she said singing provided "an added and vital layer" to Yzma". Is there anything more in the source you can add to flesh this point out? It feels a little weak and insubstantial as is.
  • This is the full quote from the source: ("I loved every minute of singing Yzmopolis. Yzma is a wonderful and exciting character. Being able to give her the added dimension of a singing voice gives my character an added and vital layer. May Yzma sing forever and often!") I think it was notable at the time of drafting and revising the article prior to this FAC, but upon further reflection, I would have no issue with removing it completely if necessary. Just wanted to get your point of view on it before removing it though just to make sure. Aoba47 (talk) 05:18, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I ended up removing this part altogether, as upon further reflection, it seems rather trivial and not necessary for a reader's understanding of the show as a whole. Aoba47 (talk) 02:55, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "It was the first series to debut across these four television platforms". I'm not sure precisely what this means. Does it mean the four TV platforms had previously showed lots of old shows, but this was the first new show that any of them aired? Or does it mean it was the first time that there was a show in common across all four platforms? (Or maybe it means something else?) If you can, would it be possible to clarify this in the text? Moisejp (talk) 03:59, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
  • The four networks did have original programming prior to this show. I would not be surprised if the networks ran the same shows at one point in time. The difference with this is that The Emperor's New School was pushed on all four networks at a similar time rather than premiering on a single network and later being syndicated or shown on other networks as re-runs. That is the impression that I get from the sources as it is referring more to Disney's promotional strategy for the series to maximize its visibility/exposure or run a "super-saturation" campaign as one outlet put it. However, I revised the "first time" part out as I think it is unnecessarily confusing and just kept to how the show debuted on these four networks on these days instead. Aoba47 (talk) 05:56, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "The series was part of Toon Disney's "Great Toon Weekend" programming block in January 2007." Feels weak and likely removable. But if you'd rather keep it, may I suggest in the previous paragraph just after where the times/days shown are listed.
  • Removed. Aoba47 (talk) 05:24, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Please consider whether the order of the points in these two paragraphs could be improved. They seem to jump around a lot. For example, "Each episode runs for 30 minutes[7][9] and carries a "suitable for all ages" TV-G parental rating." feels out of place, as what comes before and after it is about the days/times/dates when it was aired. Moisejp (talk) 04:08, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
  • That is a good point. I have attempted to revise the section to flow more cohesively, but let me know if further work needs to be done. Aoba47 (talk) 05:37, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

I'll try to look at the Reception section in the next few days. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 04:10, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

  • "Although he disliked the series, author David Perlmutter spotlighted Kitt and Warburton for their performances". I'm not sure whether "spotlighted" is correct here, but if you're sure it is, please keep it. (I'm not saying it necessarily isn't okay, just saying I don't know, so just be sure for yourself you're certain it's good.)
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 20:07, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "he was also uncertain that the school setting could sustain a series without growing monotonous". This sounds more like a question than a criticism. It sounds like this writer was speculating early in the series that future episodes might not be interesting. I haven't read the source, but depending on what the source says, maybe the nuance can be changed to something conveying that the early episodes were only mildly interesting, and then put what you wrote as kind of an after-point. Again, I don't know if that's what she says (sorry, I don't have time to read the source right now). Or if there's not much to work with on this point in the source, I guess just decide for yourself whether what you currently have for this point is strong enough for the criticism paragraph; I don't have a really strong opinion, and feel it could maybe go either way.
  • Removed. After re-reading the article, it is more speculation on the writer's part as opposed to criticism. Here is the part from the source regarding this: "While the opening episode packs plenty of punch, it will be interesting to see how far Gannaway can stretch the series' rather basic plot about Kuzco's efforts to graduate through numerous episodes without getting stale and repetitive." Aoba47 (talk) 20:07, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "a focal point of Common Sense Media's Pam Gelman". Maybe "a focal point of Common Sense Media's Pam Gelman's review" would be better.
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 20:09, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "Malina's figure-hugging clothing emphasizes her attractiveness over her intelligence". Would it be worthwhile to spell out just a little more explicitly why this is considered bad? I understand what you mean, but maybe if it was a little more explicitly explained, it would be all the clearer.
  • Revised to hopefully be clearer. Aoba47 (talk) 20:09, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

I've finished my second read-through. I'll try to do a quick third read-through in the next couple of days and address at that time any remaining questions you had in response to my last batch of comments. Thanks, Moisejp (talk) 18:12, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Thank you for the review so far. Aoba47 (talk) 20:09, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I read MacPherson's review, and it's mostly quite positive. It may be misleading to include her comment about a minor confusing point in the paragraph that begins with "Some critics had a negative response to the series." I hope it doesn't sound like I'm telling you to cut, cut, cut everything, but if it was me, this MacPherson bit is another sentence I would strongly consider cutting.
  • I have removed the sentence. It is best to avoid misrepresenting the source in any way so I agree that removing it is important. Aoba47 (talk) 14:48, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
  • The Awards and nominations sections feels a bit repetitive (repetitive sentence order, and the same awards names repeated multiple times). It's all summarized in the table below anyway, so I'd like to suggest you can trim to the prose. How would you feel about combining the two Annie Awards sentences into one, removing unnecessary details (maybe like the specific episodes), and is there a way to get rid of the final "35th Daytime Emmy Awards" in the last sentence? Or (*actually I think this might be an even better idea) another way to condense might be to combine all of Kitt's awards into one sentence at the start (again, hopefully finding unnecessary details to leave out). Then maybe you could find a way to combine Warburton's, Parkins', and DiCicco's nominations into a succinct second sentence. Moisejp (talk) 07:19, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I have cut down on that section. The table was a late addition. Aoba47 (talk) 14:48, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

OK, I'm ready to support now. Looks good. Moisejp (talk) 06:51, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Thank you for taking the time to do this review and for your patience with everything. I hope you have a wonderful rest of your week. Aoba47 (talk) 15:35, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Comments Support from KingsifEdit

  • The lead looks fine, perhaps a little long. It could use more diversity in sentence, but (after one typo correction) seems to be written well.
  • Thank you. I could try to trim the lead down, but I would be uncertain of which parts would be best removed. Aoba47 (talk) 18:26, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I will leave this up to you. Kingsif (talk) 20:35, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I have gone through the lead to cut back somewhat, but I am open to further suggestions by you and other reviewers. Aoba47 (talk) 20:43, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • The sentence On his birthday, he learns about this educational requirement of his trust fund and is evicted from the palace. Seems awkward – could this be rephrased?
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 18:39, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Great, this works well now. Kingsif (talk) 20:35, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Similarly, to prevent him from graduating and become empress is a little strange – it could be “to prevent him from graduating so she can become empress”
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 18:39, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Also good :) Kingsif (talk) 20:35, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • With the sentence Although it is a sequel, Kuzco retains his narcissistic personality, causing some critics to associate him with the phrase "it's all about me, how are the two parts related? Why would his characterization change in a sequel? Is there more from the source to associate these?
  • I had revised this section based on a reviewer's comments above so I think it is addressed. Aoba47 (talk) 18:39, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • This is clear now, thanks. Kingsif (talk) 20:35, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • At the end of which film (New Groove or Kronk) is Yzma turned into a cat? It’s not clear to those who know nothing.
  • Same as the above. Aoba47 (talk) 18:39, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, great. Kingsif (talk) 20:35, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Does Speier at any point relate the American high school setting with the fact it’s sent in Incan times? That would be useful to mention with her initial comments at the bottom of the premise and characters section.
  • She does not; she just says that the show has very American attributes. Aoba47 (talk) 18:39, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • That's ok, then - we don't want to turn it into OR. Kingsif (talk) 20:35, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • No cast section? Not even an overview with wikilinks to the pages?
  • I honestly see no reason for including a cast section. All of the information about the characters and cast members are already laid out in the "Premise and characters" section and "Production" section, respectively, so I think it would be rather repetitive. I have done a similar approach to my other FACs on television show articles. Aoba47 (talk) 18:39, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • If it works - and there were only two seasons on a kidcom, so a cast table wouldn't add a lot. Kingsif (talk) 20:35, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I don’t think the word “another” adds any value to …developed The Emperor's New School as "another heritage property" for its television scheduling. I’m not sure quotation marks need to be used at all.
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 18:41, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Needs some consistency in tense at the end of the first paragraph in Production – saying the directors “are” vs. the writers “were”; pick one.
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 18:41, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Not sure if others will pick up on the present tense when it's definitively over (not still writing/directing; continuous present used for plot), I might ask if it is fine. Kingsif (talk) 20:35, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • That is a good point that I did not consider. It is always good to ask for a second or third opinion. I actually think past tense would make more sense so I have adjusted it. Thank you for that. Aoba47 (talk) 20:45, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • In Production, the word ters is used. What is this supposed to be?
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 18:41, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Teachers - thanks. Kingsif (talk) 20:35, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • The clause saying …he attributed the main difference to it having a comedic character as the lead rather than a sidekick is bizarre; perhaps it could be more simply “…he described the main difference as being lead by a comedic character, a role usually given to sidekicks.”
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 18:41, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks - I feel I should expand on why I picked this up: the first part ("attributed the main difference to it having") was grammatically all over the place, and didn't fit with the preceding clause. It could be understood, but stood out and needed re-reading. Kingsif (talk) 20:35, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you, and that makes sense to me. Aoba47 (talk) 20:46, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • The cast notes could get at least their own subsection in Production, as it’s otherwise a bit of a jump.
  • I do not think a subsection is necessary, but I will think about it. Aoba47 (talk) 19:01, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 19:06, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I like what you've done, breaking the whole article up. I will leave comments on whether headers are apt to others. It helps with flow, and somewhat consolidates casting and characterization (not characters) in one place (rather than spread across all sections). Kingsif (talk) 20:35, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Echoing others’ comments, the writing style for the Reception section is quite basic.
  • I am not entirely sure whar you mean. Could you be more specific? Aoba47 (talk) 19:24, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I think I expanded a bit more below. The sentence structure is simple and repeated, and little has been done to create flow from each to the next. It's more like a list of who has reviewed it and a comment. If style could be improved - changing up structure, use of connectives, expanding the comments to give a description of the review, it would be much better.
  • Thank you for the explanation. That makes sense to me. I always had difficulty with these kinds of sections. I will work on that now, and will revisit the sources to see if there is any additional information I can mine from them. I will respond here when I am done with that copy-edit. Aoba47 (talk) 20:48, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I also think that the Critical reception could use an introduction summarizing the breadth of reviews before the paragraphs (which are split just down positive vs negative)
  • Could you give an example of what you mean? The reviews touch on a lot of different points, and I cannot see a single common theme that could be used as an introductory sentence without WP:SYNTH concerns. Aoba47 (talk) 19:01, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Nothing so much to SYNTH as just a sentence saying "There were several reviews, with critics highlighting both good and bad aspects of the show." Because at the moment, the first sentence in the section reads that it got positive reviews, without indication that it also got negative ones until the reader reaches that paragraph. Kingsif (talk) 20:35, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oh, I see. I misread your suggestion. Apologies for that. I will incorporate that suggestion during my copy-edit of that section. Aoba47 (talk) 20:48, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I’m also surprised there’s not more depth to review coverage – do the critics not discuss certain elements, and if there are some common themes (beyond the already-included Malina criticism), could they be important to include? I point to other GA+ television show reception sections for reference, they are generally much more extensive than a list of “X from Y thought it was good and said ‘Z’.” Wikivoice can also be used to discuss what critics say rather than just quote them.
  • Not really. There is not a common theme in the positive reviews. The only common theme that I could see in the negative reviews was that it was inferior to the film. Aoba47 (talk) 18:47, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • That could be potentially written into a paragraph. Any other things from individual reviews could be used to expand it. Kingsif (talk) 20:35, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Would an awards table be beneficial?
  • I do not think so because everything is addressed in the prose, and I do not think there were enough awards to warrant a table. Aoba47 (talk) 18:43, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • As long as the prose reads clear enough to you. Remembering that a table is an added illustration, not a replacement. Kingsif (talk) 20:35, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Does the doodle image add anything to the article? The only thing I can think of is art style (because doodle on lined paper is quite easy to picture) – at which point it should be moved to the more appropriate section.
  • I think the picture helps the reader understand what is being referenced beyond the prose. While the idea of a doodle on lined paper could be easy to picture, I think it is helpful to include the image to show the art style to the reader. I have included in its present position because it is by the paragraph about these recurring gags. I do not know what you mean by "the more appropriate section"? Aoba47 (talk) 18:46, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I'll just remove it altogether. Aoba47 (talk) 19:10, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • My suggestion would have been to move it to the section on the art style; the idea of a schtick where the character doodles is clear, and the image wasn't needed to illustrate that. The art style, yes, and I think that's covered in production. But I also concur that it may have been one image too many for a shorter article. Kingsif (talk) 20:35, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Without doing a source review, I think there are definitely areas for quite substantial work. Has this had a peer review before? For a Disney, U.S., television show, the article seems to not have as much coverage as I would expect, either. Kingsif (talk) 17:52, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I really never use the peer review process because I honestly never get a response. I feel like the peer review process is very hit or miss. This is a Disney show, but it was never a high-profile one in the same way as a Lizzie McGuire or a Hannah Montana. I am pretty positive that I have found a majority (if not all) of the sources that cover this show. Aoba47 (talk) 18:26, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Well then I can't argue with that; there may be more coverage soon now that the U.S. has got Disney+, but if that's all the sources, that's all the sources! Kingsif (talk) 20:35, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I will do another search once I get the reception section copy-edit done just to make sure. There may be more coverage given the Disney+ launch, and I will be inventive with my search parameters to make sure I can catch as much as possible in case anything slipped through the cracks. Aoba47 (talk) 20:50, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the review so far. I believe that I have commented on everything. Have a great rest of your weekend. Aoba47 (talk) 18:48, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick responses! Comments added above, but most of my original comments had been addressed well. Have a nice weekend, too. Kingsif (talk) 20:35, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the review so far. I have tried to revise the reception section, but let me know if more work is needed. I have also added an awards/nominations table to the article. I could not find any additional reviews while doing another search.
  • I will give it a read later! Kingsif (talk) 23:20, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • @Aoba47: I gave the section a little ce, but it was much better, well done! I now support Kingsif (talk) 12:49, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you. The c/e and support are greatly appreciated. Aoba47 (talk) 18:19, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I do have a quick question. The show had an official website that had mini-games, photos, videos, downloads, a way to e-mail the characters, and a quiz. I think this information should be included in an article, but I am having trouble accessing the site. Since it is no longer active, I had to user a website archiver; fortunately, the website has been archived quite a bit, but all of the viable links redirect to this page about having the current version of Flash. I was wondering if you had any insight about this, as this is far outside my area of expertise? Here is the link to the original site. Apologies for the super random question. Aoba47 (talk) 22:26, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't know; have details of the website been covered in news or even an official Disney release or blog? If not, you can only really use an archive link as primary source to sat 'this used to exist'... Kingsif (talk) 23:20, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I do not believe the website was covered by any third-party websites or an official Disney press release. I was thinking of using the link directly as the primary source. Do you think that would be okay? Aoba47 (talk) 00:26, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I have added a bit about it to the article. Otherwise, I think I have found all the available sources for the show. Aoba47 (talk) 00:56, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Image reviewEdit

  • Images are all appropriately licensed, formatted and captioned. FrB.TG (talk) 22:05, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the review! Aoba47 (talk) 22:14, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Support by BLZEdit

I'm starting a review at Aoba47's request. We've worked together before but, for the record to any other interested parties, I prefer to directly copyedit articles myself and then explain the rationale for some of my changes here, in addition to making recommendations or asking questions. If any edits I make don't seem like improvements, or if my reasoning for a change is mistaken, feel free to let me know here and we can work through it. So far I've looked at the lead, which I'll give another run-through after I've read the rest in-depth:

  • Thank you for the copy-edits so far! I will go through your comments so far individually if that is okay with you just so that all of the changes/edits are saved correctly. Aoba47 (talk) 03:29, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Lead
  • I think "spin-off of" is the most natural phrasing (better than "from" or "to").
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 03:29, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Tiny change, but the addition of a comma in "January 27, 2006, to November 20, 2008". MOS:DATEFORMAT specifies "A comma follows the year unless followed by other punctuation that replaces the comma"—which personally I think looks odd but that's what it calls for.
  • I have removed the comma. Aoba47 (talk) 03:31, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oops, my bad—I think I worded that in a confusing way. I had already made the revision, I was just giving the reason from the MOS because it's a counterintuitive rule imo. The comma is supposed to be there, according to the MOS. The "other punctuation that replaces the comma" would be, for example, a period or semi-colon as part of the natural flow of the sentence, and that's supposed to be the only exception to the rule that the comma always follows the year in a full date. Like I said, I personally think it's a weird rule. It's comma overdose and doesn't scan naturally, but that's apparently the "correct" way. —BLZ · talk 06:06, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Apologies for misreading your comment. I am quite bad at commas so while I agree that it does seem rather odd, it is good to go by the MOS. Thank you for the correction! Aoba47 (talk) 06:18, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I added a mention that it's the second spin-off following Kronk's New Groove.
  • Thank you for catching this. For some reason, I did not think about Kronk's New Groove as a spin-off, but you are correct, and it is note in the article. Aoba47 (talk) 03:32, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I added some descriptive language to the summarization of the show's plot, which is supported by the sources and text in the article body, to provide more vivid cues for a reader who may be unfamiliar with the show or its source film. E.g., Kuzco is a "pampered and self-centered teenager", Yzma is "villainous", Kronk is "dim-witted" (a word I've borrowed from the article on Homer Simpson, as I believe it avoids any overly pejorative connotation or suggestions of intellectual disability), etc.
  • Thank you for these additions. Since I am very familiar with the series, I had some difficulty approaching this from an outsider's point of view, and I think these additions are very helpful with that. Aoba47 (talk) 03:34, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • The phrase "his family" seemed somewhat ambiguous—Pacha's or Kuzco's? So I've come up with "the villager Pacha and his peasant family," which is slightly redundant but helps clarify whose family. There may be other, more graceful ways to execute this clarification.
  • I actually had a similar concern when writing that part so I think your revision improves it. I will try to think of other alternatives, but this seems like the better way of making the information very clear. Aoba47 (talk) 03:36, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • As Malina is the show's only major new character and the subject of criticism, I've introduced her as such in a separate sentence rather than listing her in passing with Pacha and fam.
  • Thank you for the edits. Aoba47 (talk) 03:37, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I've explained "temporarily filled" by adding the fact that John Goodman returned for the second season—worth signaling in the lead, given Goodman's level of fame (and actorly excellence).
  • Good idea. I have also changed this in the body of the article. Aoba47 (talk) 03:37, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Malina was also left out of the cast roll-call, so I added a new sentence mentioning her actor plus guest appearances (Miley Cyrus being particularly worth name-dropping given her subsequent super-fame).
  • Whoops. Not sure how I missed that. And thank you for the addition of the guest stars in the lead. Aoba47 (talk) 03:39, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I've substituted "public high school" with "typical American-style high school". I know the MacPherson article explicitly labels Kuzco Academy a "public high school", but here's why I changed it:
  • First: "American-style" or "American" would normally be self-explanatory and unnecessary as a label for a "high school" within a US-produced show. But given the far-flung setting—a cartoonish fantasy version of pre-Colombian Peru (or thereabouts)—I think it's worth emphasizing that it does indeed reflect the modern, American conception of high school. If "public" is retained, "American-style" would still help emphasize the intended meaning to an international readership; while the UK uses "secondary school" instead of "high school" anyway, "public school" means the exact opposite thing there as it does in the US, and "public" may have other meanings to other non-American readers.
  • Regardless, I'd also argue for removing "public". The real-world distinction between "public" and "private" schools doesn't seem relevant or even applicable to a fantasy comedy cartoon for children. It's a detail that seems too realistic and specific to mention, perhaps even if it were an official part of in-universe "canon" (which is not clear). I don't believe MacPherson intended to draw this distinction, at least not to the extent that she was making an argument that it is definitely public and not private or otherwise, and probably meant something closer to "typical", i.e. the depiction of Kuzco Academy embodies all the stereotypical traits/tropes that would be expected of virtually any (fictional) American high school setting (albeit, of course, kid-friendly and wholesome—this isn't Riverdale). Besides, a "typical" American high school would tend to connote a public high school anyway as the overwhelming majority of students attend public schools.
  • That all makes sense to me. I have added American-style high school to the body of the article to be consistent with the lead, but feel free to remove that if necessary. Aoba47 (talk) 03:41, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I've reworded the sentence about the choice of a high school setting, chiefly because the phrase "was chosen in order to facilitate the exploration of" was clunky. I added a bit about how the setting provided for storylines about everyday challenges of adolescence, derived from this in the body: "Spreier noted the storylines dealt with 'the more common problems of adolescence'". This may fit more gracefully elsewhere in the lead—it comes from critical commentary, not creator statements of intention, and while I don't want to confuse the two I do think it is an important point for summary.
  • I think the current placement in the lead makes sense. It is currently part of the critical commentary, but it is not necessarily part of a critic's praise or critique of the show so I do not think it would fit with the lead's last paragraph. Aoba47 (talk) 03:44, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • "social ineptitude" – Are we sure this is the phrase and link we want to use? It redirects to social skills, which treats its subject in a quite serious context that discusses e.g. alcoholism, mental illness, the autism spectrum, etc. You later refer to his "lack of social etiquette", which seems closer to the mark imo although perhaps still vague. I haven't made a change here, but I wanted to raise the issue now and consider it further as I go.
  • I actually did not check the linked article so that was my fault. I agree that is far too serious for the show and Kuzco's characterization. I have put "lack of social etiquette" for now, but I will also think of different options. Aoba47 (talk) 03:47, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Other thoughts so far
  • "on the iTunes Store" – I'm a little ambivalent here, but I'm leaning toward thinking it's OK to mention its release via the iTunes Store. I think it's OK to mention Disney+, which is owned and operated by Disney and will presumably carry Emperor's New School and most Disney intellectual property in perpetuity; it's the equivalent of a show being Netflix Original Programming. Ordinarily, though, I wouldn't think it's necessary to name a third-party marketplace—especially in the absence of a known arrangement of exclusivity, as there was with e.g. Guns N' Roses' Chinese Democracy retailing exclusively through Best Buy. However, it is interesting that Emperor's New School does not seem to be available through any other major platforms; it's "currently unavailable" on Google Play, completely absent from Amazon, etc. The show does not seem to have ever been released on DVD (or any other physical media). It also seems probable that Disney's distribution deal with iTunes will expire at some point, since it's widely known that the company is letting its existing distro deals with other streaming services lapse without renewal to achieve true exclusivity through Disney+. That fact actually makes me more inclined to note that the show was downloadable via iTunes, as it soon may be a historical fact: the only place the show had ever been made available before Disney+.
  • As you had already said above, I included the iTunes store by name in the article because it was the only way that the show could be viewed before Disney's new streaming service as it never got a physical release. It would be a shame if Disney pulled the show from the iTunes store, but people seem to consume television more through streaming now rather than purchasing episodes or seasons. The times have certainly changed and will certainly continue to change. I can understand your concern as I would not want it to come across as advertising. Aoba47 (talk) 03:52, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Relevant to the above point: do you know of any source stating that the show was not released on DVD? I feel like it's worth mentioning because the digital release via iTunes is more significant in light of the absence of a DVD release. This is one of those devilish counterfactual facts that is sometimes hard to find stated outright, but I think if there's any reliable basis to mention this it would be worth doing.
  • That is a good point. For the longest time, I used TVShowsOnDVD.com because it would have entries on television shows without any physical releases and explicitly note that. Unfortunately, that site closed back in 2018, and while a lot of it is available through website archives, I could not find the specific page for this show. I have not been able to find a source about the absence of a DVD release, but as you said, it is more difficult to find a source on the lack of something. I will keep looking though. Aoba47 (talk) 04:01, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • A May 2017 article in the animation publication Rotoscopers makes an interesting claim about the show: "Tangled: The Series is the first non-preschool program developed from a Disney feature since the 2006 series The Emperor's New School." I think this is noteworthy, given Disney's aggressive focus on video and TV spin-offs since the early 1990s, and helps mark New School's place within the wider historical timeline of Disney production/content strategy. (The Rotoscopers "About Us" page/masthead shows that, although they are a comparatively small operation, the publication has the type of professional structure of editorial oversight that would qualify them as a WP:RS, imo.) —BLZ · talk 01:48, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the resource. I have added it to the article. Thank you for updating the logo. Aoba47 (talk) 05:05, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • @Brandt Luke Zorn: Apologies for the ping. Just wanted to check in and see how the review was progressing so far. Thank you again for taking the time to do this. Aoba47 (talk) 21:17, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Apologies for the delay, I'm going to resume copyedits now. Some quick thoughts on the next subsection:
  • No worries. I should be the one apologizing for the ping. There is no rush for the review as it is always best to try and improve the article as much as possible so take all the time you need. Thank you for the copy-edits! Aoba47 (talk) 01:12, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Story and characters
  • "Kuzco is often transformed into an animal by potions from Yzma's lab" – Is there more on this? It follows from the source text, which says "Yzma often concocts potions in her secret lab that will turn Kuzco into an animal so he will fail a task or school assignment". But that source was published to coincide with the premiere. Are there other sources that would help verify this part of the show? I'd also accept your word for it, since you're familiar with the show's content; I rewatched some of the pilot episode on Friday and I know that it's part of that episode's plot, but I don't really know how typical it is of the show's storylines as a whole. And after all, even if the source was published early they had been probably been given some advance material from Disney that would inform them as to the content of later episodes to give readers an idea of what to expect.
  • That is a good point. I have looked through the sources again, and I could not find another mention of the potions/animal transformations as a recurring storyline. I had watched a majority of the episodes last year, and from what I can recall, the first season leaned heavily on reusing gags from the film (like the secret lab potions) while the subsequent seasons tried for some more original content/ideas. I have revised the sentence to reflect how this was a recurring plotline in the first seasons (since the source is mostly about the earlier episodes), but please let me know what you think. Aoba47 (talk) 01:21, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Do any sources draw the (obvious) connection between this recurrent plot point about being transformed into an animal and the plot of New Groove, which after all is centered on the emperor's transformation into a Llama?
  • I could not find any sources that drew this comparison. The show does include a line referring back to Kuzco's llama transformation, which is another piece of evidence that this is a sequel, but articles seem to focus more on other elements related to the film, like Kuzco's personality and emperor status. Aoba47 (talk) 03:32, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I've added a source, Aliaga Serrano (2008), because it had a little additional info about Mr. Moleguaco—namely, because it stated the obvious point that the teacher's name is a pun on "guacamole", although there were some additional small points about the characters that I've incorporated from this source.
  • Thank you for adding the source and information. Apologies for missing this while preparing the article for the GAN and FAC. It is always nice to get more sources to improve an article. Aoba47 (talk) 01:22, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Continuity and style
  • I think something like "Continuity and humor" or "Continuity and comedic style" might be a better title for this section, since "style" alone might be confused with visual/animation style.
  • Excellent point. I have used "humor" since it is more concise. Aoba47 (talk) 01:31, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
  • It's suggested, but not stated outright, that New School is a sequel to New Groove. I think this should be stated outright for additional clarity, as it's not quite obvious that this is the case. Someone who has seen the film would probably know—to take one reason, Kuzco and Pacha don't know each other at the start of the film, so the show could only be a prequel if both of them suffer memory loss at the end—but the setting and premise ofNew School seems very prequel-ish overall, plus Kuzco seems to be emperor already in New Groove; it's a little confusing why he's trying to earn a position that he already seemed to fully occupy.
  • This show definitely has a very strange continuity. While I think the episodes are enjoyable, the contradictory premise prevents me from enjoying it as much as other Disney shows. You are right that Kuzco was very much emperor in New Groove, and we even see him doing official duties in the opening song. Unfortunately, there is not a clear answer on why this is happening plot-wise. It is one of the main inconsistencies with the film. I have added a part about the show being a sequel. Oddly enough, a majority of the sources that I found dance around the fact that this is a sequel and just refer to it as a show connected with the film. Seems like critics/commentators were just as confused. Aoba47 (talk) 03:24, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Found a source (Insider.com) that explicitly refers to the series as a sequel. It's actually even more helpful than that: it says the show "takes place after the events of the film".
It also notes that the series "ended in 2008 after the death of Eartha Kitt, who voiced the villainous Yzma." Do you have anything else on this? It's not out of the question for a series to end following the death of one of its stars. It should be noted anyway—regardless of whether we can definitively prove that Kitt's death was the reason for the show's cancellation, there's no disputing the timing, and this source explicitly makes the connection. —BLZ · talk 22:01, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the source. I have integrated it into the article. The part about the show's connection with the film is particularly helpful. I did see people talk about Kitt's death as a reason for the show's cancelation, but I was unable track down a reliable source that tied the two explicitly together. I must have missed the source since it was published after I did the research for the article so thank you for bringing it to may attention and apologies for that. Her death was quite sad, but her work seems to live and continue to be appreciated. Aoba47 (talk) 23:08, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
  • "whenever Kronk pulls the lever to her secret lab" — almost; it's famously the wrong lever, right?
  • Very true lol. I am surprised I missed that one. Aoba47 (talk) 01:31, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
  • "The series uses physical comedy with a "self-aware" approach." – I think this statement conflates two different things: the show's physical comedy and its humorous self-awareness. These two qualities don't necessarily manifest at the same time, and it should be made more clear that these are two separate aspects.
  • Good point. I have revised the sentence to hopefully avoid that, but let me know if it is still not entirely working still. Aoba47 (talk) 01:31, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I also think "Kuzco stopping a scene" warrants some more explanation. I'd like the see the phrase "breaking the fourth wall" to make it more clear what is happening and why it is self-aware. Some explanation of Kuzco's dual role as both protagonist and narrator would go a long way.
  • I have added an additional source, and attempted to break it down a little more clearer. For some reason, I thought I had more explicitly discussed this in the article so that was my mistake. It is still rather rough so I will look at it more in the near future to try and clean it up more, but feel free to copy-edit it more. Aoba47 (talk) 01:56, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
  • "one-line jokes aimed at an older audience" – I've revised this sentence. The phrase "older audience", by itself, suggests an adult (or at least teenage) audience, and thus suggests that the show contains the adult humor and double entendres characteristic of franchises like Shrek. The source said "While nothing precludes youngsters from watching 'The Emperor's New School,' the cartoon fundamentally is a show of one-liners, most of which will be funnier the older one is." The use of the word "youngsters" (which suggests very young children, rather than more savvy tweens) and the gentle phrase "the older one is" (rather than a more frank warning about adult content) suggests a contrast between younger children and slightly older children, not between children and teens/adults. —BLZ · talk 00:32, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the revision. I completely agree with your reasoning as it is best to be as specific as possible to avoid misinterpretation. Aoba47 (talk) 01:57, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Concept and creation
  • Disney Channel should be styled as just "Disney Channel," not the Disney Channel.
  • Thank you for catching this. I am not sure why I wanted to put a "the" in front of it so apologies for that. Aoba47 (talk) 01:59, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
  • "after The Emperor's New Groove attracted high ratings" – What's interesting here, but unstated, is that The Emperor's New Groove was not picked up for a spin-off series until relatively late. Most earlier Disney shows spun off from a film would have been cleared for production on the basis of box office performance (or perhaps even projections). I think there's more to unpack here: whatever you can find from sources about why the film's box office receipts were not considered strong enough for a film (even though it did turn a profit), whether strong sales on home video/DVD were also a factor in greenlighting the show, the date(s) of the TV broadcast(s) of Emperor's New Groove that were considered impressive, and the number of people who viewed the broadcast of the film if known.
  • I have updated this part to include further information on the ratings and the VHS/DVD sales. Apologies for missing this in my earlier versions of the article. The Emperor's New Groove was largely seen as a box office disappointment, particularly when compared to the Disney Renaissance, and like Atlantis: The Lost Empire and Treasure Planet, it is often cited as part of a slump in Disney's commercial output. According to a source cited in the article, there is not one clear cut reason for this poor performance. It could be due to large-scale production changes and delays, the film's lack of songs or sympathetic lead, audience's disinterest in high-energy comedies, the film's opening in the holiday season, or Disney's greater focus on 102 Dalmatians. It is most likely a combination of all of these factors, but the film seemed to have attracted an audience pretty long after its theatrical release, and I wonder if a big-budget Disney release could be considered a cult classic. Apologies for the long message. That is all just to say that I have tried to address it in the article, but feel free to look it over and copy-edit it. Aoba47 (talk) 03:12, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I added that the initial title Emperor's New Skool was "deliberately misspelled"—it seems possible that a screen reader may pronounce "Skool" the same as "School" and make it seem like there was no difference between the two titles, or that anyone else could miss the relatively subtle change.
  • Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 02:02, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
  • "unlike many other animated series, New School would use its protagonist as its main source of comedy rather than a supporting character" – I've already slightly revised the wording here, but I'm curious what he said in the original source, especially whether he made any direct comparisons to other shows by name. One of my changes was to turn "unlike other animated series" into "unlike many other animated series"—it seems implausible to assert that this trait would distinguish New School from virtually any other animated series, considering that there are so many obvious counterexamples (SpongeBob SquarePants comes to mind; it's not that the side characters on that show aren't also funny, but clearly SpongeBob is a "main source of comedy".) —BLZ · talk 01:32, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the copy-edit! From what I remember, Gannaway does not mention any show by name in his quote as it is more of a general observation. I agree with your assessment. There are certainly several other examples, like Spongebob SquarePants, where the comedic character is the lead. I wonder if he is referring more to an unsympathetic, comedic character being the lead, since Kuzco for instance has more narcissistic, selfish moments than Spongebob normally does, but that is purely speculation on part. It would be cool if more information on the production side of the show came out. Maybe, there will be something with the movie's 20th anniversary (man, I feel old lol). Aoba47 (talk) 03:36, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I found the original source and figured out that he meant the character dynamic was unique among Disney films, not necessarily animated series in general:
"When asked about what makes The Emperor's New School stand out in a cluttered field of animated shows vying for young viewers' attention, [Gannaway] notes, 'The Emperor's New Groove is one of the only Disney features in which the main character is a comedian. Usually the comics are sidekicks. But here, you have a funny lead character and supporting players that are very well-defined.' (the last paragraph of p. 32, continued on p. 33)
I've revised the wording accordingly. —BLZ · talk 21:22, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you for finding the quote and doing the revision. That makes much more sense to me. Aoba47 (talk) 21:47, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Cast
  • "J. P. Manoux replaces David Spade as the voice for Kuzco for New School." – Any more on this about either of them? Did Spade or anyone else say anything about Spade's decision not to return? Did Manoux make any statements about taking on the lead role? I saw one source (not sure which) note that Manoux's performance of Kuzco was essentially a David Spade impression, which I think that would be worth adding here. Might also be worth noting that Manoux had debuted as Kuzco in a DVD bonus feature for New Groove—feel free to even use the exact language "Manoux had debuted as Kuzco in a DVD bonus feature for New Groove," if you like.
  • It appears that Manoux took over as the main voice actor for Kuzco after Spade. I have expanded this part to include other instances in which Manoux voiced the character. The only instance that I am struggling to find a good source is Sorcerers of the Magic Kingdom. I was thinking of just citing it as a primary source, but I am uncertain on how to go about that for an interactive, theme park game. I have added the part about Manoux's performance being very close to Spade's. It was actually pointed out by two different articles. I could not find any comments from Manoux about his performance, although I have found some videos of him doing the Kuzco/Spade voice at fan events. I also could not find anything on why Spade left the role, which was a shame because it would have been nice if he stayed on for the show. I will keep looking for more information on both though as it could just be the search terms I am using. Aoba47 (talk) 02:17, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I unfortunately could not find any sources about why Spade decided to leave. It is quite odd as there many many instances in which Disney voice actor stick with their character through sequels and television spin-offs (Aladdin is the first one that comes to my mind). Maybe it's because the film under-performed or the film and his performance got quite a bit of negative reviews at the time of its release (reviews seemed to have primarily turned more positive years after the film release)? Would be nice if someone asked him this during an interview now lol. Aoba47 (talk) 20:57, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I beefed up the one quote from Eartha Kitt and added another one. It's evident she relished the role and expressed her enthusiasm in typical flamboyant style, which is fun to read. The symmetry of ending one statement with "There is no other Yzma!" and another with "May Yzma sing forever and often!" is too charming to pass up, imo. (My usual instinct is to avoid synonyms of "said," which tend to be overly flowery, but in the case of "May Yzma sing forever and often!" I think it's fine to use "proclaimed" because, after all, this is literally a proclamation in the style of "The king is dead, long live the king!")
  • Thank you. I very much prefer your version because it does add more character and more accurately reflects Kitt's personality. I think it would add to the reader's interest in the material to clearly see how the actor was very much excited about the role. Aoba47 (talk) 02:20, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I changed your paraphrasing of "There [can be] no other Yzma!" back to Kitt's original wording "There is no other Yzma!" Your paraphrase also captures the meaning of what she said, so I don't think it was misleading in any respect, but her meaning was already clear in the original and on balance I think it's better to convey her original phrasing. When I see bracketed phrases within quotes—sometimes even when I come across them while reading articles that I'm not reviewing—I typically go to the source to see why the bracketed change was made, since there must be some reason why the quote had to be altered (if only slightly) to convey the correct meaning or to avoid confusion (as in the case of, for example, an ambiguous pronoun). Here, I don't see a compelling reason for the alteration.
  • That makes sense to me. I am not entirely sure why I paraphrased it so I agree with your revision. Aoba47 (talk) 02:20, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Probably worth mentioning, as this 2007 article in the Ventura County Star does, that Warburton was a recurring voice actor on five series including New School at the same time, one of which (Kim Possible) was also on Disney Channel. You wouldn't have to name all the other shows necessarily, but it would make sense just to note the tally of five shows and Kim Possible by name because of the Disney Channel connection. It reflects a bit about Warburton's career at that time—he seems to have had more work as a voice actor than any other cast member on the show.
  • Thank you for the source. I have added it to the article. Aoba47 (talk) 03:24, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
  • "The original voice actor, John Goodman, returned ..." — It would be a good idea to introduce the fact that Goodman originally played Pacha earlier in the paragraph, even if you keep the sentence about Goodman's ultimate return where it is at the end. Also: did Goodman make any public statements about returning to the role? He's a pretty big name—it's not that it would be out of the question for him to voice the character on a TV spin-off version, he's always been quite prolific, but it does seem notable that he decided to return after an initial decision to opt out.
  • That is a good point. I have revised the article. I will be doing some further research on why Goodman did not participate in the first season (and why Spade did not participate in it at all) over the next few days. Apologies for the delay. I just want to make sure that I do as an exhaustive search as possible to insure I do not miss anything, since as you have already pointed out in the review, I have overlooked quite a fair amount of sources. I will add a message on here when I have either added new sources or to report that I could not find anything else. I hope that is okay. Aoba47 (talk) 03:24, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, I could not find much about Goodman's role in the show. Several sources completely gloss over the fact he was not in the first season, and just mention Goodman as connected with the show in a more generic statement. Tatasciore seems to be in a lot of Disney projects as "additional voices" so maybe they hired him (since he already understood the voice-acting process) while negotiating with Goodman, but that is just pure speculation on my part. Aoba47 (talk) 21:04, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
  • In fact: I think it would be best to restructure the section so that it begins with the idea that "Most of the voice cast from the film returned for the series," which is supported by e.g. Daley's article in Screen Rant.
  • Good idea. Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 03:24, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I have added a few more guest stars to the list, and added sources to support the new information. Aoba47 (talk) 03:24, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
  • It would be nice to have more perspective from the cast members. Bergen has a fun quote here about performing with Warburton despite never recording in the same room at the same time. Did Jessica DiCicco have anything to say about playing Malina, the most prominent new character (and the target of some criticism)?
  • Thank you for the link. I am uncertain on how I missed that the first time through. I have added the information and quoted the Abbott and Costello bit because it is quite amazing lol. It is always interesting to hear about how voice actors record separately and yet can still have such great chemistry on screen. It is a real testament not only to the voice actors, but to the editors and animators. There is certainly a lot to juggle. As with the Spade/Goodman comments above, I will do more research on DiCicco. I would not be surprised if she spoke somewhere given Malina is the most prominent new character so I could see Disney pushing that as a promotional tool. I will try my best to dig something up. It would be interesting to learn more about her experience and perspective. I actually enjoyed the character; it was just the hottie hot hottie part that I found grating. Aoba47 (talk) 03:24, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, I could not find anything on DiCicco's opinions on Malina or New School in general. Aoba47 (talk) 21:11, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
  • No problem; thanks for checking it out. Can't use information that doesn't exist, so it's not an issue. —BLZ · talk 23:48, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Animation and music
  • Overall, solid. Might be nice to have more secondary commentary. This book makes a comment about the quality of New School's animation (and writing), albeit in passing as a comment on Disney spin-off shows generally. This source might be better suited to reception.
  • I have added the source to the reception section. I think his criticism about Disney spin-off shows assuming the audience has a built-in familiarity with the source material is interesting, and I tired to think of a way to word it for the production section, but it always sounded too opinionated and seemed more relevant for the reception section. Thank you again. Aoba47 (talk) 03:27, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Broadcast history and release
  • According to this 2008 article at Broadcasting & Cable, New School and a group of other Disney Channel shows were made available to stream on Netflix starting in 2009. Unclear when the license expired expired. Notably, the deal was the first Disney–ABC license for Netflix and was announced only 18 months into the launch of Netflix as a streaming service (and a few months before New School aired its final episode).
  • I have added a sentence about it with an additional source about how Disney has recently ended their Netflix deal in favor Disney+. Aoba47 (talk) 03:35, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Anything about where New School aired in non-domestic markets? E.g. it aired on the Family Channel in Canada.
  • I will look into that while doing the research for Spade/Goodman/DiCicco information. It was honestly something that I did not think about so thank you for raising it to my attention. Aoba47 (talk) 03:27, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Do you have any idea on where I could find that information? I have tried a few different ways, but I could not find anything. Aoba47 (talk) 20:51, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
  • That's alright, I don't think it's strictly necessary. Besides, on second thought, any attempt to create a list of where else the show aired in the international marketplace would end up incomplete, so choosing to list a handful that happen to be mentioned in reliable sources would end up being somewhat arbitrary. Many major markets would be missing from the list for no reason other than the lack of a readily available source. —BLZ · talk 23:48, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
  • "Each episode runs for 30 minutes" – Probably less with time for commercial breaks, right? I've checked articles about other series (The Simpsons, Rugrats) and it looks like the norm is to list the running time of a typical episode rather than the block of time they fit into with commercials. —BLZ · talk 00:58, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 22:50, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I tried to clarify the rollout of the complicated multi-part premiere, but I still have a few questions. Before my most recent edit, the article said this: "The first episode, "Rabbit Face", debuted on the four networks between January 27 and January 29, 2006." Two issues. First, not all four of the platforms in question were really "networks", since Disney Channel On Demand is not a network at all, while ABC Kids is only a regular block on an actual network, ABC. Second, it's not quite clear when the "true" earliest premiere occurred, or on which network it premiered. I revised the text to clarify where and when each premiere occurred.
However, it's still not clear to me when it "really" premiered because of an apparent contradiction between the Animation World Network and AllMovie sources. According to Animation World Network, the show apparently first aired on Toon Disney on January 20, 2006—the same day that it became available through Disney Channel On Demand. That date would have been a Friday, a fact which is used later to say that the show's regular time slot on Toon Disney was "on Friday afternoons". On the other hand, AllMovie says that the show "debuted on The Disney Channel, ABC and Toon Disney over a three-day period, from January 27 through 29, 2006". Knowing that the show debuted Jan. 27 on Disney Channel and Jan. 28 on ABC, these seems to suggest that the third debut was Sunday Jan. 29 on Toon Disney. Otherwise, it's not clear why the date Jan. 29 is there at all; even Disney Channel's second airing should have occurred on Saturday, not Sunday. My suspicion is that both sources are wrong in some way, but it's not clear how. I doubt that it aired on Toon Disney on Jan. 20, because otherwise why would it be mentioned third by AWN if it had come first? This article on Animation Magazine indicates that New School was part of a Saturday/Sunday block on Toon Disney starting in 2007, but other (not necessarily "reliable") sources indicate that New School may have played on Toon Disney in various other time slots throughout the week, which changed over time. Either way, I don't know what to make of the Toon Disney premiere date used by AWN or how to use it; I don't know that it can be reliably used to say that Friday afternoons became its regular time on that channel.
  • Thank you for the message, and this part is much more confusing that I had initially thought so apologies for that. From what I can see, a majority of the sources put the show's premiere on January 27. I also doubt that the series debuted on Toon Disney first, because it would seem more normal to have shows like this one premiere on Disney Channel first before anything else. As for sourcing the time slots, I could try looking through Newspapers.com for TV listings. Just wanted to check with you about this first. Aoba47 (talk) 21:20, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I have looked through the newspaper archives, and although I found a lot of TV listings, the times and days even are all over the place. A lot of the TV listings do not distinguish between the original airings and reruns, which adds an extra layer of confusion. Based on screenshots of the official New School website, it included a schedule feature. While that may clear things up, I do not think the site is available due to Flash issues. A majority of the sources I found put the premiere on January 27 on Disney Channel. Here is another source (from the Chicago Tribune) that mentions this premiere date (as well as the time slot). However, that source even has its own problem as Yzma never has magic spells as it claims lol. The AWN source about Kitt singing (here) mentions a Saturday premiere at 8:30 pm, which is different from the AWN source used for the scheduling. It is all rather confusing, and it could be a case where there was not a clearly defined schedule. With all of this confusion, I have removed the information from that section. Aoba47 (talk) 05:07, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Critical reception
  • I found some sources critical of New School in terms of educational content that I want to share:
  • 2008 article from The Globe and Mail: According to a survey of "30 television shows that U.S. commercial broadcasters label as educational or informational for preschoolers, elementary-school kids and teenagers as part of federal 'core educational programming' requirements" conducted by "Barbara Wilson, a communication professor", and her colleagues, New School and two other shows "scored high on social aggression, which involves gossip, exclusion and other non-physical means of hurting others. While Dr. Wilson allows that the makers of shows that portray social aggression probably see it as a way to teach children not to engage in such behaviour, she says some shows include so much of it that the message may be fuzzy. 'If you're showing it repeatedly throughout the episode, it's far more likely you're doing it for laughs and to entertain,' she says." A pdf of the study itself can be found here.
  • Another criticism came in the context of regulations on children's television programming in the United States. Children's Media Policy Coalition (CMPC)—an advocacy group made up of member organizations Children Now, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Benton Foundation, the National PTA, and Office of Communication of the United Church of Christ—conducted a survey of educational content in children's media. It was attached as Appendix II to this filed 2007 FCC comment; the critique of New School can be found at pp. 2–3 of Appendix II. They also noted that Emperor's New School was one of the "74% (seventeen shows)" out of 25 E/I shows in the survey that "contained only social-emotional messages," i.e. no academic/informational lessons at all. They also explicitly note New School's target age of 8–11, which I believe is sourced from FCC filings and broadcaster. In its reply, the National Association of Broadcasters quoted from the CMPC's critique of New School at p. 8, fn. 26: "Kuzco never has to face a personal conflict or find a resolution, nor are there any real repercussions for Kuzco's anti-social behavior (other than his eventual loneliness)."
These echo some of the critical comments already found in the article, but with the addition of academic perspective on childhood development. —BLZ · talk 01:07, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the sources. That is very interesting, and apologies for missing them before. I will probably format this information into its own separate paragraph in the reception section. I will most likely do it some time tomorrow if that is okay with you. Aoba47 (talk) 03:40, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I have attempted to incorporate this information into the article although it is very rough. It was getting quite long so I made it into its own subsection. I am uncertain if I have put too much information in the article or not so I would greatly appreciate your perspective on the matter. I have incorporated some of the information from these sources in other areas of the article. I have also added in some additional sources (one about the show's vaudeville humor and another on its Christmas episode). I found those two sources while looking for further information on Spade/Goodman/DiCicco. Thank you again for the above sources. They were quite interesting to read through, and I may look at them again more thoroughly in the future to read how they discuss other shows. Aoba47 (talk) 20:42, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Episodes
  • Sources for the "first aired" and "last aired" dates? —BLZ · talk 23:48, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I have added sources for all of the airdates. I have also removed the wikilinks for both seasons as they are not working, and I do not think they are particularly beneficial. I will read through and address the rest of the comments tomorrow if that is okay with you. Aoba47 (talk) 03:57, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Of course—no rush. —BLZ · talk 03:58, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Cast (Brian Cummings/Pacha)
  • Regarding Pacha: "Some media outlets erroneously attributed Brian Cummings with the role. Cummings had done "advance voice work" for Pacha as part of The Emperor's New Groove's development." This could use clearing up. It seems that Cummings did contribute to the show in some capacity. Disney Voice Actors: A Biographical Dictionary confirms that he contributed voice acting to the show, without specifying what his role was.
However, the main issue here is not really about whether Cummings was on the show at all. It's actually that, although Animation Magazine and Rapid City Journal are reliable sources, they can't be used to verify their own error. You're clearly right to point out that those two sources were incorrect about Cummings. But citing those same sources only verifies that they made the claim "Cummings played Pacha"; it does not verify that they were wrong about that claim, as they didn't run corrections. It doesn't seem that any other secondary sources followed up to "correct" those two. The only other thing that can verify the error would be specific credits for the entirety of the series—i.e., not just a list of cast members, but a complete (or very nearly complete) list of every cast member and which role(s) they played on the series.
IMDb's full credits for the show indicate that Cummings appeared on a number of episodes as "voice", which I take to mean additional voices for unnamed miscellaneous characters, just like you said Tatasciore had done on other Disney shows. Meanwhile, Tatasciore is credited by name as Pacha.
Now, IMDb is usually considered an iffy source by Wikipedia standards—see WP:CITINGIMDB and WP:RS/IMDB)—but I trust it here (at least on an informal basis). According to WP:CITINGIMDB, it's "in dispute about whether it is appropriate to reference [IMDb] on Wikipedia" for released "films" only, for "the cast list, character names, the crew lists, release dates, company credits, awards, soundtrack listing, filming locations, technical specs, alternate titles, running times, and rating certifications." Unfortunately, the guideline doesn't specify the nature of the dispute in terms of when it is or isn't considered appropriate, or the arguments for or against. AllMovie's "cast and crew" section for the series doesn't work as an alternate source because it is much less complete than IMDb's cast listing. AllMovie omits easily-verified cast members like John Goodman and thus would not be adequate to verify that Cummings did not play Pacha; we can't use AllMovie to say that Cummings did not play Pacha and invalidate the other two (technically reliable, if incorrect) sources, because we could just as easily say AllMovie shows Goodman never played the role and any sources indicating otherwise were in error. In this situation, it seems to me that the only alternative to citing IMDb's collated, series-long full cast & crew section would be to somehow cite the series as a whole as a primary source, which would also be a problematic solution for its own reasons.
So Aoba47, my question now is: do you know of any reliable source as thorough as IMDb's full cast & crew for the purpose of showing that Cummings never played Pacha? If not: how would you feel about using IMDb? Personally I'm in favor of it, but I'm not familiar with past discussions on IMDb's relative reliability and when it could be appropriate to cite them for cast information. I feel like it would be OK under WP:CITINGIMDB to cite IMDb in this situation, since it's a completed TV series, there's a lack of acceptable alternative sources, and we have a rare situation of two reliable sources being wrong about casting of a major role. This question probably warrants further input, and it may be necessary to reach out to Wikipedia:WikiProject Film (since they have the guideline about IMDb as a source) and/or Wikipedia:WikiProject Television (since the article falls within their scope). —BLZ · talk 23:48, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you for bringing this up. I agree that my part about the sources incorrectly listing Cummings as Pacha was far too strong and my own interpretation. I would not have an issue using IMDb in this context, because, as you have already explained in your message above, this is a rather rare case. It may be helpful to also reach out to Wikipedia:RSN about it since I could see this being useful for other editors working on similar types of articles. I have found this book source which says that Cummings "has provided voices for hundreds of episodes of such animated series" as The Emperor's New School, so I am curious if that could be used. I will incorporate the IMDb source in a few moments, and revise the prose to better reflect the sources, but I was just trying to brainstorm different avenues. My only concern with the proposed book source is that it is rather vague, but I would be interested in getting your feedback on it. Thank you again for addressing this as this does raise a lot of interesting questions about working on articles like this one. Aoba47 (talk) 21:20, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Support – I've now copyedited the "Reception" section, which completes my review. SandyGeorgia's review prompted several improvements that resolved the remaining issues I'd raised in my last new comments. Having turned over just about every conceivable stone, I now believe the article meets the FA criteria and is in as good a state as it could possibly be. Thank you Aoba47, as always, for your patience, positive attitude, and dedication. —BLZ · talk 23:53, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I should be the one thanking you. You have helped to improve the article immensely, and I am very grateful for your time and the energy you put into it. It was a lot of fun to learn more about the show, with some surprising information (like the educational criticism) and some bothersome inconsistencies (the premiere dates and scheduling as a whole). I again want to thank SandyGeorgia (and everyone who participated in the review). I am really proud of the article, and it honestly could not be done without everyone. Hope you had a happy holidays! I cannot believe the year is almost over, but I lose track of time quite often lol. Aoba47 (talk) 00:47, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

SandyGeorgiaEdit

I have not read any commentary above (the FAC is twice as long as the short article). Compared with 3,415 words of readable prose, the lead is quite long and goes in to excess detail (see MOS:LEAD). There are some obvious ways to trim verbosity from the lead (Example: In addition to the preceding characters, who had all appeared in the original film, The series introduced Malina, Kuzco's overachieving female classmate and love interest.), but more trimming would still be needed to make it a tight and compelling summary of the article. From there, I skipped down to a random section, where the first sentence is:

    • I will look through the lead and attempt to cut down any extraneous information. Aoba47 (talk) 04:13, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  • The multi-platform premiere of New School was called a "typical Disney super-saturation" broadcast practices by AllMovie's Hal Erickson.
    •  ????
      • I will reword this part momentarily. The series was broadcast across four channels, and the media outlet referred to this as typical of how Disney pushes out content in a "super-saturation" manner. I will revise this part as this section has revised quite a bit during the FAC. Aoba47 (talk) 04:13, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
        • I have reworded this part and moved it to a different spot in the section to hopefully make things clear. Aoba47 (talk) 04:11, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Down to the first sentence of the next section:

  • New School was covered in several reviews, which highlighted good and bad aspects of the series.
    • ... which does not say anything.
      • I had originally put in the lead that the series received mixed reviews, but there were concerns that since a source never clearly defines this, it would go against WP:OR and WP:SYNTH so the above sentence was suggested as a compromise. I would be more than happy to hear your suggestion though. I have replaced that sentence with a topic sentence about the series' positive reception which is already outlined in the paragraph. Aoba47 (talk) 04:13, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

I have revised the reception section and split it into three paragraphs: one for the contemporary reviews, one for the retrospective reviews, and one for the Malina criticism since it has both types of reviews. I think that this creates a stronger flow for the section. I have added quite a bit of information to the article after doing more research so apologies for all of the activity. I will refrain from doing any edits to make sure reviewers can look at a stable copy of the article. Aoba47 (talk) 23:13, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

So some prose tightening is probably in order and may be best accomplished by a fresh set of eyes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:02, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Struck, copyedit seems to have been effective. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:00, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
    • I respect your opinion. I will do some revisions to the article as I have stated in my above comments. @Brandt Luke Zorn: is still wrapping up his review so I would look forward to his responses and further commentary. Aoba47 (talk) 04:13, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
      • Sounds good ... busy holiday time, and I won't be following closely, but I will check back after Christmas. (The concern about such a long FAC review is that the nominator ends up doing, undoing, and re-doing to please reviewers ... as you seem to indicate may be happening.) Good luck! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:30, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
        Oops, I failed to give you suggestions on the sentence that doesn't say anything ... it sounds like you ended up there because of previous reviewers, and it may not be the best compromise. I suggest going to WP:FA and browsing similar series, for ideas of ways other FA writers have handled the dilemma of how to summarize reviews without getting SYNTH-y. I can't think of a favorite series FA off the top of my head, or I'd recommend one to you. I'm pretty sure most "critical reception" sections just dive in, without trying to summarize it, but I could be mis-remembering. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:35, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
        • Thank you for the response. I hope I did not come across as rude in any of my responses. It is important to get different perspectives to build stronger content (as I am sure you are very familiar with). I will definitely look through other featured articles as I always find that to be helpful. I am used to editors putting together some kind of topic sentence, but in these instances, it may be best to just dive straight in the content, as topic sentences can often veer dangerously close to filler territory. I hope your holiday time is going well so far. I cannot believe it is the end of the year and the decade. I am somewhat frazzled today because I helped my mom make a cheesecake for a work function and the plumbing is starting to act up so it has been a little bit of a roller coaster. I am looking forward to hearing from you again, and thank you again for your comments. Aoba47 (talk) 04:50, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
          I saw no rudeness ... Good luck with the plumbing, and the FAC, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:58, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
          Awesome, and thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 05:00, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: Apologies for the ping. I just wanted to give you an update. I attempted to address the above concerns. I reached out to a few editors to get a fresh perspective on the article. I am very grateful for Gen. Quon for copy-editing the article and Homeostasis07 for providing helpful suggestions and supporting the nomination. Apologies again, as I know pings can be rather annoying particularly around the holidays, but just wanted to let you know that work has been and is currently being done to improve the article. Have a happy holidays! Aoba47 (talk) 02:16, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Not to worry, on my list to get to today, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:26, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Aoba47, since Ian Rose already went through and promoted/archived this morning, it is unlikely that a FAC Coord will look at this today. I have other pressing work to attend to this morning, but will promise to get to this later. In the meantime, a few things you might look at:

  • I figured that would be the cast. I would have ideally liked to complete this nomination prior to the new year as that was when I planned to start my retirement (or at the least a long wikibreak), but I would not want to rush the process because of that. Thank you again for taking the time to do this. Aoba47 (talk) 20:06, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
Starting anew
  • WP:NBSP: see my sample edit and review throughout.
  • It was one of three series deemed to have "high" levels of social aggression, alongside Hannah Montana and Jacob Two-Two.[74] Wilson noted that, in principle, a children's series could highlight characters who exhibit socially aggressive behaviors in order to teach children to avoid such behavior. However, she doubted whether that message would be adequately conveyed by shows with repeated instances of social aggression, which would be "far more likely" to feature such content "for laughs and to entertain" rather than to impart a moral lesson.[75]
  • I am unsure that "high" needs to be quoted here, and would like to see the opinion attribution (Wilson) moved to earlier in this passage, to indicate (I believe?) that the "high" levels of social aggression are attributed to Wilson. Also, in very briefly reviewing the source (perhaps too briefly?), I am unsure where "rather than to impart a moral lesson" comes from, following on the "for laughs and to entertain". Could you show me a passage from the source that supports that phrase?
  • I have removed the quotation marks from high. Could you clarify the part about the attribution? Wilson is identified as the author of the report in the beginning of the paragraph so I was wondering how the attribution should be made clearer between Wilson and her remarks on social aggression.
  • Ah, I missed that she was at the beginning of the para, so no problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:51, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
  • No worries. It made me read over the paragraph and double-check, and that is always a good thing. Aoba47 (talk) 03:06, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I could not find the support for the "moral lesson" part so I removed it. That was probably a misreading on my part so apologies for that. Thank you again to BLZ for finding all the educational research. I had somehow missed all of them during my own research for the article, and it is pretty cool that this series was the object of study. I personally did not expect that so it is nice to learn more. Aoba47 (talk) 21:33, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Consider per WP:LEAD whether these two passages provide unnecessary detail in the lead (overspecificity on dates):
The Emperor's New School is an American animated television series created by Mark Dindal, which aired on Disney Channel for two seasons from January 27, 2006 to November 20, 2008.
Could that be, "two seasons running between January 2006 and November 2008"?
  • I have revised the lead according to your suggestion. When looking through featured articles on television shows, they use the more specific dates for the premiere and finale, but I understand your point. I think it could be boiled down to a personal preference, and since I am fine either way, I have incorporated your suggestion. Aoba47 (talk) 20:06, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
Between January 27 and 29, 2006, New School premiered across four platforms:
Could that be, "In January 2006"?
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 20:06, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
Best I can tell, this may be a personal peeve of mine that others do not care about; leads are littered with precise dates everywhere. I feel that leads don't need to be laden with so much specificity that no one cares about, rather gives us an easy-to-read broad overview. If you get pushback on that, you will have to blame me and tell them to go and whack me with a trout :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:51, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
I actually agree with you when I see the lead revised. Leaving out the exact dates does make the information more digestible, particularly when the exact dates are in the infobox right next to the lead. That is one great thing about FACs. I can learn about new ways to better present information after being so accustomed to seeing it done with one style. I doubt I will get pushback in the future, but I will keep you informed lol. Aoba47 (talk) 03:06, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
My concern is that we do not need to overburden the reader with too much detail in the lead; that detail is in the infobox and covered in the body. Are we burdening the reader with more numbers than they need ?

Also, I may be completely ignorant on some MOS-ism here, but why isn't it the Disney Channel?

  • Those are both good questions. For some reason, the sources leave out the "the", and just use Disney Channel instead. Not entirely sure why that is the case. I agree that it is probably best to cut back on the numbers as that information is already more readily accessible in the infobox. Aoba47 (talk) 21:25, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
OK, will ignore the "the" issue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:51, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you. I actually had the Disney Channel until a reviewer pointed out that it was incorrect. It sounds better with the "the", but have to go with the sources. It is not the first time I missed up things with the "the" lol. Aoba47 (talk) 03:06, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Promise to return later ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:19, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

  • No worries. Take as much time as you need. Aoba47 (talk) 21:25, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
  • and they ask me to say one of the lines. ... I love it.

There is something at either WP:NBSP of MOS:ELLIPSES about how to handle breaking spaces on a construct like this ... I haven't kept up with that issue, so will have to leave it to you to investigate. Not an issue worth holding up promotion over, but something that mainpage day nitpickers will pick up on. Still working, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:51, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

  • I will check it out in the future. I have used the nobr template so the ellipse and surrounding words would not be separated to avoid any potential confusion. It is interesting to think about how people read articles in such different ways that the text placement is different on different screens, etc. I definitely need to read more thoroughly the punctuation parts of the MOS. I have been doubting myself lately about commas in particularly. Thank you again for the help. Aoba47 (talk) 03:06, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

OK, I did not read the entire article, and have not checked sources, so I am not in a position to support, but I did spot-check three sections and found nothing that should hold up promotion. Please let me know if you get pushback on the date changes, as I will take the heat for that one! Best of luck, we are good here, I am unwatching now, so you will need to ping me if further feedback is needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:00, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Thank you for the help again, and I hope you had a merry Christmas (or holiday-time in general). It was fun to look through the points you have raised and learn more about it. Aoba47 (talk) 03:08, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Looks like SandyGeorgia's unwatched this page already anyway, but I wanted to give two shout-outs (plus unpack the "Disney Channel" thing a little more):

  • Your trims to the lead were good and necessary. I'm partly to blame for it growing so long, as I copyedited before thoroughly reading the body, and I had always intended to revisit and trim it after I got a better sense of the overall content and condition of available sources (which has taken a while, admittedly). Anyway, lead looks really good now.
  • Trimming the dates was a good move. You don't have to "take the heat" for that at all (though I understand why you kindly offered to step in if anyone hassled Aoba47 about the change); to the contrary, thank you! It's stylistically preferable from the standpoint of prose quality, and it also serves as a workaround for the minor (but bedeviling) inaccuracies/discrepancies about those dates that I'd discovered in reliable sources. It seems impossible to resolve the precise dating of the complicated premiere rollout using the available sources anyway, so the date omission tidily resolves one of my last major issues.
  • Finally, the total omission of "the" from the name "Disney Channel" is a little odd but it is the correct usage, which it shares with some other networks. Similarly, Cartoon Network is never called the Cartoon Network (at least, not since 1995 or so). Numerous American networks with acronymic names avoid a "the" that might normally seem necessary in some sentences, or if the full name were used instead: for example, saying "the ESPN" might sound OK if you know that the last letter in its name stands for "Network", except for the tacit knowledge that that's not how you'd refer to ESPN regardless. It's something along the lines of the famous scene from The Social Network when they decide to drop the "the" and make it just Facebook in all usages, or this line from the spy film The Good Shepherd: "I remember a Senator once asked me, when we talk about CIA, why we never use the word the in front of it. And I asked him, 'do you put the word the in front of God?'" I don't think Disney is trying to brand its channel as God, exactly, but their "the" avoidance is intentional and seems to emphasize its status as a self-contained Proper Name, rather than a proper name (Disney) that happens to be attached as an adjective to a mere common noun (channel). —BLZ · talk 23:46, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Support from Homeostasis07Edit

Wanted to comment on this a few weeks back but instead ended up depressed about something else... Anyways, just wanted to say that I agree with some of SandyGeorgia's comments above. There's a bit of verbosity that I think could easily be trimmed, such as in the Lead:

  • The series centers on Kuzco, a self-centered teenager who must graduate from Kuzco Academy to become emperor of the Inca Empire. Yzma, his former advisor, wants him to fail so she can be empress instead. Her schemes to sabotage Kuzco are staged with the help of her dim-witted henchman Kronk, while Kuzco is aided by the villager Pacha and his peasant family. New School introduced Malina, Kuzco's overachieving female classmate and love interest.
I think there's a bit too much detail in this paragraph. How about changing to something like: "The series centers on Kuzco, who must graduate from Kuzco Academy to become emperor of the Inca Empire. His former advisor Yzma schemes to sabotage Kuzco so she can be empress instead; she is aided by her henchman Kronk, while Kuzco is aided by the villager Pacha and his peasant family. New School introduced Kuzco's love interest Malina."
Thank you for the suggestion. I have incorporated it into the lead to simplify the lead. Aoba47 (talk) 02:31, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

I made a couple of copy-edits to subsequent sections. Although most of it was brilliantly written, there was this one sentence in Cast:

  • She explained her decision with the "There is no other Yzma!"
Which seemed to jump out at me Cato-style. The previous sentences don't introduce why this quote is relevant, and it doesn't especially relate to subsequent sentences, so I'd suggest rephrasing or removing.
I have removed that part. I think the basic ideas was Kitt thought no one else could or should voice Yzma instead of her, but the previous sentences in that paragraph already firmly establish her connection with the character so that quote was somewhat redundant and probably best removed altogether. Aoba47 (talk) 02:31, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Otherwise, I found the prose clear and engaging, and would be happy to support once these changes are made. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 00:32, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

  • @Homeostasis07: Thank you for the suggestions. I believe that I have addressed everything. I hope you are having a happy holidays, and sorry again to hear about Fredriksson, but at least people can celebrate her through listening to her music and learn about her through reading the related Wikipedia articles. Thank you again. Aoba47 (talk) 02:31, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks for addressing my points Aoba47. I've read the article once more, and couldn't see anything else I'd suggest changing. Happy to support this nomination for promotion. Good luck with it. ;) Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 21:04, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the help and support! Aoba47 (talk) 22:37, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Status updateEdit

  • @WP:FAC coordinators: Apologies for the ping. Just wanted to check on the status of the nomination as it has already received a source review, an image review, and quite a bit of commentary/reviews and support. Thank you for your time, and have an awesome end of your year! Aoba47 (talk) 00:49, 27 December 2019 (UTC)


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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 27 December 2019 [5].


Portrait of Mariana of AustriaEdit

Nominator(s): Ceoil (talk) 11:46, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Not one of Diego Velázquez's most heavy weight paintings, but a favorite for those interested in 17th century clothes and fashion...we do exist:) There is drama here, she married young, in a rush and ill advisedly, born out by her unhappy pout in this and later portraits. Feedback gratefully appreciated. Ceoil (talk) 11:46, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Image reviewEdit

No ALT text that I can see but image placement is reasonable. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:59, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Done NikkiJo-Jo will address. Ceoil (talk) 12:02, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Just so to be clear, * File:Mariana of Austria (1634–1696), Queen of Spain (MET).jpg: The license should probably be changed to {{PD-100}}. was from me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:23, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm loosing it - yes and thanks. Am working through alt text. Ceoil (talk) 20:30, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Anyhow, PD100 added. Ceoil (talk) 16:10, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Query by Support from WereSpielChequersEdit

I've made a couple of tweaks, hope you like them, if not, its a wiki

chaie? I'm guessing chair
"its width emphasised by the broad lace collar and the horizontal patterns of the dress's trimmed borders, and her wide collar" two collars?
  • Done. Ceoil (talk) 20:53, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
"recorded in a 1700 inventory as a pendant to" Both paintings are about the same size. Is pendant in this context some bit of stuckist jargon?
what makes people think it is a gilded clock as opposed to a gold one? ϢereSpielChequers 21:11, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi WereSpielChequers, working through these. Thanks for the copy edits. Ceoil (talk) 20:53, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Here is whats intended Pendant painting, see also Portrait Diptych of Dürer's Parents. Ceoil (talk) 19:40, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Ceoil, I've learned a new thing about art, though I still think as a pair is shorter and more widely understandable than as a pendant. More generally I'm happy to support FA status, though I should add that the only aspects of the article that I have checked are prose quality and comprehensibility to a general reader who doesn't know the subject. ϢereSpielChequers 09:14, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Have gone with "paired with". Ceoil (talk) 16:08, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Comments Support from KJP1Edit

These'll be in batches over the day, I'm afraid.

Lead
  • "to preserve the hegemony of the Habsburg" - I wonder if this could be made a little clearer? "to preserve the hegemony of the Habsburg family" / "to secure the succession of the Habsburg dynasty", or some such.
  • Sorted, though thinking of expanding 13:35, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Clarified Ceoil (talk) 17:36, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "As such she became Queen consort of Spain, and reigned from 1634 to 1696" - but not as Queen consort, after Philip's death in 1665. Their son's article describes her as Queen Regent. Then, I think she stopped being regent in 1675, on Charles' majority, although she continued to exercise great influence. So perhaps: "On her marriage, she became Queen consort and, at her husband's death, Queen regent during her son's minority, until his accession in 1675. After this, due to Charles II's infirmity, she continued to exercise influence until her own death in 1696."
  • agree. Done. Ceoil (talk) 13:35, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "and a large gold brooch" - you may well disagree, in which case ignore, but I wonder of the big gold disc in the centre of her bust is best described as a brooch? I tend to think of brooches as things to the side, often for fastening, which this isn't. What about pendant? That said, I can't really tell if it's affixed to the chain in some way, or not. In the Versailles portrait, it clearly is, but in the MET portrait, I think it's not. Maybe best to stick with brooch!
  • We don't really know, so have left open / ambiguous. Ceoil (talk) 11:02, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
I think this is addressed. Would appreciate a rered. Ceoil (talk) 13:33, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "the rather dramatically drawn curtain was painted over by another hand" - I'm not quite getting this. Does it mean that Velázquez originally drew a curtain, which somebody else subsequently embellished? Or does it mean that there was no curtain originally and one was added later by another artist? Do the sources tell us?
  • see above Ceoil (talk) 13:35, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
The consensus is that it was not in Vel's original painting. Ceoil (talk) 11:05, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "an emphasis on bright hues against dark backgrounds, extravagant head-dress, and fashionably wide dresses" - "an emphasis on bright hues against dark backgrounds, extravagant head-dresses, and fashionably wide costumes"?
Description
  • "with every attempt made to convey a sense of her majesty" - as she's not previously been mentioned in this section, I wonder if "with every attempt made to convey a sense of the queen's/Marianna's majesty"?
  • Removed Ceoil (talk) 13:52, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "her black dress, which is at least given pictorial space" - not getting what the "at least" is trying to say here?
  • Reworded Ceoil (talk) 13:52, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "that wilful, mulish German" - not sure why the last bit of the quote is italicised? Is it a quote within a quote?
I think because I like the quote very much, having a lot of German family and friends, and at one time, prob late at night though...I could have put it that way. Ceoil (talk) 10:32, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "The overhanging curtain was painted over by another hand.[14]" - see my query in the lead. Oddly, Cite 14 is taking me to another picture entirely within the Prado collection. Think this must be an error?
  • Yes; removed. Ceoil (talk) 17:30, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "She holds a lace scarf in her left hand" - you call this a handkerchief in the Lead. Not sure which is best?
  • See above Ceoil (talk) 13:52, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
Commission and dating
  • "that his courtly duties hindered his available time for painting" - perhaps, "that his courtly duties limited the time he could devote to painting"?
Done Ceoil (talk) 16:04, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "and Felipe Prospera" - I think it's "Felipe Prospero".
  • done Ceoil (talk) 17:36, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "to return to Madrid as soon as possible to completed the work" - "complete".
  • done Ceoil (talk) 17:36, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Last para. of this section - this confused me a bit. It starts by talking about Marianna's portraits, but ends (last two sentences) talking about portraits of Maria Theresa and Margaret Theresa. As such, the "her" and "she" threw me a bit as I wasn't sure whether they were referring to the mother or to one of the daughters. Moreover, the fifth sentence is definitely about Maria, while the sixth is about Margaret, so I don't think the "She" is right. Would it be possible to clarify.
Gallery
  • The Infanta Maria portrait - Other than that it's another Velázquez, I'm not quite getting the relevance of this one. I'd probably put in the full Las Meninas portrait, which you don't have. As it shows Mariana, and is mentioned in the article, I'd suggest it has greater relevance.
  • Was trying to show the progression of his later portraits of royalty, which to me are his supreme achievements. I think he got there by trial and error; they became progressively better, which was what was trying to convey. I think the ghostly Portrait of the Infanta Maria Theresa of Spain is the best of these, but seem understudied., hense not at FAC. The galley has been trimmed since by a FU bot, not in favour of trimming further, as the paintings have to be taken in context. Ceoil (talk) 15:30, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
Have trimmed this. Ceoil (talk) 16:06, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Notes
  • Note 2 - isn't this actually a Footnote, rather than a reference?
  • Done Ceoil (talk) 23:24, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Note 14 - as indicated in Description above, this seems to be a misdirect. I think you need this [6].
  • done Ceoil (talk) 17:36, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Sources
  • "Mazo's 'Queen Mariana of Spain in Mourning'". London: National Gallery Technical Bulletin, Volume 26, 2005 - I think the third author's name is the wrong way round. She's Marika (forename) Spring (surname), and thus should list as "Spring, Marika".
  • done Ceoil (talk) 17:36, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Ortiz, Dominguez Antonio. Velázquez. New York: Harry N Abrams, 1990 - I think his surname is Dominguez Ortiz, with Antonio as his forename. This would agree with your alphabetic listing.
  • sorted now. Ceoil (talk) 13:20, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

That's all from me. A fascinating article, made even more interesting for me personally as I first read it while in Spain. Pleased to Support when you've had a chance to consider the comments/suggestions. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 09:55, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks KJP for the feedback. Starting now to address. Ceoil (talk) 10:07, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
@KJP1:, I think I have all of these sorted; you might give another look when you have a chance. Thanks once again. Ceoil (talk) 17:30, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Ceoil - She's looking good, and I'm pleased to Support. KJP1 (talk) 07:37, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
I appreciate all the help. Ceoil (talk) 08:43, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Comments Support from EwulpEdit

I think the matter of the curtain needs some clarification; otherwise nothing but a few style quibbles:

  • "the rather dramatically drawn curtain was added by another hand." (Lead section): I'd change it to something like "The upper part of the rather dramatically drawn curtain", otherwise it sounds as if the whole curtain was painted or overpainted by another artist, which as far as I can tell is not what sources say.
  • Yes good point, done Ceoil (talk) 17:38, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
  • In the same vein, in "Provenance and copies" Velázquez is said to have extended the canvas at the top; Georgia Mancini (in Carr) says that "a hand other than Velázquez added a piece of canvas to the top of the original composition and painted the upper part of the curtain" sometime before 1700 to match the size of Philip’s portrait.
  • I'm not finding this, do you have a link. useful. Ceoil (talk) 17:59, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
It's in Carr on p 226; online there's just enough of the relevant text visible here. Ewulp (talk) 23:58, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Excellent, thanks. Added now. Ceoil (talk) 20:45, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "Housed in the Museo del Prado, its subject, Dona Mariana, known as Maria Anna, was the daughter of Emperor Ferdinand III and the Infanta Maria Anna of Spain." (Lead section) Taken by itself, that sentence seems to say that Dona Mariana is housed in the Prado rather than her portrait.
Sorted. Ceoil (talk) 23:24, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "15th December 1651" (Lead): an adjustment would eliminate ordinal per MOS:DATE.
  • Edited Ceoil (talk) 17:38, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "The painting is composed from harmonious shades of whites, blacks and reds." I’ve read the article through a few times in the last week and the from always clanks; I'd go with of. I thought perhaps it was just me but there is evidence that this is an unusual usage.
  • Done. Ceoil (talk) 19:04, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

This is an engaging article that I look forward to supporting for FA. Ewulp (talk) 05:56, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ewulp, re-reading the sources and hope to address issues around the curtain this afternoon. Will let you know. Ceoil (talk) 21:08, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
I think its ready now for another look. I may need clarity re the point on the curtain above. Ceoil (talk) 17:31, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Can you rake another look Ewulp pls; have had a close look a the attribution of upper part of the curtain, and I hope clarified. Ceoil (talk) 19:14, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I've just removed a duplicate (I think) title from "Sources", as I'm pretty sure the same Met catalogue of 1989 was listed twice. There remains some confusion in a few of the refs: should the citations to "Gállego (1989)" be amended to "Ortiz, Gallego (1989)" or to ""Gállego (1984)"? Ewulp (talk) 05:21, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Ok caught this. The error seems to be related to contributors vs editors. Ceoil (talk) 02:31, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "Mariana had extravagant taste in clothes and jewellery, but her married life was pressured by the need to produce a male heir." The pressure to produce a male heir is discussed twice already in "Background" & seems repetitive here; probably better simplified to something like: "Mariana's extravagant taste in clothes and jewellery is evident, but a modern view is that she..." Ewulp (talk) 03:44, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
yes, and cut and rephrased per your suggestion. Ceoil (talk) 18:59, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Looks great: Full support. Ewulp (talk) 00:13, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Comments by WehwaltEdit

  • I would put the word "Austria" somewhere in the first half of the first "Background" paragraph.
  • "Philip sought Mariana, " I doubt if he went a-wooing. Maybe something like "Philip negotiated for Mariana's hand in marriage" or whatever the sources will support.
  • "highly pressurised" maybe, "under great pressure"?
  • There seems to be unsourced material, for example the last sentence of "Background"
  • "She is has an unusually rigid and stiff pose;" some small problem near the start of this I think.
  • "Her dress is extensively lined with silver braids and decorated with red ribbon.[2]" I might lead the paragraph with this. Also you might want to break up the somewhat repetitive sentence beginnings, "Her ..."
  • "Her left hand holds large and elaborately folded white cloth," Either an "a" missing or it needs to be "cloths"
  • "Velázquez was then the Spanish crown painter, having been Aposentador mayor del Palacio (officer in charge of palace lodging) since 1652.[18] " I took this to mean that this was the title held by the Spanish crown painter, but the following sentences suggest that his duties were distinct from painting. Some clarification might help.
  • "He accepted the commission" that is, for the Mariana painting.
  • "in life Mariana was vivacious and fun loving.[24][10]" You've told the reader this before. Also, refs may be not in order.
  • "From this, we can infer that the painting was completed at least before this date.[23]" You might move "at least" to before "infer" or better yet omit it.
Looks pretty good.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:58, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Wehwalt, working through these. Ceoil (talk) 14:00, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
Now all resolved. Ceoil (talk) 19:13, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
Wehwalt, are you good with the above? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:22, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Support From a hasty re-read, looks much better.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:41, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

thank you. Ceoil (talk) 19:50, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Comments from CassiantoEdit

  • "Mariana was born on 21 December 1634 in Wiener Neustadt, Austria, as the second child of Ferdinand III, Holy Roman Emperor and of Philip IV of Spain's sister Maria Anna of Spain. Her parents had six children..." -- Maria's or Mariana's?
Maria's. Done. Ceoil (talk) 21:02, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "Realising that the hegemony of the Halsburg dynasty was at stake,[6] Philip negotiated to marry Mariana..." Negotiated seems like the wrong word here, unless it was a business deal. "Planned"?
It was absolutely a 'business' deal. see worse re her son in: Habsburg Motherhood: The Power of Mariana of Austria, Queen Regent for Carlos II of Spain. She was quite the bright and able spark though. Ceoil (talk) 21:01, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "By nature vivacious" → "Vivacious by nature".
  • done. Ceoil (talk) 21:44, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "As Charles was infirm as a child and youth, suffering from physical disabilities, and because the Spanish monarchy had developed towards female inclusion, allowing significant rights to inheritance and succession, Mariana dominated the political life in Spain until her own death in 1696." -- overly long, and the serial comma makes it a little difficult to read.
  • "However, Velázquez seemingly conducts an in-depth examination of her character." -- Velázquez or Mariana? Sorry, it may be obvious to you and I, but it may not be to others. It then continues with the female pronoun which may only add to the confusion. It looks ambiguous because we are talking of two women.
done. Ceoil (talk) 22:16, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "She has alabaster skin..." -- new para, new noun.
    rewrote this. Ceoil (talk) 21:45, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "Her bodice accentuates her waist." -- ditto
  • "Although she had extravagant taste" -- ditto
  • "He accepted the commission for the portrait during his 1649–50 visit to Italy. -- ditto
  • "Philip's portrait is unfinished, with some sections, including the lion, described as "hardly more than sketched" -- by whom?

CassiantoTalk 20:17, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Cassianto, have all these now. Ceoil (talk) 23:33, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
Second read through
  • "Vivacious by nature, Mariana wrote that her day to day courtly duties seemed oppressive, and she was under great pressure to produce a male heir." -- where did she write this?
Its of historical record. Reworded so its not first hand. Ceoil (talk) 23:46, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "the marriage was deemed a success when she gave birth to a daughter..." -- By who?
  • Presumably by Philip and his close advisers. Have reworded this slightly; but its obviously an uncontroversial inference made by historians. Ceoil (talk) 00:14, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "Mariana had a difficult life; she and Philip had not met before their marriage, and later found little in common." -- I think saying "difficult life" and then going on to give the only example of this as the problematic marriage is not illustrating the difficult life enough. A difficult marriage, sure, but some have difficult marriages, but otherwise have a good life.
There was constant pressure. Now reading - He was aged over 40 years, she was 19, and her bid to provide Philip with an heir, in a family whose male children tended to be sickly,[9] included a number of false hopes and miscarriages.[10] When Philip died in 1665 she became regent for her son Charles II, the last of the Spanish Habsburgs.[11][12] As Charles was infirm as a child and youth, suffering from physical disabilities, and because the Spanish monarchy had developed towards female inclusion, allowing significant rights to inheritance and succession, Mariana dominated the political life in Spain until her own death in 1696.[13] For "dominated", read coped very well, though that judgement is outside the scope of the article. Ceoil (talk) 04:53, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Section now clearer. Ceoil (talk) 23:26, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
  • You have a broken ref in the first para of the "Description" section
  • I think Ewulp sorted this. Ceoil (talk) 05:02, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "She has an unusually rigid and stiff pose; her upper body and head seem to almost suffocate underneath her black dress" -- Perhaps best to reduce the POV.
  • Ok, will make the POC bits "according to art historian" Ceoil (talk) 23:21, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "Her unusually pale skin is heavily painted in rouge, making it almost doll-like under her wig and wide head-dress." -- Again here.
  • Yes per above. Ceoil (talk) 23:21, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "has been described as 'worthy of El Greco'". -- By who?
  • Clarified. Ceoil (talk) 05:01, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "From this, we can at least infer that the painting was completed before this date." -- Who's "we"? Suggest reworking this.
  • Its a mathematical calculation, so have removed the "we". Ceoil (talk) 00:44, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "in person Mariana was engaging and fun loving." -- says who?
    Almost all surviving first hand recollections, but will clarify. Ceoil (talk) 00:45, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

CassiantoTalk 21:11, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay, but I've been away. I have just received Ian's ping asking for an update and note the changes made above, which I thank Ceoil for. If there is a requirement to either promote or archive this now, then I'm very sorry, but at this point I'm leaning towards an oppose on the grounds of prose. It still seems to be very choppy and there are still a few pronouns leading paragraphs (see the last two in the "description" section, for example). Ive conducted a couple of edits to this now to help out somewhat, of of which is swapping a euphemism, something that really shouldn't exist in an article this close to FA. I've also rewritten a large chunk in the last paragraph in the first section, which I'd ask the nominator to check as interpretation was used in the absence of books. For example:

  • "When Ferdinand III requested a portrait of his daughter, Philip asked Velázquez to return from his 1649–50 visit to Italy to Madrid as soon as possible" -- Was he on holiday for an entire year? If not, why mention the year span at all? It gets in the way, in my opinion. Mention when he was asked to return if you have to mention it at all.
the trip to Italy is very well known and often users to categorize his works...ie before, during, after. Also it indicates the importance of the work that he returned from an extended trip.Ceoil (talk) 11:56, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
  • "The marriage presented many difficulties for the Spanish court" -- why is the court fussed about a marriage? I'm not familiar with foreign marriages in the Early Modern period, did the courts marry people? Why not the church? Would it have something to do with this?
of course the royal court is interested in securing a successor for their king. Ceoil (talk) 11:58, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Of course, nothing. They may well be interested, but for the reader it would be interesting to know which type of court you are talking about. There will be those not familiar with how such things work. CassiantoTalk 08:39, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
  • "From this, the painting came be assumed as finished before this date." -- typos like this

shouldn't be in an article that is on the verge of promotion to FA. Please check throughly for any existing ones.

  • "They also had two sons. Felipe Próspero was the original heir to the throne, but died in 1661 aged 3 years. Charles, the future Charles II of Spain, was born later that year." Why not swap full stops for semicolons? The sentences are linked and it would flow much better.
doneCeoil (talk) 12:34, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

If these few things can be sorted before the time comes for the coords to make a decision, then I'd be happy to support. If not, I would ask that this article be archived. CassiantoTalk 11:28, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Support upon final read through and on the back of the recent changes. Anything else can be addressed post FAC. CassiantoTalk 09:22, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
  • thanks for the thorough review which gas helped the page enormously. Ceoil (talk) 19:58, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Comments by DudleyEdit

  • "Alongside her, a clock rests on scarlet drapery." It looks to me behind her.
    Yes Ceoil (talk) 23:05, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
  • It seems odd to name her first fiancé in the lead but not her husband. PS I see that she married Philip, but this is not clear. I would just say "married" rather than "planned" in the lead and "negotiated" in the main text, which could mean that he was arranging a marriage to someone else.
    Makes better sense. Ceoil (talk) 23:05, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
  • No change needed, but the rules of consanguinity were remarkably relaxed in this period. Around the year 1000, the Pope forced King Robert II of France to accept annulment of his marriage because his wife was his second cousin. In other cases, marriage to a third cousin was prohibited.
    I may incorporate this into a note; looking for a source. Ceoil (talk) 23:07, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I would give the year of her husband's death in the lead.
    done Ceoil (talk) 23:05, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Accession is the wrong word. He acceded when his father died. I suggest "came of age".
    done Ceoil (talk) 23:05, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "(her mother Maria Anna of Spain was Philip's sister)". You said this in the previous paragraph.
    removed Ceoil (talk) 23:05, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
  • You should give the year of their marriage.
    done Ceoil (talk) 23:05, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
  • You mention her daughter and son who died in this paragraph, but not Charles and any other children.
    expanded 23:05, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "Mariana had a difficult life; she and Philip did not meet before their marriage, and found little in common, and she was regent to a physically weak son. Her marriage presented many difficulties for the Spanish court." Her regency is out of place in the middle of a discussion of her marriage.
    removed and regiged. Ceoil (talk) 23:05, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "As Charles was infirm as a child and youth, suffering from physical disabilities, and because the Spanish monarchy had developed towards female inclusion, allowing significant rights to inheritance and succession, Mariana dominated the political life in Spain until her own death in 1696." This is clumsily worded. Also, the article on Charles said that he had mental disabilities, which would have been far more important to a ruler. I suggest. "Charles was infirm as a child and youth, suffering from mental and physical disabilities, and the Spanish monarchy allowed women to play a powerful role in government, so Mariana was able to dominate the political life of Spain until her own death in 1696."
    this wording is much better, thank you. Ceoil (talk) 23:05, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Would "Charles was infirm throughout his life" be more accurate? Dudley Miles (talk) 10:46, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, and incorporated. Ceoil (talk) 18:45, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
  • "Although Mariana had extravagant taste in clothes and jewellery, a fact that was much commented on during her lifetime, her married life was pressured by the need to produce a male heir. A more sympathetic, modern, view is that she was a rather plain looking woman in an unhappy marriage, perhaps lacking in much of the elegance that Velázquez attributed to her." I am not clear why you are suggesting that the modern view is different. Both seem to be true from what you say.
    Reworded but not done, there is a point to be articulated....thinking.... Ceoil (talk) 23:05, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
  • There are many duplicate links. I do not know why duplink does not highlight the second mention of Maria Theresa. You only link Philip Prospero at his second mention.
    done Ceoil (talk) 23:05, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "in person Mariana was engaging and fun loving" This seems to contradict some of your other comments about her. Maybe she was not so unhappy?
    I think she was engaging by nature, but became ground down. It happens. Ceoil (talk) 23:05, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I do not think you need separate columns for the two notes. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:01, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
    done Ceoil (talk) 23:05, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for all these Dudley; lots of food for thought there, and hopeful the responses that improved the page. Will let you know when am ready for you to revisit. Ceoil (talk) 23:05, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi @Dudley Miles:, all addressed now, I think. Ceoil (talk) 19:07, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Support. Looks fine now. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:30, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Coordinator notesEdit

Lots of review but currently lacking declarations of support... looking to tie up loose ends here and determine readiness. @Ewulp, Wehwalt, Cassianto, and Dudley Miles:—do you have any more feedback? --Laser brain (talk) 16:28, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

It looks like WereSpielChequers also offered partial support, unbolded. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:10, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Yes I did, though with the caveat that "the only aspects of the article that I have checked are prose quality and comprehensibility to a general reader who doesn't know the subject." ϢereSpielChequers 11:19, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

I think we're about there now but not sure if we've completed a source review -- KJP1, you appeared to be checking formatting, were you also signing off on reliability? If not we need someone to check that pls. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:50, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Ian Rose - pleased to pick this up but it will have to wait till tomorrow as I’m now busy opening presents. Happy Holidays! KJP1 (talk) 14:35, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Source reviewEdit

Notes

  • Just a query, and if it's a MoS thing just ignore me coz' I probably won't know what I'm talking about, but is there any reason why the page references in the notes aren't just given as citations, rather than being written out in full?
changed to in-line now. Ceoil (talk) 19:39, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Citations

  • Cite 4a - If I'm being picky, while the source certainly supports the date of Balthasar Charles's death, it doesn't actually say that this was from smallpox. Nor does it support the fact that the death occurred two months after his betrothal to Mariana. I happen to know that both these facts are true, but verifiability is all! Is there another source that could be wheeled in to confirm these latter two points.
  • source says “Don Balthasar Charles died of smallpox on the 9 October 1646.” Ceoil (talk) 19:39, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Betrothal now sourced as June 1646. Ceoil (talk) 20:59, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Ceoil - My bad! Why is the opening, where it mentions smallpox, in small print! It's like a bloody insurance document. KJP1 (talk) 21:57, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Cite 21a - I think there's a copy and paste error here with the page number. On my reading, page 52 is all about painting technique, and the reference to Maria's daughter's marriage appears on page 46
changed now. Ceoil (talk) 20:05, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Cite 34 - this certainly takes me to the right image, that of the queen in mourning, but I'm not actually seeing Cite 34 in the text. What is it supporting? Am I missing something?
it’s supporting the attribution of followers/workshop and the location, and has a provenance section. Ceoil (talk) 19:39, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Sources

  • Giorgia Mancini - again being uber-picky, I think the Location/Publisher order should be "London" then "National Gallery", following Ackroyd, Portus and Prohaska.
reworded. Ceoil (talk) 19:39, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Silvia Mitchell - This one isn't quite clear to me. First, I think we're missing a location. I'm guessing Ashgate is these guys, Ashgate Publishing, now part of Routledge, and that the work is one in this series, [7]. Does it not have an identifier? Others appear to have isbns, [8]. In short, I think we need a location and an isbn.
  • done; loc and isbn visible here. Ceoil (talk) 19:52, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Have checked all the online sources. Not able to check the book sources but, given the provenance, I'm not concerned. If Ceoil could have a look at the above comments/queries, I'd then be very pleased to sign off the Source review. KJP1 (talk) 17:54, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks KJP1, will let you know when complete. Ceoil (talk) 19:39, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Ok, think I have all these now. Ceoil (talk) 20:59, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Ceoil - Many thanks for the very prompt responses. Just one quick one, and I'm really sorry if I'm being dumb, but where is Cite 37 (formerly Cite 34) in the inline text? When I click on the little "Jump up" hat to the right of the cite, it doesn't take me anywhere and I can't see it in the main body. KJP1 (talk) 21:53, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
it was in an image ALT! Now removed. Ceoil (talk) 22:13, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Ah, I thought I was going mad. All done indeed, and happy to sign off the Source review. Congrats. When I think I was commenting from Spain back in October, this one's been a bit of a slog. KJP1 (talk) 22:34, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
oh, it was worth the excellent feedback. Thank you very much. Ceoil (talk) 23:31, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Ah, KJP1, it looks like you've performed a spotcheck of sources for accurate use, which is great, but are you signing off on the reliability of the sources per my earlier comment? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:06, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
Ian Rose - yep, I’m happy both with the reliability of the sources themselves, and the uses to which they’ve been put. KJP1 (talk) 09:44, 27 December 2019 (UTC)


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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 25 December 2019 [9].


A History of the Birds of EuropeEdit

Nominator(s): Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:51, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

I've not been at FAC for some months, but I'm back with a new project. Henry Eeles Dresser was famous in his time, although he's almost forgotten now. This article is about his magnum opus. An FAC on a book is a new departure for me so please be gentle... and you'll find out why he wasn't afraid of being scalped by the Comanche too! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:51, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Aa77zzEdit

I enjoyed reading this article, it is well prepared and very clearly written.

  • "The Birds of Europe was published as 84 quarto parts between 1871 and 1896." suggest "...1871 and 1882." According to McGhie p.147 the book (without the supplement) consisted of 84 parts and was published between 1871 and 1882. (the title pages of each volume have 1871-1881)
  • "84 quarto parts between 1871 and 1896.[33][34]" - the two cites are to different pages in the same book. Better to combine in one cite (ie pp. 137, 146–147)
  • Both refs are also used elsewhere, so confusing to combine them here Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:08, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "When all the parts were published, they were bound into volumes using Morocco leather with gold tooling." faithful to the source - but surely the subscribers had the parts bound privately and thus the binding could vary (although presumably leather with gold lettering was common).
  • As you know, McGhie says no more than that, but perhaps the covers and endpapers were sent to the subscribers for their bookbinders to use? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:08, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
  • You could mention that the main book consisted of 8 volumes - with the supplement as volume 9. (McGhie p. 147 - or look at a scan)
  • ("including their failure to use trinomial nomenclature" - I doubt whether other ornithologists were using trinomials in 1871 when Dresser started.)
  • well, there was certainly an active debate by 1878 (McGhie 144, 175), and I don't think Seebohm of all people would have been overly concerned on the exact timing — and Dresser was clearly a conservative on the issue, with little compromise even in subsequent books Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:33, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
  • First quote from Seebohm - I also like the end of the second sentence which you do not quote "though in most cases his bird-stuffer, even if he be only a country barber, will be quite capable of correcting such childish blunders."
  • Second quote from Seebohm - I find very difficult to follow even when I read the original text. Seebohm was clearly a very nasty man.

Legacy

  • "When he was appointed in 1872 the museum had 35,000 bird specimens ..." to the end of the paragraph seems off topic. The bequests of Hume etc to the BM probably don't belong in this article.

- Aa77zz (talk) 16:25, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

  • The first sentence of the lead uses the past tense where I would use the present: "A History of the Birds of Europe, ... is a nine-volume ornithological book...". "is a book" - but "it ... was published."

- Aa77zz (talk) 17:58, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Aa77zz thanks for your careful review and textual tweaks. That was relatively painless given that you clearly have access to McGhie's book! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:33, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Here are some more comments:

  • "Seebohm was a much more committed supporter of Darwinism..." This is uncertain. Seebohm believed in the development of new species but not by "natural selection". I have a copy of Stresemann's Ornithology - the history of ornithology from a German perspective. Stresemann doesn't mention Dresser but cites Seebohm (on p. 327) as someone who believed that species changed without selection. He cites a passage written by Seebohm in 1887 here where Seebohm writes: "I agree with him that Natural Selection from Fortuitous Variations will only account to a very limited extent for the evolution of an existing species, and not at all for the differentiation of a new one." and "It is impossible to avoid coming to the conclusion that Variation is not accidental, that there is no such thing as Fortuitous Variation, and that Spontaneous Variation, like Spontaneous Generation, is a myth." According to McGhie p.147 Dresser accepted that "birds evolve into localised forms in response to local climates and in isolation." (but as far as I can see Dresser doesn't mention natural selection)
  • Perhaps mention that 20 copies on thinner paper and without the plates were given to contributors. (McGhie p. 138)
  • Perhaps mention that Dresser strictly applied the law of priority using sometimes obscure or foreign language journals which meant that he changed the established Latin names of some species. "causing great consternation among his colleagues." (McGhie p. 143) (In contrast Seebohm believed in et auctorum plurimorum - (cf wiki consensus of RSs) - he inserts these Latin words in bold characters by his preferred binomial name even if not the earliest - ie he valued stability)
  • Is it possible to say something about the taxonomy used by Dresser and the organization into orders, families etc? McGhie just discusses species. Dresser discusses the taxonomy in his introduction.
  • Perhaps mention Dresser's 1881 "A List of European Birds, including all species found in the western palaearctic region" available here. McGhie on p.147 suggests that this book may have been published in response to Sclater's criticism that the History was too large.
  • Perhaps include a cite to McGhie's 2011 analysis of the publication history, pagination etc which can be downloaded (the reference is complicated so I'm including it here):
    • McGhie, Henry A. (2011). "Dresser, H.E. (1871-"1881" = 1871-1882). [Initially Sharpe, R.B. & H.E. Dresser.] A History of the Birds of Europe, including all the species inhabiting the Western Palæarctic Region". In Dickinson, E.C.; Overstreet, L.K.; Dowsett, R.J.; Bruce, M.D. (eds.). Priority! The Dating of Scientific Names in Ornithology: a Directory to the literature and its reviewers. Northampton, UK: Aves Press. pp. 88–89. ISBN 978-0-9568611-1-5.

(Both McGhie 2011 and McGhie 2017 App.2 list the 5 "new" species introduced by Dresser in his History. Of these 4 appear to be now considered as junior synonyms and Octocorys brandti is now Eremophila alpestris brandti - one of the 42 (sic) subspecies of the horned lark - not very notable.)

- Aa77zz (talk) 13:49, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Aa77zz, thanks for comments and links, all done I hope. I've also reffed Ohl on the problems with priority Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:05, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Support - I'm happy with the changes. Great work. - Aa77zz (talk) 08:32, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Sources reviewEdit

  • No spotchecks carried out
  • Links to sources working per checker tool
  • Formats:
  • Ref 39 needs space after "p."
  • Ref 58: lacking year for British Birds Vol 3 issue 9. See e.g. ref 54
  • Seebohm – what are his credentials as a self-published source? Also, add oclc?
  • The title "Selected bibliography" might suggest that these are sources – "Further reading" maybe clearer.
  • Quality/reliabilty: other than mentioned above, no issues. Sources are of appropiate quality and reliability and meet FA criteria. Brianboulton (talk) 21:24, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Brianboulton, thanks for that. I've fixed the two refs. Like Dresser, Seebohm was a wealthy industrialist and, like Dresser, could afford to self-publish. He also wrote several books on birds, and was an influential figure in scientific circles. I've added that he was an ornithologist to the text since that was missing. I don't normally give oclc and his text is linked. What to call the list of books is tricky. Further reading sections tend to be deprecated, and since this section links to major publications relevant to the text, I'd rather leave as is Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:25, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
What about "Selected additional biblography"? (Just a suggestion, not a request) Brianboulton (talk) 12:51, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
I'll probably leave as is unless other reviewers raise the issue, which is quite likely! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:00, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Comments from JMEdit

Very interesting.

  • "a recent commentator" is an odd attribution. Could you not just name the person? "the historian of science John Smith" or whatever?
  • "Dresser’s old friend Alfred Russel Wallace was predictably unstinting with his praise" This comes across as non-neutral editorialising. I do like it, though - do you have a source you can cite?
  • No, I've toned it down but added a sentence at the end for Wallace recommending the book Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:28, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "Even the anonymous obituarist, though, could not refrain from adding" Again.
  • tweaked as a caveat, which I think is fair comment Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:28, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Need to stop there; please double-check my edits so far! Josh Milburn (talk) 22:02, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Josh Milburn, thanks for comments so far Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:28, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Do we need all the details of first editions for sale? I worry it'll go out of date. I'd be more interested to hear about digital versions scanned by museums or universities (if there are any).
  • I think it's normal to give prices of valuable books, coins etc, see The Birds of America#Recent sales for instance. I take your point about updating, but I update my FAs regularly, so I'm doing what I can, while I can. The books are long out of copyright, and I've linked to full texts scanned by the University of California in the Bibliography. There may well be other digital version, but there's little to be gained from listing multiple copies of the same free text Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:37, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
  • No, in volume 1 pp 24-29 he considers four palaearctic species, of which two are still considered full species, so the link is correct Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:37, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Again, please double-check my edits! Josh Milburn (talk) 11:31, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Josh Milburn, thanks again for comments Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:37, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
Josh Milburn, I forgot to thank you four the tweaks to the text, all look fine to me Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:13, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Support; I've not looked closely at the sources or images, but I'm happy to support provided nothing else comes up. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:57, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Josh Milburn many thanks, somewhat belated since I had to go away at the weekend Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:26, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Henry_Eeles_Dresser_cph.3b20904.j, pg: when/where was this first published? What is the author's date of death?
  • Published in the US in 1900 according to Library of Congress listing, Published by Maull & Fox, London, presumably in the same year. Author unknown since it's published under the company name. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:52, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Later... Henry Maull died in 1914 and John Fox died in 1907 Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:58, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
  • File:Alfred-Russel-Wallace-c1895.jpg: if this is to be hosted on Commons it will also need a tag for status in country of origin
  • File:RBSharpe.jpg needs a US PD tag and author date of death. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:09, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Added US PD tag and 31 July 1912 as date of Hume's death Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:52, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

FunkMonkEdit

  • I'll have a look soon, some preliminary comments first. FunkMonk (talk) 19:32, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
  • The image captions are inconsistent in whether they give full names or only last names.
  • If only Keulemans was the artist, why name him only in the second caption of one of his artworks (the ibis instead of the oriole)?
  • Keulemanns was the main but not sole artist, so attribution needed on both, done Jimfbleak - talk to me?
Should the infobox mention additional artists then? FunkMonk (talk) 10:19, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Last unanswered point. FunkMonk (talk) 15:39, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
FunkMonk, sorry, missed that. Although it's often referred to just as Dresser's History, Sharpe contributed to 13 out of 84 parts. Keulemanns produced 590 of 633 plates (93%), so by far the most important contributor, and personally I wouldn't add the minor artists to the infobox. If you disagree, though.I will do so Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:29, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I think the pictures of people could state their relevance in the captions for context.
  • "Dresser is wearing a wig" Do we really need this information in an article about a bird book? Seems more appropriate for his biography.
  • well, I think it helps to account for his odd appearance, and does no harm Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:02, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Maybe move the Willughby image to the start of the section, so it doesn't clash with the image below?
  • "such the bird's beak, feet" Such as?
  • "such a Réamur, Brisson, Georges Cuvier and Carl Linnaeus" Such as? Also, why not full names for the first two?
  • "He wished to build on Gould's work to include all" By including all?
  • "so he proposed to Henry Eeles Dresser" Could we get some kind of introduction to Dresser here, what his occupation/affiliation etc. was at this time?
  • "He also had the language skills to translate texts from several European languages" Do we need the first "language"? Or change to linguistic skills, to avoid repetition?
  • The "Preparation" section seems more like a biography of Dresser focused on his relationship with birds up to a certain point, not preparation for the book itself. Could the scope be specified somehow in the title name?
  • Changed to "Dresser and bird collecting" which is more to the point Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:15, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • "and Keulemans was drawing a plate every six days" This is the first time you mention him, so should be linked and introduced.
  • "the different families only coming together in the final binding." Not sure what this means or how it would work.
  • expanded as when the articles and plates were reorganised in the final binding I guess that the parts consisted of loose leaves, so that the could easily be bound, although the source isn't explicit on that Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:35, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  • "the crude division into bird groups used by earlier writers" Bird groups could mean many things, specify?
  • Well, in this case they really did mean many things. Aldrovani, for example had inter alia, fabled birds and worm-eating birds, and Belon included birds of bushes and birds of fields. Giving lists of examples like these to illustrate seems excessive. I've changed crude to arbitrary though Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:35, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Shouldn't Sharpe also be mentioned in the infobox?
  • "such a drawing of a skull" Such as?
  • "of two juvenile ornithologists" Where they particularly young when they wrote it? Perhaps worth noting?
  • At the date of completion, Dresser was aged 44 and Sharpe 33, Seebohm was 50. Added as a footnote Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:35, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  • "in Ibis. an avian science journal," Should that be a comma after Ibis?
  • When was the supplement published?
  • "were less influential than William Yarrell's A History of British Birds" Could be good to give year for context.
  • "It was mainly written by" Was? Most of the rest uses past tense.
  • "to help readers to identify birds" Is the last to needed?
  • "and the Spanish- and Portuguese-governed" why this extreme detail in the intro summary, which is not even mentioned in the article body?
  • "although a recent commentator" Why not just give date? It won't take more space, and in some years time, 2018 will not be recent.
  • Support - nice article on an interesting and obscure topic. Last point, I wonder whether this was Dresser's first publication (on birds)? FunkMonk (talk) 14:40, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • FunkMonk, many thanks for that. It was his first book about birds, but he was a regular contributor of bird articles to zoological journeys throughout his life. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:53, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Ok, perhaps worth specifying? FunkMonk (talk) 15:12, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
I've expanded the first sentence of "Other publications", the existing ref covers the additional material Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:39, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Comments by WehwaltEdit

Interesting article.

  • Was there a publisher? Who printed the work? Ditto, at least on publisher, for the Supplement.
  • Self published, as normal for men of means then. I've added the printer too Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:50, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
  • How ere subscriptions solicited? Were there advertisements or was this word of mouth?
  • "Matamoros, Tamaulipas" I would simply say "Matamoros". The city is probably better known than the state.
  • I don't think either is well known outside N Am, certainly not here in the UK Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:50, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
  • "Dresser had also extended the area covered to include Persia and western Central Asia," Did this border the existing area? You haven't mention if it covered portions of the Middle East.
  • Dresser had also extended the area covered beyond Europe and the Middle East to include neighbouring Persia and western Central Asia... Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:50, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
  • It might be useful to know the years of Wallace's reviews.
  • I might merge the final sentence of the last paragraph of "Reception" into that paragraph's first sentence, thus: "Overall, Birds of Europe was very well received by its contemporary reviewers, as was the Supplement when it was published." (citations omitted) That way, you don't have the sentence hanging off the back end of that quote.
  • Consecutive sentences in Legacy begin with "Although" (although they are in different paragraphs)
  • Although Sharpe's contribution to the Birds of Europe was limited, his involvement had facilitated his move to the British Museum" I'm not sure the "had" is really needed.
  • "Other publications" maybe "Related works" ?
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:51, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Comments – A handful of minor issues from me, but nothing major.

  • The prose nit-pickers normally don't like it when editors start sentences with numerals, like 339 in the lead. In such cases, spelling the numbers out is probably the best way to handle things, even if you wouldn't normally spell it out.
  • I think it's ugly spelling out a number like that. It's not been mentioned by previous reviewers and if it's not a deal-breaker I'll leave as is Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:02, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Background: This bit is a touch redundant: "but its influence was profound, influencing...". A different word for one of them would be helpful.
  • Dresser and bird collecting: To avoid having a slim one-sentence paragraph here, you could try moving the last paragraph to the end of the prior one, where it looks like a good fit.
  • Legacy: Linking World War II isn't really needed in this context, as it does little but distract from the other, higher-value links here.
  • It feels like a word is missing before "his book still attracts the interest of collectors". Was "but" or similar meant to be here.
  • Note h could probably use a cite, if the content isn't covered elsewhere in the article or by the nearby quote's reference.

Giants2008 (Talk) 22:37, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Support – I don't consider the first comment a deal-breaker, the other items were resolved and everything looks to be in fine shape, so I'm happy to support this one. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:24, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Support from Tim rileyEdit

A preliminary digression from my own comments to those of Giants2008, above. As a rule I'm one of the prose nit-pickers to whom Giants refers, but if someone can explain to me why anybody thinks it a sin to start a sentence with numerals, I shall be mightily obliged. As for my own comments, as I read through the text I began to think I was going to fail to find anything to quibble at, but I finally found two things in the second paragraph of the Reception section. The first is purely stylistic (and a matter of personal taste): the false title in "Dresser's former friend, ornithologist Henry Seebohm" – seems a touch tabloidese to me. Secondly, "Seebohm was a much more committed supporter of evolution": I don't think one can support evolution any more than one supports gravity, but rather one supports the theory of evolution. My only other point is that the mention of Ray in the Legacy section comes 21 paragraphs after his previous mention and I for one had to scroll back up to remind myself when "Ray's time" was. If you don't think it unduly repetitive it may be helpful to mention the century again here, but I don't press the point. These tiny quibbles don't detract from my support for the elevation of this article to FA: it seems to me to meet all the criteria (and was a pleasure to review). Finally, and with great sadness, I again pay tribute to the source reviewer, above: this was among the last reviews BB contributed to before his death this week. Requiescat. – Tim riley talk 13:23, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Tim riley, many thanks. I've tweaked to address the issues you mentioned. I agree about Brian, I've posted my tribute elsewhere, but I had realised that the review must have been one of his last acts here Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:46, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Coord noteEdit

Hi Jim, I won't hold up promotion over it but I'd have thought that title case required "including" and "inhabiting" to be capitalised in the (sub)title -- perhaps you know something I don't... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:16, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Ian Rose, thanks. That's how my main source has it too, so I'll change it Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:22, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 25 December 2019 [10].


David Hillhouse Buel (priest)Edit

Nominator(s): Ergo Sum 05:31, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

This article is about a President of Georgetown University at the turn of the 20th century who was very unpopular there, left for New England, quit the Jesuits, left the Catholic Church, caused a scandal by marrying, became an Episcopal minister, and died in poverty. Ergo Sum 05:31, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Support from CoffeeandcrumbsEdit

I will do a full review later but here is what I noticed at first perusal.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 07:09, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

  • "he went to Georgetown University" –– went usually means attended when speaking of a university. I would use a "began teaching at" or "joined the faculty of"
    • Fixed. Ergo Sum 20:51, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Third sentence in second paragraph of the lead would read easier as: "He instituted uncompromising discipline and curtailed intercollegiate athletics which stoked fierce opposition from students and their parents, resulting in his removal by the Jesuit superiors in 1908."
    • Rephrased. Ergo Sum 20:53, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "performed pastoral work and teaching for several years" –– shouldn't this be "taught for several" or "returned to teaching for several"
    • Fixed. Ergo Sum 20:54, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
  • There is a word, punctuation, or something missing between "Catholic Church" and "was ordained an Episcopal minister"
    • Fixed. Ergo Sum 20:56, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
  • last sentence in the lead runs on for a bit too much
    • Rephrased. Ergo Sum 20:57, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

--- Coffeeandcrumbs 07:09, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Watervliet Arsenal is to this day located in West Troy, New York, the distinction you want to make, I think, is that West Troy has since been renamed. The way that footnote a is worded reads like the Watervliet Arsenal was physically moved.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 15:59, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
    • I made an edit myself to resolve this.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 16:08, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
@Coffeeandcrumbs: I believe I've resolved each of your comments. Ergo Sum 20:57, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "His grandfather was a Congregational..." –– Which grandfather is this in reference to? "Charles McDougall"? Charles McDougall's grandfather? or Rev. Buel's grandfather on this father's side? --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 16:31, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
    • I don't know. The source only says his (the article's subject's) grandfather. Ergo Sum 01:56, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  • According to Hillhouse 1924, this is his ancestry on his father's side: Captain David Hillhouse BuelSamuel BuelHarriet (Hilhouse) BuelJohn Griswold HillhouseWilliam Hillhouse (b. 1751). William Hillhouse's third child was James Hillhouse (b. 1754). The claim of prominent ancestry is weak without an example. Please confirm that his great great great uncle was James Hillhouse and add James as example of a prominent Connecticut statesman. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:37, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Done. Ergo Sum 18:09, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I believe also Oliver H. Prince was his great great uncle. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:49, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
    • @Coffeeandcrumbs: I'm unclear who you're referring to here. Same as below. Ergo Sum 02:00, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
      • It does not appear that the person you wikilink to (Oliver H. Prince) is the same person as Oliver Prince Buel. Different birth and death years. Ergo Sum 18:12, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • As confirmed above and stated in the source for "his great-great-great-uncle, who graduated in 1773", the name of this ancestor is James Hillhouse. Please state that. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:02, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Done. Ergo Sum 18:01, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Instead of the honorific "Father Michael J. McGivney", state the reverend's pastoral position at the time.--- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:11, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Rephrased. Ergo Sum 02:19, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  • "There," is unnecessary and jarring. Another option is to begin "At St. Mary's Church," --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:04, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Rephrased. Ergo Sum 17:56, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • "rather than unseemly subjects" is POV and should be attributed as McGivney's or Buel's opinion. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:18, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Rephrased. Ergo Sum 17:57, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • The way you have Medea (play) linked is not ideal. It is better to state the title Medea: A Travesty and then give a parenthetical relation to the ancient play. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:18, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Clarified. Ergo Sum 17:59, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • H4 heading "Conversion to Catholicism" is not necessary. Suggest merging with above and titling "Education and conversion to Catholicism". --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:18, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Done. Ergo Sum 18:00, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

@Coffeeandcrumbs: Thank you for your comments. I believe I've responded to all of them. Ergo Sum 18:13, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

The following articles are duplicate linked in the lead section: Catholic Church and Society of Jesus. The following are duplicate linked in the body: Priesthood in the Catholic Church, Classics, and Hull, Massachusetts. Once the duplicate links are de-linked, you have my support. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 23:39, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
@Coffeeandcrumbs: Removed duplicate links for all except: 1) Society of Jesus because the two times it occurs in the lede are as "Jesuit" and "Society of Jesus", and it's not obvious to those unfamiliar with the subject that those are the same, and 2) Hull, Massachusetts, because it appears once in the text and once in a photo caption. Ergo Sum 00:26, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Comments from EpicgeniusEdit

@Ergo Sum: At first sight, this looks like a really nice article. Somehow it's on my related changes list, and I don't know why I'm even monitoring this article, but I have seen drastic improvements since September. To me, it looks almost at FA quality.

That said, I have a few preliminary comments:

  • Later in life, he left the Catholic Church, married, and became an Episcopal minister. - Any way this can be incorporated into the previous sentence, or somewhere else? I see that this is mentioned in the 2nd paragraph of the lead as well. But chronologically, this doesn't really flow, especially as you mentioned his early life in the following sentence.
    • Rephrased. Ergo Sum 18:15, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Bearing the same name, his father was David Hillhouse Buel - is this necessary? His father bears the same name, so you don't need to mention the father's name again?
    • I mentioned it in order to wikilink it. Ergo Sum 18:16, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
      • @Ergo Sum: I was thinking "His father was also named David Hillhouse Buel". epicgenius (talk) 02:09, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Buel's ancestry included a number of prominent and influential families, including the McDougalls, Hansons, Wilmers, and Hillhouses, - "including" is repeated here.
    • Rephrased. Ergo Sum 18:17, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • His earliest American ancestor, William Buel, arrived in 1630 from England - would you say "had arrived in 1630"?
    • I try to avoid overuse of the pluperfect by restricting it only to instances when it is necessary to distinguish two different past events. Ergo Sum 21:18, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • after chapel services at which Yale required attendance of all students - "after the chapel services" ... I'm assuming this is the specific service that Yale is requiring students to attend?
    • Yes. Ergo Sum 22:20, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • rather than unseemly subjects - This sounds subjective. I wonder if you meant: subjects considered "unseemly" at the time?
    • Oh yeah, Coffeeandcrumbs also mentioned this above. But consider my comment too. epicgenius (talk) 20:18, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
      • Rephrased. Ergo Sum 22:21, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • receiving the degree of Bachelor of Arts - "receiving a Bachelor of Arts degree"? Also, a BA is pretty common nowadays.
    • Rephrased. Ergo Sum 21:18, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • He also considered abolishing the football team altogether, which Columbia University, New York University, and Stanford University had already done - "altogether, as ... had already done"
    • Rephrased. Ergo Sum 22:22, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Failure to abide by this agenda resulted punishment according to a new demerit system - "resulted in punishment
    • Did Buel implement this system? I assume he did, but the article should probably say so directly.
    • I think I've made it clearer. Ergo Sum 22:23, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • with a number of students withdrawing and few matriculating - Do you have any specific figures? It would be interesting to know.
    • The source doesn't have any figures, so I don't know where I would be able to find those. Ergo Sum 22:24, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

More later. epicgenius (talk) 20:11, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: Thanks for your comments. I think I've addressed them all. Ergo Sum 22:25, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
All right, will take a look later. epicgenius (talk) 22:44, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm not seeing anything too major, just a few more things:
  • "Allerton Heights, Massachusetts" is a duplicate link; the first instance of this link has the text "Point Allterton, Massachusetts". But they both lead to Hull, Massachusetts, for some reason.
  • Neither Allerton Heights nor Point Allerton are official places, nor do they seem to be colloquialisms used anymore today. As far as I can tell from a bit of research, they're both areas of modern-day Hull, Massachusetts. Ergo Sum 03:13, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Their marriage produced no children - "They did not have children", perhaps? This sounds unwieldy as currently phrased.
  • Depends on the ear, I suppose. It used to be a common expression. I've rephrased. Ergo Sum 03:14, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
  • The source seems to suggest it is the NYC subway, but I'm not positive, so I've just linked to rapid transit. Ergo Sum 03:16, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Buel lived in poverty, so much so that at one point, he almost starved - I think this can be condensed, e.g. "Buel lived in so much poverty that..." However, it isn't necessary
  • That phrasing strikes me as a little odd. Ergo Sum 03:17, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
  • He was survived by his wife, with whom he had no children - The second part of this sentence seems redundant, given the point I made a few bullets above.
  • I've kept this instance and removed the previous one. Ergo Sum 03:17, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Reference 6 should be limited access, since it's technically in the public domain but NYTimes.com limits the number of pre-1923 articles that non-subscribers can view.
  • Corrected. Ergo Sum 03:18, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

That's all for now. epicgenius (talk) 02:09, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: Thanks. All addressed. Do you have more forthcoming? Ergo Sum 03:19, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
No, I think that's it for now.
Support - I generally think this article is well-written and clear, and can't find anything that really sticks out. If you have time, could you take a quick look at my current FAC? I'd appreciate it very much, but it's OK if you can't. epicgenius (talk) 03:22, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
With regards to SandyGeorgia's oppose, my opinion on this article is unchanged. I don't really see a Catholic POV here, but I grew up in a Buddhist family, so I may be completely ignorant. I do agree that you should look into the difference between ministers and priests, though. epicgenius (talk) 17:58, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

CommentsSupport from CeoilEdit

Overall I feel the article is too couched, and apologetic. To take an example: "his abrupt departure from Georgetown... was sent to Philadelphia"; ie fired you mean. His dismissal is stated clearly in the lead, but glossed in ambig language in the body...is it because of use of different sources? Ceoil (talk) 02:30, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
@Ceoil: Couched? Certainly this was not my intention. I do admit to thinking a lot of writing on Wikipedia is much too inelegant; my writing style is (hopefully) not that. But, if it is ambiguous, that is only because the sources don't state explicitly things that one might reasonably infer. This is actually quite common of formal 19th century American writing. Can you point to any particular instances of sources saying one thing and my writing obscuring the point? If you can provide a few examples, I can try to tighten up the language, but I doubt I could rework my writing style generally. Ergo Sum 02:55, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
Will take a closer look in next few days Ergo. I suppose what I forgot to say is that this is one of the more interesting of your articles that I've read, frankly its pacey, and I read it through quickly without taking notes. I need to put my finger on vague stated impressions, hold on....Ceoil (talk) 08:46, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
@Ceoil: Have you had an opportunity to give the article a look? Ergo Sum 19:51, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Continuing the work of his predecessor, Buel reduced the prominence of athletics, de-professionalizing the football, baseball, and track programs - this seems unclear, or could be better stated, though I know exactly what it means
    • Tweaked it a little bit. Ergo Sum 01:01, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
  • There, he officially resigned from the Society of Jesus on July 12, 1912 - more clearer context needed
    • Rephrased the opening prepositional phrase. Ergo Sum 01:01, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
  • The last sentence of the lead could be clearer - how do the "however" and "spent his last years in New York City" connect.Personally, if I was to end up in NYC, that would be great.
    • They aren't meant to interact. "However" applies to the first clause, and the second clause is a different thought. Ergo Sum 01:02, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
I dont think you have quite nailed it. The however is good, but the following claims understate, or at least are vague, re the fall.
  • I reviewed the sources and their formatting, and there are of the usual high standard from this nominator
  • After a series of trivial prose edits, havnt found anything substantial to complain about
  • Support Ceoil (talk) 23:58, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
    • @Ceoil: Thank you for your review. Ergo Sum 01:03, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Image reviewEdit

  • File:Beacon_Road_(Allerton)_station_postcard.jpg: source link is dead
    • The link hasn't been archived, and there's almost certainly no equivalent page existing today, given that it was an online auction. I don't think this should impact the copyright verifiability. Ergo Sum 01:22, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
  • File:Georgetown_University,_Washington,_D.C.4a11813v.jpg: where is the given photographer from? The LOC source says Detroit Publishing Co. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:20, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Detroit Publishing Company is already indicated in the Notes section and in the licensing tag. Ergo Sum 01:16, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
      • Okay, but why does the photographer credit not match that? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:28, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
        • @Nikkimaria: That's a good question. I've fixed it. Ergo Sum 01:23, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
  • @Nikkimaria: Thank you for the image review. Ergo Sum 01:23, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

"Episcopal minister"?Edit

  • Although he was born an Episcopalian, and died an Episcopalian (refusing last rites from a Catholic priest), and resigned from the Jesuit Society, the first sentence in the lead has him as a Catholic and Jesuit: "David Hillhouse Buel (July 19, 1862 – May 23, 1923) was an American Catholic priest and Jesuit who served as the President of Georgetown University." The New York Times refers to him as an ex-Jesuit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:13, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
  • "Two of Buel's brothers, Samuel and Clarence, went on to become Episcopal ministers.[8]" The source says they were ordained to the priesthood. Confusing this switch to minister. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:02, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Ergo Sum, this Catholic POV throughout the article needs to be corrected. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:33, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
SUGGEST: "David Hillhouse Buel (July 19, 1862 – May 23, 1923) was an American Episcopal and ex-Catholic priest who served as the President of Georgetown University." Then ex-Jesuit can be worked in to the next sentence. Minister --> priest throughout the article. Those changes should address the POV. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:55, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
@SandyGeorgia: I'm not very familiar with Episcopalianism, but I've always heard them referred to as Episcopal ministers, including self-referentially. As far as I can tell, Episcopal minister is an accurate description here, even if not the most common. If the prevailing terminology is Episcopal priest, then I'll change it to that. As for the framing of the lede, all of his career achievements were directly connected with his being a Jesuit, and he was a Catholic priest for the substantial majority of his adult life, and an Episcopal priest for only a short while at the end of his life. I think the current phrasing of the lede is quite fair. Ergo Sum 16:09, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
I think the reliable sources listed are more usable than a Wikipedia article, and strongly disagree with the lede phrasing; ex-Catholic and ex-Jesuit are the correct terms. I hope this can be resolved so I will not need to lodge a 1d oppose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:14, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
@SandyGeorgia: I've changed Episcopal minister to priest. I trust your advice that it's the appropriate terminology. (Just for reference, the Episcopal Church says "minister" includes both priests and laymen). As for the lede, I have to reiterate my comments above. He was an Episcopal priest for literally one year and had nothing notable happen in connection with that. You're welcome to object if you like, but I must strenuously disagree. Ergo Sum 16:16, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Yes, the link you provide reinforces that priest is the term most often used (as do the Canons of the Episcopal Church, a source which I supplied above), and that minister is less specific, encompassing even laypeople. Nowhere in the recent New York Times source given above is the word minister used to describe an Episcopal priest. I am sorry to hear that we disagree on the lead. :( I will ping previous reviewers here for another look and, unfortunately, lodge an oppose. @Ceoil, Coffeeandcrumbs, and Epicgenius: It isn't my "advice", though; my concern is based in sourced information, and the switch from priest to minister indicates a Catholic POV is present (only Catholics are "priests"); now I worry if there is other Catholic POV in the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:27, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
As I say above, I don't suggest that only Catholics are priests, but that my familiarity was with referring to Episcopalians as ministers. Considering that I'm not part of those circles, I've happily changed it. AGF would generally counsel against inferring an ulterior motive. Ergo Sum 16:43, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
My sincere apologies if you believe I ascribed an ulterior motive; I do not believe I did that. POV is rarely intentional, and more typically the author is not even aware that a subtle POV may influence their writing. I said the text may be POV, which is decidedly different than saying an editor intentionally inserted POV. The New York Times article I cited above gives a very good overview of the relationship between the Episcopal and Catholic churches, and is worthy of a thorough read to aid in understanding the broader picture, even beyond the use of individual words. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:10, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Strong oppose, 1d, Catholic POV; noting that a POV concern is much more concerning than my typical 1a, 1c, or 2 reviews. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:27, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

PS, should you remember (I am not demanding), there is no need to ping me. I follow FACs I comment on unless I indicate I am unwatching, and those blooming pingie thingies are just an irritation. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:29, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Just to be clear in framing this discussion: you object to what you believe is a POV in the first two sentences of the lede. You suggest there may be other POV throughout; I disagree and invite you to do a thorough review of the whole article. Ergo Sum 16:38, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
I am happy to leave this to the editors who supported the FAC, and awaiting their opinions. There is little to be gained by having me comb through sources when, presumably, anyone supporting the article already did that. Does giving due weight to the sources not indicate that it is quite significant, according to all sources, that he left the Catholic priesthood and the Jesuit Society? If so, why are we labeling him Catholic and Jesuit in the first line? MOS:LEADNO. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:23, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Possible solution, for discussion:

  • David Hillhouse Buel (July 19, 1862 – May 23, 1923) was an American priest who served as the President of Georgetown University. He was a Catholic priest and Jesuit for much of his life, but later quit the Jesuit order to marry, and subsequently left the Catholic Church to become an Episcopal priest.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:45, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

  • this wording is preferable to me. Ceoil (talk) 18:57, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I like this wording as well. epicgenius (talk) 19:26, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
This edit resolves my final (unspoken) concern about POV, if the lead is addressed. While it was only one little word, I was concerned about the other, which is subtly POV, as it overlooks that the Episcopalian faith has elements of both protestantism and catholicism. While it sometimes describes itself as protestant, it is in communion with Rome. I am quite impressed that Ceoil picked that up, especially after I hesitated to raise such a nitpicky issue. If we can get the first two sentences dealt with, I will strike my oppose (and see nothing else in the article that should hold up promotion). Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:58, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
I don't know much about Episcopalian theology, but I do know that Catholic theology does not regard Episcopalians as in communion with the Catholic Church. In any event, your proposed lede works for me with this one minor tweak to indicate that the two events did not happen at the same time. Ergo Sum 20:13, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
You are correct, and we editconflicted as I was attempting to rephrase there. So, instead, I will strike one sentence, and leave it to the New York Times article to explain the relationship. Now it is my lack of knowledge of the different branches of Catholicism showing! If you can finish up the lead with your corrected suggestion, then, I can strike my oppose and we're good here. I am bending here on one of my least favorite words in the 'pedia (subsequently-- see User:SandyGeorgia) ... but it is probably OK considering the delay in time. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:20, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
I've implemented the proposal on the article. An alternative that doesn't use "subsequently" might be: "...and near the end of his life, left the Catholic Church..." Ergo Sum 20:29, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm not fussed about that ... whatever you prefer. I have struck my oppose, but don't typically support without having more thoroughly read sources or checked for comprehensiveness. For the coords, I see nothing (small or big) to hold up promotion. Unwatching now, nice work! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:33, 24 December 2019 (UTC)


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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 25 December 2019 [13].


SahureEdit

Nominator(s): Iry-Hor (talk) 12:22, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

This article is about Sahure, second king of the Fifth Dynasty of Egypt c. 2460 BC. Sahure's reign represents the political and cultural apex of the Fifth Dynasty (I am quoting a source here!) and possibly of entire Old Kingdom period. His mortuary temple was decorated with an unrivalled 10,000 m2 (110,000 sq ft) of exquisite polychrome reliefs recognised by the ancient Egyptians themselves as the highest form reached by this art, including many representations that are unique to Egyptian history (a pharaoh gardening! bears! and more!). It also featured the first use of palmiform columns--which became almost universally used in subsequent Egyptian temples--and the overall architecture was so innovative that it became the standard template for all following Old Kingdom mortuary temples. A visitor wrote that his temple was still like "Heaven lit by full moon" over 1200 years after Sahure's death.

This article is the fruit of an endless quest for information stemming from 127 sources selected out of nearly 400 JSTOR articles as well as tens of books mentioning Sahure, yielding over 300 inline references. Sahure is the last Fifth Dynasty king not to be FA yet in the series Userkaf (soon to be promoted), Sahure, Neferirkare Kakai, Neferefre, Shepseskare, Nyuserre Ini, Menkauhor Kaiu, Djedkare Isesi, Unas. Once the article on the Fifth Dynasty itself is brought to FA standards, it will constitute, together with the FA articles on the pyramids of these pharaohs, one of the largest if not the largest all-featured topic of wikipedia! Iry-Hor (talk) 12:22, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Source review—passEdit

  • Baker, Darrell (2008), Breasted, James Henry (1906), Clayton, Peter (1994), Dodson, Aidan; Hilton, Dyan (2004), Wilkinson, Toby (2000) need location
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 19:20, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Gaber, Amr (2003). According to Worldcat, location is Boca Raton.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 19:20, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Huyge, Dirk (2017), Goedicke, Hans (1988), Horváth, Z. (2003), Kaiser, Werner (1956), Katary, Sally (2001), Verner, Miroslav (2012)—can you get any identifiers (isbn, jstor, oclc, etc.) on these publications?
Done, I have added the issn or isbn or oclc depending on what I could find. The Katary entry already had an isbn.
  • Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt. Some of these have the institution name, some don't. Be consistent.
Fixed.Iry-Hor (talk) 19:20, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Sources all look reliable.
  • Source checks: Wright & Pardee. No problems found. buidhe 18:58, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Buidhe I hope this addresses all your concerns.Iry-Hor (talk) 19:30, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Image review—passEdit

  • Verified that all images are relevant and available under a free license. buidhe 20:07, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments from JimEdit

Very comprehensive, scholarly, and well illustrated. Of course, some nitpicks to show I've read it. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:06, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

  • in Greek as Sephrês, Σϵϕρής—what's the relevance of this? We are millennia before Ptolemaic Egypt, the local language was Egyptian and Ancient Greek as linked didn't exist then. Linear B or Sumerian would be better
Done Well you are right, this is included because traditionally, the name of Ancient Pharaohs have been known to us through Greek historians of the classical period and some of these kings are still frequently known by their Greek names today, e.g. Mykerinos for Menkaura, Kheops for Khufu and Chephren for Khafra. That said, I recognise that this argument is a bit weak for Sahure, as few people know his Greek name anyway. Thus I have removed this from the lede, and left this info in the alternative names of the infobox as well as in the relevant section discussing historial sources.Iry-Hor (talk) 17:30, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
  • queen Neferhetepes II—capped as Queen?
DoneIry-Hor (talk) 17:30, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Sahure had a pyramid built for himself in Abusir, thereby abandoning the royal necropolises of Saqqara and Giza, where his predecessors had built their pyramids.—repeated pyramids, perhaps monument or similar for one
Done I replaced the second instance by "monuments" as you suggested.Iry-Hor (talk) 17:30, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
  • officiant priests—Just priest would do?
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 17:30, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
  • link cartouche, stele, torus moulding and cornice at first occurrence
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 17:30, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
  • A unique relief depicts several Syrian brown bears—not clear what is unique about this
Clarified, the relief has no parallel in Egyptian art, that is the only relief depicting bears ever made in Egyptian Egypt is this one. I have changed the sentence to clarify this.Iry-Hor (talk) 17:30, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Coloured but honored, harbor
Fixed AmEng here.Iry-Hor (talk) 17:30, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Known Officials—just officials, you can't write about unknown officials. Also the caps are incorrect
Fixed.Iry-Hor (talk) 17:30, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Jimfbleak all fixed !Iry-Hor (talk) 17:30, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Great stuff, happy to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:43, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments from KhrunerEdit

High–quality article as expected from you. I've just found out about the interesting issue of Sekhmet of Sahure and I thank you about that. I encountered just a few inconsistencies, yet nothing about the content per se:

  • the Ramses/Ramesses issue. Either are fine but let's choose one above the other;
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 16:16, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
  • similarly, the dynastic naming convention. I noticed, however, that early dynasties here are written alphabetically (i.e. Fifth Dynasty) while the later are written numerically (17th Dynasty), so this may be some kind of English language rule that I'm unaware of.
Fixed Good point, I have decided to write all dynasties explicitly with letters to harmonize the article.Iry-Hor (talk) 16:16, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
  • A missing space after "Sephrês,".
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 16:16, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Khruner (talk) 13:19, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Khruner All fixed ! Thanks for your help reviewing this.Iry-Hor (talk) 16:16, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
You're welcome! Khruner (talk) 16:28, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Support from Udimu and a few CommentsEdit

Without any doubts a very good article, that gets all my support. I have just a few queries.

Sun templesː once written in two wordsː Sekhet Re, another time in one Nekhenre (needs to be consistent)
Fixed thanks for pointing this out, I have chosen the spelling Sekhetre throughout the article to be consistent with the article on Userkaf's temple. In addition I gave the alternative spelling Sekhet Re only once when the temple is named the first time writing "Sekhetre (also spelt Sekhet Re)" as I have since both in sources.Iry-Hor (talk) 12:20, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
At the time, Senusret I's decision represented an abrupt departure from the burial customs of the 11th Dynasty pharaohs

I am not sure about that, already Amenemhat I left Thebes, so he broke with the 11th Dynasty tradition, not Senusret I. I would rephrase.

Done This was actually what the source said but I agree that this is a strange statement so I weakened it to: " Senusret I's decision was in stark contrast with the burial customs..." i.e. I don't say that this is an abrupt departure as you are right that it was Amenemhat I's decisions which marked the departure.Iry-Hor (talk) 12:20, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
the official Habauptah -> more likely Khabauptah (but please check, Habauptah does not make sense)
Fixed thanks you very very much for seeing this! I went back to Mariette's drawing of the mastaba to check and there it was: his name was indeed Khabauptah. You must be the only person in the whole of wikipedia to be able to spot this mistake! Iry-Hor (talk) 12:20, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
the idea of Khaemwaset as the great restorer and Egyptologist seems slightly outdated. Check Jaromír Málek: A Meeting of the Old and New. Saqqâra during the New Kingdom. In: Alan B. Lloyd (Hrsg.): Studies in Pharaonic Religion and Society. In Honour of J. Gwyn Griffiths (= The Egypt Exploration Society. Occasional Publications. Vol. 8). Egypt Exploration Society, London 1992, ISBN 0-85698-120-6, p. 57–76. Malek argues that Khaemwaset used all old monuments as quarries for his father building's and just placed a label on this monuments to ensure a minimal cult.
Done Thanks for this, Malek does it say so, thus I changed the passage to "At the same period, prince Khaemwaset, a son of Ramses II, undertook works throughout Egypt on pyramids and temples which had fallen into ruin, possibly in order to appropriate stones for his father's construction projects while ensuring a minimal restoration for cultic purposes."Iry-Hor (talk) 12:20, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
last pointː I would rephrase the parts on the navy. This ships are well preserved on the reliefs in the king's temple, but we do not know whether he just copied old scenes, as he did with the war scenes. all the best -- Udimu (talk) 18:01, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
Done I wrote that it is not clear whether the scene are copied from earlier examples or are original compositions dating to the time of Sahure. I also distinguished "earliest depiction" vs "earliest useage of" something, e.g. sea power to transport troops.Iry-Hor (talk) 12:20, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Udimu All done, thank you for your valued inputs. Your finding the spelling mistake in Khabauptah's name is remarkable!Iry-Hor (talk) 12:20, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
no problem. These are all minor issues that could appear in even the best academic works. best wishes --Udimu (talk) 12:31, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
I am starting to fear a lack of reviews on this. Aoba47, Mr rnddude would you be interested in reviewing this article ?Iry-Hor (talk) 21:07, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the ping. Unfortunately, I am currently retired and no longer doing reviews. Good luck with the nomination! Aoba47 (talk) 02:00, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments by DudleyEdit

  • "several naval expeditions to modern day Lebanon to procure cedar trees, people (slaves or merchants)" I do not understand what is meant by procuring merchants.
Fixed, initially the sentence was referring only to slaves, as many sources believe these people were, but then I found a source stating that they were merchants. I removed the reference to merchants in this sentence since this is the lede and the "these are merchants" opinion is a minority. Both opinions are discussed in the main text.Iry-Hor (talk) 10:06, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
  • "Sahure was the object of a funerary cult initially reliant on agricultural estates set up during his reign." I think "financed by" would be clearer than "reliant on".
Changed actually the term "financed" won't do here as there was nothing like financing in Ancient Egyptian society, which had for example no money at this time, no bank nor lenders etc. The agricultural estates were really directly providing food for the offerings and from there to feed the priests of the cults. I wrote : "Sahure was the object of a funerary cult, the food offerings for which were initially provided by agricultural estates set up during his reign".Iry-Hor (talk) 10:06, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
  • "This peculiar cult," peculiar sounds POV. Maybe unusual would be better.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 10:06, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
  • "who was believed to be his brother[37] until 2005". This sounds a bit odd. I would say "who until 2005 was believed to be his brother[37]"
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 10:06, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
  • "These bears appear in association with 12 red-painted one-handled jars from Syria and are thus likely to constitute a tribute." "thus likely to constitute a tribute" seems a non-sequitur and needs explaining.
Explained. I wrote "These bears appear in association with 12 red-painted one-handled jars from Syria. The Egyptologists Karin Sowada and William Stevenson Smith have proposed that, taken together, the bears and jars are likely to constitute a tribute." Readers can then go to the 2 sources to read the argument, which I didn't include in the article because it only shifts the reasoning to another problem. Indeed, the argument of the sources is essentially that "typical" tributes at the time could comprise exotic animals and other exotic goods (wood, stones, metals etc.) as well as food that could endure the journey (wine, oil, honey etc.), slaves and possibly other miscellaneous items. A detailed explanation of what constituted tributes in Ancient societies is beyond the scope of the present article.Iry-Hor (talk) 10:06, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
  • "Trade contacts with Byblos certainly took place during Sahure's reign and indeed excavations of the temple of Baalat-Gebal yielded an alabaster bowl inscribed with Sahure's name." I would delete the words "certainly" and "indeed".
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 10:06, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
  • "In his last year on the throne" Why "on the throne"? There does not seem to be any suggestion that he abdicated or was deposed. Ditto " In his last year of reign", which is also ungrammatical.
Fixed ok fixed everywhere, but why on earth is "In his last year of reign" ungrammatical ?Iry-Hor (talk) 10:06, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I think "In the last year of his reign" would be grammatically correct". Dudley Miles (talk) 11:54, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
  • " 80,000 measures of myrrh", "6000 units of turquoise". What quantity are "measures" and "units"? If this is not known, you should say so.
Done, the measuring unit is not specified in the source nor in the ancient document. I guess it was obvious to the ancient Egyptians. I wrote "80,000 of an unspecified measure of ...".Iry-Hor (talk) 10:06, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
  • "This expedition, also mentioned by the Palermo stone,[6] brought back over 6000 units of turquoise to Egypt[61] and also produced two reliefs in Sinai, one of which shows Sahure in the traditional act of smiting Asiatics[12] and boasting "The Great God smites the Asiatics of all countries".[82] In parallel with these activities, diorite quarries near Abu Simbel were also exploited throughout Sahure's reign." The word "also" appears three times in two lines.
Fixed.Iry-Hor (talk) 10:06, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
  • "Libyans Tjemehu". This is the only mention of Tjemehu in English Wikipedia, although according to the German wiki it was a northern Libyan country which was an enemy to Egypt. A few words of explanation would be helpful. Also why the plural Libyans and why is Tjemehu in italics?
Explanation added, so I wrote a few words about Tjemehu. The concept and level of organization of what we understand today as a country did not exist at the time (with the possible exception of Egypt itself), and in many cases even the term kingdom would be inappropriate (e.g. with bands of raider nomads typical in the western desert). Nonetheless, Egyptians did refer to Tjemehu as a geographic entity (as opposed to a people), so I wrote "Lybians from Tjemehu, a land possibly located in the northern Western desert". The word is given in italic because it is an Ancient Egyptian term.Iry-Hor (talk) 10:06, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
  • "Nonetheless, several overseers of the Western Nile Delta region were nominated by Sahure, a peculiar decision as these officials occupied an administrative position that existed only irregularly during the Old Kingdom period and which likely served to provide "traffic regulation across the Egypto-Libyan border"." I do not understand why the decision was "peculiar".
Fixed Sources here stress the unusual or at least not self-evident nature of Sahure's decision. This administrative post was not one that existed all the time and was filled as soon as the previous office holder died or was given other responsibilities. Instead, the post existed only because of a specific personal decision of the king who must thus have had a specific intent when doing so. Furthermore not so many kings took that same decision. In all cases however, there is a strong correlation with military or merchant activity along the western border of the Nile delta. I wrote "significant" instead of "peculiar" to convery these ideas.Iry-Hor (talk) 10:06, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
  • "The annal record that" This is ungrammatical and what "annal" is referred to here?
Fixed, it is the royal annal on the Parlermo stone and its Cairo fragments. This is how sources routinely call this historical record: "a royal annal", I don't know why they call it so if this is ungrammatical ? Anyway, I wrote "... Palermo stone are religious in nature. This royal annal records ... " to clarify the link between both sentences.Iry-Hor (talk) 10:06, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I meant that grammatically it should be "records" not "record" Dudley Miles (talk) 11:54, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
  • "He notably added an entrance portico with four columns to her temple, so that the entrance was not facing Userkaf's pyramid anymore." I would delete "notably".
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 10:06, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Dudley Miles, I am looking forward to it ! And thanks for helping out by reviewing this nomination.Iry-Hor (talk) 10:06, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
  • "On the administration of religious activities, " I would delete this as awkward and superfluous.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:27, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  • " are the "first definite depictions of seagoing ships in Egypt" (Shelley Wachsmann)," I would prefer "are described by Shelley Wachsmann as the "first definite depictions of seagoing ships in Egypt" "
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:27, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  • "the masts employed at the time were bipodal" bipodal needs explanation. This is the only example of the use of the word in Wikipedia.
Done, explanation added, such masts resemble an inverted Y letter.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:27, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  • "paddling in a wave pattern" What is a wave pattern in this context?
Their paddles follow a sinusoidal pattern. I don't see how to better describe this. This is also how the sources state it and having seen the relief this is exactly what this says.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:27, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  • "first rhinologist" Maybe "first known rhinologist"
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:27, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  • "that a false door be made for his tomb" Sahure's tomb or the physician's?
Clarified, the false door was for the physician's tomb.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:27, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  • "In response to this change, the state administration began its expansion." This is a non-sequitur.
Explained. I wrote "In response to this change, the state administration began its expansion as it included more and more non royal people". There is a logical connection between both facts: the rule that royal princes couldn't hold the highest office meant that non-royals had to fill it. At the same time, princes were given honorific priestly and other charges, which meant more administration. Subsequently, non-royal saw their charges broken up into several offices, which permitted more people to benefit from titles which were connected with social position in Ancient Egypt. By the late 5th Dynasty, the resulting multiplication of offices had led to a large bloated administration which was reformed into a more decentralized form.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:27, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  • "Khaba Sahura (Ḫˁ-bʒ Sʒḥw Rˁ)" I would delete the symbols. You do not give them for other buildings and they do not look like ancient Egyption writing.
In footnote. These are transliteration symbols, used by all modern Egyptologists to write ancient Egyptian after reading hieroglyphs but before decipherment. I will add them for the other buildings once/if I can find them.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:27, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I would still delete. The symbols mean nothing to readers unless you add the explanation above and that would be outside the scope of the article. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:59, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Ok deleted. In any case this information is indeed only tangentially relevant to the present article.Iry-Hor (talk) 11:39, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  • "The builders and artisans who worked on Sahure's mortuary complex lived in an enclosed pyramid town located next to Sahure's causeway." Next to the temple causeway"?
Done I wrote "located next to the causeway leading up to Sahure's pyramid and mortuary temple".Iry-Hor (talk) 09:27, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  • "In terms of size and volume, the main pyramid of the complex exemplifies the decline of pyramid building." This is awkward and a bit misleading. How about "The pyramid was smaller than those of his predecessor but superior in quality." It is still misleading to say that it exempifies the decline. Maybe "The pyramid was smaller than those of its predecessors and the
Clarified. I clarified that the sentence refers to the pyramid, not the accompanying complex. The pyramid was of bad quality as you underline below. It was small, built with cheap methods and fared very badly over time. The word "decline" is used explicitely in a source for these reasons. Only the architecture and decoration of the surrounding temples were superior and remained without equal in the eyes of the Egyptians.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:27, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  • "So much so that these reliefs represent, as Miroslav Bárta writes," Again too wordy. Maybe "Miroslav Bárta describes the reliefs as"
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:27, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  • For clarity, I would change "throughout the accompanying complex" to "in other parts of the complex" Dudley Miles (talk) 10:59, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Fixed you are right, this is clearer.Iry-Hor (talk) 11:39, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:27, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Dudley Miles all fixed.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:27, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  • "who were buried in saff tombs" What is saff? It is not in dictionaries except as an obsolete spelling of save.
Explained "Saff" ("row" in arabic) tombs are a special kind of tomb existing only in the Theban necropolis. Saff tombs comprise an open courtyard fronting a row of entrances into corridors and chambers dug directly into the hillsides in El-Tarif and Deir el-Bahari.Iry-Hor (talk) 19:21, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  • "Sahure's was the recipient of a funerary cult" I do not understand this. Safure's what?
Fixed, it was meant to be "Sahure" also I clarified the sentence to "Sahure was the object of a funerary cult..."Iry-Hor (talk) 19:21, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  • "Khabauptah hem priest of Sahure" Does this mean that his name was Khabauptah hem or he was a hem priest. If the first hem should be capitalised and if the second you need to explain hem priest.
Changed it is "hem priest", "hem" means servant in Egyptian. Such priests had to take care of the god they were serving like dressing his statues and feeding them etc. I simply removed this as this is a level of detail that is not required.Iry-Hor (talk) 19:21, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  • mastaba should be linked.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 19:21, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  • You are inconsistent how dates are shown in the bibliography. Do you have the bot which fixes this? Dudley Miles (talk) 17:27, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Dudley Miles no I don't have the bot. How can I get it and what is the issue with the formatting ?Iry-Hor (talk) 19:21, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  • You sometimes use 2015-04-02 and other times February 10, 2015. Ian Rose Can you advise on where to find the bot? Dudley Miles (talk) 19:47, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Dudley Miles Fixed throughout, by hand.Iry-Hor (talk) 17:04, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments from Tim rileyEdit

I expect to be supporting the promotion of this fine article, but first I have a few points about the prose. The most important is the mixture of BrE and AmE spellings. Except in quotations you should stick to one or the other throughout, but at present we have BrE archaeological, meagre, moulding, recognised, specialised and splendour alongside Am E archeological, archeologist, colored, honored, specialized and splendor. If memory serves me, English is not the nominator's mother tongue and I should be happy to make all the spellings BrE or AmE, whichever is preferred, if that would be helpful. Once this point is cleared out of the way I have a few, not very important, individual points on the prose, but more of them anon. – Tim riley talk 16:02, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Tim riley Thanks for your inputs, I have changed all instances of BrE that you have raised to AmE (except in the bibliography that is, since the sources' titles cannot be changed). Of course, feel free to update to AmE any BrE I might have missed. I am looking forward to your further comments.Iry-Hor (talk) 18:34, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Fine. A few minor drafting points:
  • AmE/BrE – I believe Americans spell "artefacts" as "artifacts" (God knows why). There are four of them in the article.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 12:14, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Does Egyptology/ist have a capital letter or not? At present we have three capitalised and two not in the text and notes. As you capitalise "Hellenized" it would seem logical to capitalise Egyptology/ist, but consistency is the main thing.
Done capitalized throughout.Iry-Hor (talk) 12:14, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
  • In the lead I don't think "Sahure's splendor soars up to heaven" should be italicised as well as in quotes – just the latter would be in line with the MoS as I understand it.
Done the only italicised things left are the Ancient Egyptian words.Iry-Hor (talk) 12:14, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
  • "Taken together these informations indicate" – you can't say "these informations" in AmE (or any other English known to me). It's either "this information" tout court, "these pieces of information" or "these facts" or some such.
Fixed thanks! I do remember being told that by an English teacher already...Iry-Hor (talk) 12:14, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
  • The {{cquote}} pull-quote for "Hail to thee, O Sahure! God of the living, we behold thy beauty!" is contrary to MOS:BQ, I think (though it's far from clear), but if nobody complains I'd leave it there and hope for the best. But it really shouldn't be italicised as well as given the pull-quote layout. The same goes for the "nostrils" quote, later in the text.
Fixed Ok so I propose to change the italic font to normal font, but would really like to keep the pull-quote, which I find nice looking.Iry-Hor (talk) 12:14, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
I entirely agree, but let's not tell anybody. Tim riley talk 19:54, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
  • "with the notable exceptions of those of the highest ranking members" – as "highest-ranking" is used as a compound attributive adjective, it should be hyphenated.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 12:14, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
  • "the southern coast of modern day Turkey" – ditto for "modern-day"
Done in all instances.Iry-Hor (talk) 12:14, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
  • "these numbers are over-estimates" – I can't speak for AmE, but the Oxford English Dictionary doesn't hyphenate "overestimate".
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 12:14, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Those are my meagre gleanings. I'll look in again to add my support after you've had time to consider them. – Tim riley talk 11:54, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Thank you Tim riley!Iry-Hor (talk) 12:14, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Supporting. Another top-notch article on Ancient Egypt from this editor. It is evidently comprehensive, balanced, admirably readable, well illustrated and impressively referenced. Meets the FA criteria in my view. Tim riley talk 19:54, 23 December 2019 (UTC)


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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 25 December 2019 [14].


Capture of WakefieldEdit

Nominator(s): Harrias talk 10:51, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

The capture of Wakefield, in Yorkshire, featured two of the more prominent commanders from the First English Civil War. Sir Thomas Fairfax, after nearly getting himself captured in this engagement, went on to become the commander-in-chief of parliament's New Model Army which effectively won the war. George Goring was taken prisoner at Wakefield, had some success at Marston Moor, but ultimately failed in southwest England, and escaped to France claiming ill-health. The capture of Wakefield itself was significant for the scale of the victory, and the number of prisoners Fairfax was able to take, but territoriality was of little consequence.

The article underwent a GAN in September, and then a MILHIST A-class review in October. As always, all feedback will be gratefully received; I feel like I've been through it with a fine-tooth comb, but I have no doubt that I will soon discover that comb has some glaring holes in it! Harrias talk 10:51, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

CommentsSupport from PMEdit

I looked this over in detail at Milhist ACR so just have a couple of comments:

  • Market Place→marketplace, as it is such a generic term and we know what town it is in, so even if Market Place, Wakefield was ever a proper place name, Market Place seems incongruous here
    Done. Harrias talk 11:59, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I am still left wondering about what more scholarly texts on the Civil War say about this event. There are a few Pen & Sword titles, but not the weightier references I would expect to be referred to, even if their mentions of this event are in passing. Gaunt's The English Civil War: A Military History briefly mentions the capture on pages 127–128, and Wanklyn and Jones' A Military History of the English Civil War: 1642-1649 seems to mention Wakefield a couple of times, although the preview I can access doesn't make it clear if there is anything on this event.
    The mentions in Wanklyn and Jones aren't related to this engagement. I don't have access to Gaunt at the moment, but I should before this review closes. Harrias talk 11:59, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
    No worries, even if Gaunt has similar information as that already in the article, it is worth citing him by way of showing you have looked at all the literature, including the general military histories of the war. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:48, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

That's all I have. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:24, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Cheers Peacemaker67. Harrias talk 11:59, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
As I am away until the 18th, I'm AGF that Gaunt will be examined and cited, and so am supporting on that basis. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:19, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:George_Goring,_Baron_Goring_after_Sir_Anthony_Van_Dyck.jpg needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:07, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Support from Tim rileyEdit

I have enjoyed reviewing this article. It is short, sharp and doesn't mess about. A few very minor points:

  • As Leeds has a link you might perhaps link Nottingham too.
  • You tell us twice that Sir Thomas was Lord Fairfax's son. Once is enough, I think.
  • "in order to capture sufficient men" – there are those (of whom I am not one) who boggle at "in order to", insisting that a simple "to" will suffice. I don't feel strongly on the matter, but just mention it.
    • I've left it for the moment. Harrias talk 10:38, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "an exchange was set-up" – you don't want the hyphen here.
    • Thanks, fixed. Harrias talk 10:38, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Nothing there to prevent my support for the elevation of this excellent article. It seems to me comprehensive, and is well and widely sourced, a splendid read, and nicely illustrated. Meets all the FA criteria in my view. Tim riley talk 19:12, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words Tim. Harrias talk 10:38, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Support from Gog the MildEdit

I assessed this at GAN and it seemed pretty good then.

I have made some minor copy edits which you will want to check.

  • The first sentence gets a bit busy. If you don't wish to split it, could I suggest '... of Wakefield, Yorkshire, which was commanded by George Goring, and ...'? (It is easy to gather that "Wakefield" was the Royalist commander on a first reading.)
    • Blimey, that 'sentence' sure was doing a lot of work. Reworked completely, how's that? Harrias talk 14:17, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
It now says over 1,400, while the article says roughly.
Good catch, aligned both as "roughly". Harrias talk 15:23, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "After being defeated at Seacroft Moor, around 800 Parliamentarians had been taken prisoner" It is not clear from the first clause just who was defeated; one has to work it out from the second. Perhaps 'Around 800 Parliamentarians had been taken prisoner, after being defeated at Seacroft Moor' or similar?
    • Reordered as suggested. Harrias talk 14:17, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Optional: break this sentence after "prisoner". (Ie, start the next with "Fairfax".)
    • I actually think with it swapped around, it flows quite nicely now. Harrias talk 14:17, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "split it into two to attack from different directions" I am not sure about this, but should that be 'split it in two'?
    • It certainly sounds better than the awkward repetition of 'to two'. Harrias talk 14:17, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Optional: the date may fit better immediately before "He marched his force"
    • My only reason for avoiding this, is that the date there would be 20 May, whereas I preferred to use the date of the battle, 21 May. Harrias talk 14:17, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
You are quite right.
  • Optional: break the last sentence of the lead.
    • Split, but clarified. Harrias talk 14:17, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "and declared the Earl of Essex, and by extension Parliament, traitors" Perhaps 'to be traitors'?
    • Yes, that's better. Harrias talk 14:17, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Link "gentry".
  • "South Yorkshire" I am not sure about the upper case S.
    • I think either is fine, but it's no big deal. Changed. Harrias talk 14:17, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "described that during a game of bowls" The convention is to write 'describes'.
    • Changed, because you're right, but it doesn't make any sense to me, because we used "said" rather than "says". Harrias talk 14:17, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
Me neither.
  • Is it known who had command of the "three troops of dragoons" during the attack?
  • Footnote. Consider "every" → 'each'.
    • Yes, that's better. Harrias talk 14:17, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "was defeated on Aldwalton Moor on 30 June 1643" "on" twice in 4 words. Possibly make the first 'at'?
  • "The castle was twice besieged in 1645, surrendering to the Parliamentarians in October 1645" Delete the second "1645".

Splendid stuff. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:58, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: Thanks, as always, for your insights: I've responded to each point above, mostly in agreement. Harrias talk 14:17, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
Always a pleasure to review such fine quality articles. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:57, 18 November 2019 (UTC)


Sources reviewEdit

Links all working, formats are consistent and MoS-compliant. In the main, sources appear to be appropriately scholarly and to meet the standards required by the FAC criteria, but I do wonder about the Rochford book. Its blurb via the google link reads: "The escaping bear who'd had enough of being a Victorian showpiece; tragedy narrowly averted over the skies of Wakefield when an aeronaut lost control of his balloon in 1827; secret passages and hidden relics; and dark tales of determined apparitions and boggarts are among many enchanting stories told within the pages of Wakefield Then & Now: Extraordinary Tales from the Merrie City. In this fascinating book about his home city, Michael J. Rochford has gathered dozens of intriguing accounts from the annals of Wakefield folklore..." etc. Sounds fascinating and entertaining, but is this objective history? Brianboulton (talk) 20:01, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I can't really put forward an argument against that! Thankfully it isn't doing too much heavy lifting, and I've definitely come across the party in other sources, just without such a delicious quote! I'll have a look around and come back to you, thanks. Harrias talk 20:53, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
@Brianboulton: I have replaced Rochford in both places it appeared. Harrias talk 10:58, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by CPA-5Edit

  • The capture of Wakefield occurred during the First English Civil War So the "Capture of Wakefield" is not a proper noun?
    • Style guides vary, but I note that ours does prefer capitals. Changed. Harrias talk 10:31, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Were they really 3,000 troops and not circa?
  • compared to the 3,000 led by George Goring in Wakefield Add Lord here as his title or wasn't he a lord at the moment?
    • He didn't become Lord Goring until November 1644. Harrias talk 10:31, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
  • been defeated by George Goring at the battle of Seacroft Moor Maybe add "Lord of ..."
    • Hmmm? I don't know what you're getting at here? Harrias talk 10:31, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
  • This was meant if he was a Lord but he wasn't until 1644.
  • clear enough room for the cavalry to break through Merge break through?
    • My belief is that "breakthrough" is the noun, and "break through" is the verb. Harrias talk 10:31, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
  • at the battle of Seacroft Moor on 30 March 1643 Not a proper noun?

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 09:50, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

@CPA-5: Thanks for your review; each point has been addressed. Harrias talk 10:31, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Looks good to me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 11:12, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Comments support by PendrightEdit

Lede:

  • Around 800 Parliamentarians ...
Why isn't it - Around 800 of the ...?
Because that would suggest it was a subset of a group we already knew about, which it isn't. Harrias talk 07:38, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
  • He marched his force from Leeds, and split it in two to attack from different directions. After around two hours of fighting early in the morning of 21 May 1643, Fairfax broke through into the town.
Info box says leads is a city as does the Leads link?
He broke through into Wakefield, which was a town at the time. Harrias talk 07:38, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

State of war in Yoorkshire:

  • ... Ferdinando Fairfax, 2nd Lord Fairfax of Cameron, was appointed as [the] commander of [the] parliament's forces in Yorkshire.
Add [the]
Added the first, but not the second, where it isn't required. Harrias talk 07:38, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Battle:

  • After an evening march on 20 May 1643, [the] Parliamentarian forces from Bradford, ...
Add [the]
I'm worried that adding "the" here might imply that it was all of the Parliamentarian forces that were in Bradford, Leeds and Halifax, which would be misleading. Harrias talk 07:38, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
  • As they were only the width of the road, this evened the battle, ...
No road has been mentioned previously, so would it not be 'a' road?
No, because they were specifically the width of this road, so it requires the definite article. Harrias talk 07:38, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
  • The defenders had been alerted to the enemy approach by the cavalry which had fled from ...
That, not which, is used when the information is essential to the meaning of the sentence.
Changed. Harrias talk 07:38, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Aftermath:

  • ...claiming that their victory was the "work of God", while ...
Should'nt the "work of God" be in italics?
It doesn't seem to fall into any of the reasons laid out in MOS:ITALICS, so I don't think so? Harrias talk 07:38, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Accordingly, [the] parliament declared 28 May a day of thanksgiving for the victory.
Add [the]
I disagree. Harrias talk 07:38, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
  • ... most of the north of England had been captured by [the] Parliamentarian forces.
Add [the]
Again, this seems unnecessary to me. Harrias talk 07:38, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
  • The following year Fairfax was appointed as [the] commander-in-chief of [the] parliament's forces, ...
Add [the]
Again, added the first, not the second. Harrias talk 07:38, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Finished - Pendright (talk) 04:01, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

@Pendright: Thanks for your review. All points addressed above. Harrias talk 07:38, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
@Harrias: All comments addressed - supporting. Pendright (talk) 19:27, 1 December 2019 (UTC)


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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 22 December 2019 [15].


Battle of PontvallainEdit

Nominators: Serial Number 54129 (talk) and Gog the Mild (talk)

In 1365 after 28 years of strife England won the Hundred Years' War and France signed a humiliating peace. In 1369 France reopened hostilities, using Fabian tactics and guerilla warfare. The English responded with the tactics of the first phase of the war, and in 1370 cut a wide swathe of fire and plunder across northern France. The French refused to be drawn. With winter coming on the English fell out and divided their forces. After a forced march Bertrand du Guesclin surprised a major part of the English, and wiped it out. With unusual coordination, a subordinate caught another English force the same day, also wiping it out. The English remnants were hounded remorselessly and the English position in France was wrecked.

The late-Medieval dream-team of SN and Gog bring you this gripping installment of the Hundred Years War. SN took it through GAN in February 2018. It has been thoroughly overhauled since then. SN has dug out every available source and provided the structural underpinning. Gog has installed all the twirly, baroque prose bits on the surface. Gog claims that this is a sensible division of labour; SN's opinion is very Medieval. They have both donned their helms and challenge all comers to meet them in fair fight over the merits of the article. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:34, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Comments: Support from HarriasEdit

Lead
  • "..was of approximately the same size." "of" is superfluous here.
Done.
  • The lead feels a little bit short for the article generally.
We wondered about that. I'll pad it by 2-3 sentences.
I usually get criticised for my over verbose leads. I have expanded the immediate background to the battle(s). What do you think?
  • Specifically, some context for where Pontvallain/Vaas/the Sarthe region are would be useful. (North-west France would be sufficient in the first sentence.)
Done.
  • "..large amounts of lost territory ." Rogue space before the full-stop.
Done. (Thanks SN>)
  • Add more location detail into the infobox too.
Done.
Background
  • "They also heavily defeated an invading Scottish army in England." This seems superfluous to the context of the battle, especially as it needs an explanatory footnote.
Boiled down to "and against an invading army of Scots in 1346" and the footnote has gone.
  • "...ransom.(approximately £350,000,000 in 2019 terms[note 2])" There is a lot to break down here. There needs to be a space after the full-stop. The text within the brackets therefore needs to start with a capital letter, and end with a full-stop. The note itself claims to be from 2017, accessed in 2018, and providing data for 2019. Clearly that doesn't add up.
Well it is supposed to self update, but as it is to the nearest £10mn it is still accurate. It will probably tick over to £360mn in about 2050. But updated anyway.
I take your point. {{Inflation}} does say (in bold) "Do not use {{CURRENTYEAR}}", but I guess that given the rounding this could be considered an acceptable exception. For the same reason, it also notes that actually, it is only up-to-date as far as 2018 for the UK.
I always use "current year" and so long as it is at least 100 years BP it seems to work fine. When I updated I used the 2019 version - this one - which does run to 2019. I wasn't trying to fudge that. (Unsurprisingly, it gives the same results to the sigfigs we're using.)
Is there a source for the conversion between three million écus and the 500,000 figure used in the inflation template? Harrias talk 22:20, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Yes. This was done by SN, but I have done the same for another article. It is past my bedtime here, so it will have to wait until morning. (I suspect that it is Sumption.)
Yes. Sumption: "English government accounts convert francs into sterling at six to the pound. In 1385 a new coinage was issued. The gold franc was replaced by the écu" It was niggling. I am really going to bed now. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:27, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "..attempted to recapture castles in Normandy[10] Events.." Missing full-stop. Honestly, I'm six paragraphs in, and this article has a lot of minor typographical errors that I would not expect in a Featured article candidate...
Added.
  • "Events went poorly for England almost from the start: James Audley and John Chandos, two important English commanders, were killed in the first six months[11] while the French made territorial gains in the west, re-occupying the important provincial capital of Poitou and capturing many castles.[12] Men who had fought together[13] in earlier English campaigns, such Hugh Calveley, Robert Knollys and John Chandos, and had already won fortune and fame[14] were summoned from their retirements;[12] new men, such as John Hastings, Earl of Pembroke, were given commands." The chronology and tone feels off here: Chandos is killed in the first sentence. This is used as an example of the war going badly for England. Subsequently, we are told that a number of men are "summoned from their retirements" to fight. The way this is presented makes it feel like a consequence of the war going badly. Except that one of those men is Chandos, who has already died in our narrative.
Good point. Those two sentences seem to have become juxtaposed. Reversed. It now flows chronologically and sense wise. (I assume that we were both so close that we read what we expected to be there, rather than what actually was.)
Prelude
  • "..andby.." Another typographical error. I'm going to leave the review here, and hope that you can look the whole article over for these before I continue. Harrias talk 19:59, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
@Harrias: I have had a run through the whole article. I found plenty to fiddle with - one always does, but some of it you would have rightly picked us up on. I found almost no silly typographical errors - which makes me think that I missed them. I want to have another run through, and to check that I got things like switching all the inflation calculators to 2019 right, but it is past my bedtime. So if you could give us a pause for a short while I will, literally, double check for silly embarrassing errors. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:06, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
As always, there's no rush. Just give me a ping when you're happy with it, and I'll crack on. Thanks for all the work so far on this. Harrias talk 23:46, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
@Harrias: Apologies for the delay, and for the embarrassing errors. I have gone through this until I am boss-eyed, but still suspect that I am about to find out just how many gaps there are in my comb. At any rate, from my point of view it is as good as I can get it and ready for you to restart. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:14, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
Lead
  • "..when a French army under Bertrand du Guesclin, heavily defeated an English force.." No need for the comma after "Guesclin".
Removed
  • "With winter coming on the English commanders.." "on" feels unnecessary here?
"Coming on" is an idiomatic expression - see {{wikt:come on}}. Without the "on" it means something slightly different.
  • "The French harried the surviving English into the following year.." I've gone back and forth with this, but I think it should be "Englishmen" rather than "English".
OK. Done. But then "French" four words earlier looks inconsistent to me.
  • Why "small-scale", rather than just "small"?
It looks a little odd to me. But on checking, you are correct, an entirely permissible usage. Changed.
Background
  • Unfortunately, in trimming the article because of my earlier comment, it now doesn't make sense: "The English campaigned frequently on the continent, gaining a long run of military successes against larger forces across France, and against an invading army of Scots in 1346." The invading army of Scots wasn't on the continent, causing minor confusion.
Silly of me. Try it now.
  • "This eventually led to peace being agreed.." This seems an odd way to start a paragraph; personally I'd merge paragraphs two and three together, as I think it would flow better.
Um'ed and ah'ed and have gone with your suggestion. (Something needed to be changed.)
  • In retrospect, I think the whole of "(Approximately £350,000,000 in 2019 terms.[note 1])" would be better as a note, it doesn't need specifying inline.
I am inclined to disagree over this. If you feel strongly on the point then I will footnote it, if you are not over concerned, can we leave it? If you are somewhere between, I will provide a rationale.) PS I have counted seven FAs of mine and three of SNs which have the same in line parenthetical formulation; there will be more.
  • Charles V is introduced nicely "..Charles V, the son and heir of King John..", whereas two paragraphs earlier, we jumped from reading about King Philip to King John by hearing that the latter had been captured. Perhaps a succinct introduction for John would also be helpful?
It would, it would. Done.
  • "They relied on Fabian tactics, or avoiding pitched battles and using attrition to wear down the English;[16] only attacking dispersed or isolated English forces." I would switch either remove "or", or alternatively switch it to "which", and also change to past tense. Currently, it could read that the relied on Fabian tactics or avoiding pitched battles etc.
Point taken. "or" removed. I have re punctuated, hopefully the tenses read better now.
Prelude
  • Note 2: "He was following, almost exactly, in the footsteps of King Edward's great chevauchée of 1359." Given it states "almost exactly", I think it needs to change from "in the footsteps of" to simply "the route of".
OK. (Gone with 'the route of'.)
  • "..the French defenders would not leave their positions. He tried to draw them out to fight them in the open, but the French would not take the bait." Nothing major, but I would prefer "did" rather than "would" in both instances here. This is probably just personal preference though.
I see what you are getting at, but that gives it a different meaning. I wouldn't (or didn't) want to change the first; I don't feel so strongly about the second.
  • The "freebooter" link isn't right.
Sorry, my misunderstanding.
  • "The English system of shared leadership led to jealousies between their regarding.." Missing a word after "their".
Inserted
  • "In November 1370 acrimony again broke out.." I would trim "again".
Trimmed.
  • "Knolles, as adept as the French were now becoming at guerrilla warfare, was aware that they were closing in." Personal preference, but I'm not keen on the readability of this sentence.
OK. Changed to a more general 'Knolles was aware that they were closing in, and of the risk this posed.'
Noted on this below. Harrias talk 13:47, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "..so as to be able to continue to.." An overload of "to"s.
Split into a new sentence: 'This would enable them to be able to continue raiding the surrounding countryside.@
  • "..and they were clearly expected.." "clearly" is something of a peacock term here, I'd cut it.
Cut.
  • "..their opportunities to forage for supplies and to loot." To avoid repetition of "to", flip this around: "..their opportunities to loot and forage for supplies."
Phrased that way to suggest that the foraging was more important than the looting. How would you feel about 'which maximised their opportunities to forage for supplies and to loot'? (Which I have changed it to.)
  • "Minsterworth was probably the first to leave." This speculation requires inline attribution.
Done.
  • "Charles considered Guesclin had the.." I would insert "that" before Guesclin, personally.
Ah, the "that wars". There are editors who go round removing or inserting that's, even of FAs, according to their taste. I prefer them in, but have learnt to ignore their absence. Inserted.
  • "..and by 6 November Guesclin was in Caen raising an army. In November Guesclin concentrated.." Saying "by 6 November", and then "In November" seems a little incongruous.
I don't see that, but have changed to 'Guesclin concentrated his forces at Caen during November'. How do you feel about that?
  • "..was formed in Knolles's rear at Châtellerault.." I'm not keen on the use of "in" here; maybe "to" would work better?
Chewing this over, I am not happy with "rear". I don't think that at this stage the English can be said to have had a rear. So I have taken that out. The orientations of the various forces are given in the next sentence.
  • "covering more than thirty miles a day" Is this quote from the same "contemporary chronicler" as the first? If so, move ref #49 to after the second quote. If not, provide inline attribution for the second quote too.
Removed as getting too clunky.

Reviewed to the end of the Prelude, but I'm going to have to break off for the moment. More to follow. Harrias talk 15:31, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

I am always surprised at the number of "errors" (and errors) which can be picked up by a new reader, no matter how many eyes have already been over an article, or how thoroughly. But this is a bit silly. This is my first collaboration and I had anticipated this noticeably improving the copy edit quality. Instead it seems to have done the opposite - I am not sure how. And it has left the unfortunate and hard working reviewers picking up the pieces. I am grateful, but it is not fair on them. I am unsure what lesson to draw from this. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:45, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
Honestly, I wouldn't worry about it too much. Wikipedia is collaborative by design; indeed the GAN, ACR and FAC processes are designed to facilitate that, and get more editors looking at, and helping to improve, articles. It is easy with retrospect to look at this nomination and suggest that it should have gone through PR or ACR before arriving at FAC, but ultimately, it would have just changed the venue that these suggestions were made. On my rare forays as a FAC reviewer, I am particularly picky, but that's not necessarily because I think there are lots of mistakes. Simply that any wording that doesn't sound absolutely perfect to me, I'll mention. Sometimes it's just me, and I'm happy for that to be pointed out, and no change to be made, as you have done. Overall, this is a great piece of work that makes what can be a complex period of warfare accessible to the everyday reader, and both yourself and Serial Number 54129 deserve a lot of credit for that.
I was hoping to complete my review this evening, but unfortunately, I'm too tired for the concentration I need to review, so I will aim to get back to it tomorrow or Wednesday. Harrias talk 21:08, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
Really sorry; we're understaffed at work because of some illness, and I'm working silly hours at the moment, and by the time I get home, I just don't have the patience or concentration to review. I'm still intending to come back to this, but I'm relatively happy with what I've seen of the changes in response to my points so far. Harrias talk 07:08, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
@Harrias: Don't worry about it. Sounds as if the last thing you need is the nagging feeling of an unmet commitment. Both SN and I appreciate the time and effort you have put in so far. Wikipedia isn't going anywhere. So relax - at least about this - and come back to it as and when it feels less onerous. Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:20, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Seconding that Harrias , take your time! ——SN54129 12:17, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Background
  • "The northeastern army.." and then later "Knolles crossed north-eastern France..". Be consistent, unless there is a grammatical reason for this I'm not aware of.
Hyphenated the two northeasterns as they were in the minority.
Prelude
  • "..which was nominally commanded by the Black Prince and actually by Sir John Chandos.." Is this the same John Chandos who was killed off in the Background section? If so, it feels weird for him to come back to life six paragraphs later. If not, a clarification would be beneficial.
No, I think that and a ref must've got lost in the mix: it was John of Gaunt, so amended.
  • "Knolles was aware that they were closing in, and of the risk this posed." This change now doesn't specify who 'they' are: maybe "Knolles was aware that the French were closing in, and of the risk this posed."
Good catch, done.
  • "..remarks the medievalist Kenneth Fowler.." and then a bit later "The historian Kenneth Fowler.." The second time, just "Fowler.." would be sufficient, without his first name or the descriptor.
That's Gog's passion for non-false-titles I believe :)
Guilty as charged. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:50, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Battle
  • "..and the historian Jonathan Sumption speculates.." Again, Sumption was introduced earlier in the article.
As above :) done.
  • "..were among the few survivors. They were taken prisoner by Guesclin." Personally, I'd prefer for this to flow straight through: "..were among the few survivors, and were taken prisoner by Guesclin." But, whatever.
No, you're right, it doesn't make for an excessively long sentence.
Aftermath

Harrias: I am losing track a little here. Could you summarise the outstanding issues at the bottom, or mark them in green or something, so my addled mind can catch them all? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:49, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

  • If we have to use "exculpate", and I appreciate that it has a specific meaning which is useful here, I think we need to provide a wikitionary link.
Good idea, done.

Fin. Harrias talk 13:47, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks very much Harrias, hope you and my Chandos don't mind me fielding these points; I like to keep my hand in :) Hopefully, your suggestions have (all) been addressed here. Much appreciated, cheers! ——SN54129 14:22, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Cut from above:

  • "Men who had fought together in earlier English campaigns.." Is the fact that they fought together relevant enough to mention, or would "Men who had fought together in earlier English campaigns.." suffice?
I'm sure I'm missing somethng, but, Harrias, aren't they the same?
Sigh. Yes. I meant "Men who had fought in earlier English campaigns.." Basically, just removing "together"? Harrias talk 14:29, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
"LOL" @me for that, I should've realised; yes, no problem, it's not a massively important factoid (it was really just a way of contrasting the experienced men—Chandos, Knolles etc—with those less so, such as Pembroke, who was too young to have fought with anyone on any previous campaign, if you know what I mean). ——SN54129 14:35, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
This is still outstanding. Harrias talk 07:29, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. "together" removed.
  • This probably occurs earlier too, but I missed it. Per MOS:FOREIGNITALIC, use {{lang}} for foreign language terms such as chevauchée.
I've clarified the language at first use; or does it need to be used on each subsequent occasion?
On each usage; MOS:OTHERLANG explains the rationale. Harrias talk 14:33, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
I do not wish to make an issue of this, but on checking, Wiktionary gives both wikt:chevauchée and wikt:chevauchee as English words. If we decide to go with this it means of course that it shouldn't be in italics. (Which is I believe, a holdover from me following a reviewer's request in the FAC of Lancaster's chevauchée of 1346.) Gog the Mild (talk) 15:50, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Wiktionary may claim that, but none of Cambridge, Chambers, Collins or Oxford online English dictionaries have it listed. Harrias talk 09:37, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
I've found this link for The Oxford Dictionary of the Middle Ages entry. Hanberke (talk) 11:11, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
The link from The Oxford Dictionary of the Middle Ages confirms that it is a French word, so this is still outstanding. Harrias talk 07:29, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
With all due respect, I still think this is certainly a specific loan word from French. It is represented by an official entry in an Oxford Dictionary all in all, with etymology provided. Hanberke (talk) 07:43, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
And yet, it does not appear in any of four of the most respected English dictionaries. The point of {{lang}} is to help screen-readers know which language to use to pronounce the word; based on an entry in The Oxford Dictionary of the Middle Ages, are you convinced that English language screen-readers will know the word? Harrias talk 08:52, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

@Harrias and Hanberke: I am just checking that people are aware that SN made this change at the first mention of Chevauchée on the 27th. It doesn't show up on the article of course, because the word is already Wikilinked to Chevauchée. (Which includes the pronunciation.)

This needs to be enacted for every instance of foreign language terms, including "Chronique des Regnes de Jean II et de Charles V" and "reventions" (assuming that is italicised as a French term?), as well as each time chevauchée is mentioned (including the footnotes). Harrias talk 07:55, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Done.
@Harrias: Apologies for my slowness of mind on both of these. Both now addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:59, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
@Gog the Mild: Template:Langfr template seems to have a display issue. Hanberke (talk) 13:07, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
It was just a couple of typos. I fixed them. Harrias talk 13:26, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Great work on this, I am more than happy to give it my support. Harrias talk 13:26, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Comments by LingzhiEdit

  • The formatting of the references is excellent, of course, but I think the "Prestwich, M." sources should be in chrono order. Either ascending or descending is OK, so long as it's consistent. Tks. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 02:07, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Felt like I let you down there, Ling ;) but well spotted, have adjusted. Cheers! ——SN54129 12:23, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments from HanberkeEdit

  • as the Carolinian phase, was significantly different to the previous one.

as the Carolinian phase, was significantly different from the previous one.

  • and by the late-14th century it and Poitou were fiefdoms of

and by the late-14th century, it and Poitou were fiefdoms of

  • on 2 October, in a direct response to Knolles's campaign.

on 2 October, in direct response to Knolles's campaign.

  • One of the most important of aspects of the Pontvallain campaign was

One of the most important aspects of the Pontvallain campaign was

  • Notes section
  • "famously rich" Richard, Earl of Arundel, who leant the King 40,000 marks,

"famously rich" Richard, Earl of Arundel, who lent the King 40,000 marks, Hanberke (talk) 13:00, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Thanks very much for looking in, Hanberke, the more the merrier as they say :) all good suggestions (and utilised here), but feel free to point out anything else you spot? Cheers, ——SN54129 13:14, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Thorough reading and a few helpful touches. Glad to add my support. Hanberke (talk) 16:33, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Sources reviewEdit

  • No spotchecks carried out
  • Formats: from the bibliography:
  • Bell et al 2011: gives pub. location as "Woodbridge", whereas Gribit, and the various Wagners, give "Woodbridge, Suffolk", which I think is better. But in any case you should be consistent
True. "Suffolk" added where missing
  • Burne: maybe "Ware" should have a county, too? (I know where it is, but perhaps non-UK readers won't)
True again. Added.
  • Coulton: "&co" looks a bit ugly. Is that how the publishers style themselves?
It is (well: "& CO"), but company types are not normally given, and so deleted.
  • Neillands: maybe a county for Padstow?
Done.
  • Ormrod: what's the Yale University Press doing in Padstow? WorldCat gives the location as New Haven
It does. Obviously a typo somewhere along the line and glazed eyes by the time we had proofread that far. Apologies. I have added "Connecticut" for the sake of consistency. (And for those whose New England geography is shaky.)
  • Perroy: pub. location unclear. WorldCat says it's New York.
Agreed and changed.
  • Rogers 2000 and Rogers 2005: see comments above concerning Woodbridge.
Done.
  • Quality/reliability: No issues. The sources meet the required standard per the FA criteria.

Brianboulton (talk) 14:15, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Apologies for that display of sloppiness Brian. Should be in better shape now. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:42, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
@Brianboulton: Afternoon Brian. I was wondering if there was anything else for us to do on this, or if you feel able to sign off on it? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:22, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
(Still morning for me) – Yes, all well now. Good work. Brianboulton (talk) 12:42, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Brian. Enjoy your morning. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:26, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments from Tim rileyEdit

This is looking splendid. A tale well told, along with really excellent (and technically impressive) series of maps that help a lot. Just a handful of minor points from me:

  • You might standardise your possessive apostrophes for names ending in s. At present I see "Knolles's" with the usual BrE ess-apostrophe-ess and "Knolles'" with the (I believe) AmE ess-apostrophe. By my count BrE is winning by 9:3 at the moment, but a full-time score of 12:0 one way or the other would be a good thing.
I have discovered only this afternoon that this is covered by the MoS - MOS:POSS. Consequently BrE now has a clean sweep.
I didn't know about MOS:POSS and am glad to learn of it: thank you! Tim riley talk 21:04, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Piping the "Sirs" – consistency wanted here also. Sir John Minsterworth gets his Sir included in the link; Sir John Cresswell doesn't. Nor do most other Sirs. But to my mind is it is much easier on your readers' eyes to include the Sir in the piping: it's more work for the editors, but avoids the jarring bump as the eye travels along the line.
It would never do for readers to suffer a jarring bump, and so the Sirs have been piped.
  • Gog and I have exchanged views before about the linking of what seem to me everyday terms (I'm thinking of cavalry, litter and ambush this time), but I do not press the point. But Paris should most certainly not be linked.
Ah, Tim. You should drop into Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Razing of Friesoythe/archive1 where I have just, under protest, linked Rhine, Nazi Germany and USSR. I would argue that few are immediately familiar as a means of transport as you may well be. Paris is delinked with prejudice. For me ambush and cavalry can go too, but I will defer to Serial Number 54129.
  • Was Bertrand du Guesclin appointed Constable of France or constable of France? We have both at the moment.
Well spotted. I struggled to find it hidden away in that caption. Done.
  • "The few English survivors of both battles still at large "scattered in confusion"" – if a verbatim quote is wanted (and I'm not sure it is needed in this case) I think you short-change your readers if you don't say inline whom you are quoting.
I could debate that in terms of the MoS, but will go with your option A and dequote it.
  • "Five hundred years later, when the French lost Alsace-Lorraine to Germany …" – "jingoistically" is a trifle tendentious unless it's a verbatim quote.
"Jingoistic" is the word used by the source.

That, I'm afraid, is all I can come up with by way of quibbles. I shall look in again in the confident expectation of supporting. Tim riley talk 18:41, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Good evening Mr riley. Did you have a restful break? It is good to see you back in the bracing fresh air of Wikipedia, and many thanks for dropping by this review.
By no means be afraid. The fewer your quibbles, the happier we are. Hopefully I have obliged you with the various changes noted above. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:45, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
Happy to add my support. The article seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. My compliments to both nominators. Tim riley talk 21:03, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Support by Jens LallensackEdit

  • They routed an invading army of Scots in 1346. – Without further explanation, the reader wonders why this is relevant to a background section on the prelude of the Battle of Pontvallain? Furthermore, this is an English affair only, giving the slight impression that the section tells the story from an English view point, not a neutral one.
Removed.
  • Men who had fought together[10] in earlier English campaigns and had already won fortune and fame, such as Hugh Calveley, Robert Knolles and John Chandos,[11] were summoned from their retirements;[12] new men, such as John Hastings, Earl of Pembroke, were given commands.[13] Events went poorly for England almost from the start: James Audley and John Chandos, two important English commanders, were killed in the first six months – this again gives the impression of being biased towards the English, as the French commanders are not mentioned.
Denamed apart from the two casualties, where it seems a little perverse not to mention the names.
  • The French were well prepared militarily, and immediately went on the offensive.[15] Charles was well situated in terms of financial and human resources. – Maybe an additional sentence would be helpful here explaining how Charles was able to make this chance, from the very desperate position the French had earlier in the war? Just wondering about this.
Good point. Added. Tried to be succinct, but could expand it almost endlessly if you feel that this is too brief.
  • As a result, he was unable to lead the campaign personally – Now it is all about a specific English campaign, but this campaign was never introduced? This confused me quite a bit while reading for the first time. How does it relate to the last activities mentioned in the "Background" paragraph?
Yes. Good spot. We were too close. I will work on putting together a proper introduction to this.
See next point down.
  • Meanwhile, the English campaign in the west – was also not introduced before.
See immediately above.
Right. Rewritten to explicitly separate out the two separate campaigns, and the two separate command structures. Hopefully clearer now. Thanks for flagging that up.
  • Also in the "Prelude", the French activities are outlined briefly, while the English are discussed in much greater detail.
Well now, there is probably more on the French in the two "movements" sections combined, given that a good part of the English one concerns the French reactions. The "Divisions among the English" is all about the English, and I assume that you are concerned that the article seems biased against them, as they come across as incompetents? But the sources are clear - they did behave incompetently. I am not sure what we can do about that. I would be very reluctant to downplay it or over-summarise it. I am also aware that we heap praise on the French: their innovations; their speed of movement; their ability to coordinate remote forces. Again, the sources are clear on this and I am not sure that it is reasonable to summarise it more than we do.
In terms of length, in military articles one inevitably writes more about the side which makes mistakes. After all, how much is there to say about a force which carries out an activity correctly. (When I wrote Battle of Crecy, when it came to the immediate prelude to the fighting I wrote more about the French: how their baggage train was less behind; how their knights' eagerness disordered them; how the crossbowmen were sent into battle without all of their equipment. And there wasn't a lot to say about the English, as they didn't mess anything up. As I said, that's the way things go with military conflict articles.) So a lot on the English divisions. The French cooperated smoothly; we say so - there isn't really a way to say this at greater length.
  • Longbows were mentioned earlier, but I miss some information how the French avoided them in the battle. The French version of the article appears to have something on it.
Fair enough. Information on this moved down to later in the article, under the battle section.

--Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:19, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Jens Lallensack, many thanks for stopping by. Some good insightful points above; thanks. I have started work on them and will continue; I'll ping you when I finish. This is just to let you know that I am on to it. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:19, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi again Jens, all done. Your points above addressed. See what you think. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:15, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, Gog, excellent work as usual. Support. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:16, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Image reviewEdit

For some reason the original 14th century illustrator crammed two, completely unconnected events onto one page: the battle and the anointment. I imagine because they both happened in the same month and the chronicler was tackling things chronologically. Which is on Commons as File:Anointing of Pope Gregory XI.jpg. I assume the title is because the original uploader wasn't interested in the battle half. I cropped the image to get just the relevant bit and didn't change the name. (To be honest I was unsure how to and worried that I would break it.)
There is a procedure on commons:Commons:File renaming. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 22:13, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:12, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
I blame SN for that! ;-) Done.

All images are pertinent to the section. If the images are being used to illustrate a specific point (e.g the old map seems to say that after the Bretigny treaty the English held about 1/4-1/5 of France) the ALT text should contain that information.

OK. Done.

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:34, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Jo-Jo, that was swift. Thanks. Your three points above addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:10, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi JJE. I believe that that is everything done. Is there anything else, or are you in a position to support? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:52, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
Support only on images, as I didn't check any other aspect of the article - military campaigns are not my cup of tea. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:09, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Jo-Jo, appreciated. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:11, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments from JimEdit

Very comprehensive, scholarly, and well illustrated. Of course, some nitpicks to show I've read it before I support. Incidentally, until I read this I thought "barding" horses was what you did to help them cook better! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:42, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

  • a forced march followed by a night march—Any chance of avoiding the repeat of march?
How about after a forced march which continued overnight?
  • many castles many towns—why not the exact number?
Unfortunately, neither Fowler 2001 (for towns) nor Neillands 1990 (for castles) provide exact figures.
  • With unusual coordination.—Not sure if that's the right word. It seemed to be quick thinking by Guesclin rather than a cunning plan
Check. Reworded to avoid the implication that Sancerre was as cunning as a fox who's just been appointed Professor of Cunning at Oxford University; In a coordinated attack, Guesclin's subordinate, perhaps?
Cheers, Jimfbleak, hopefully, addressed your points here. Thanks very much for looking in!
...and sorry we couldn't slip in any tasty horse recipes at the same time! :) ——SN54129 14:59, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
All looks good, changed to "support" above. I'll let the culinary oversight go! I'd guess the equine casualties in a medieval war probably didn't go to waste Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:20, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by CPA-5Edit

  • In a coordinated attack, Guesclin's subordinate, Louis de Sancerre --> "In a co-ordinated attack, Guesclin's subordinate, Louis de Sancerre"
No. wikt:coordinate is acceptable.
  • Edward claimed the French crown, proclaiming himself the rightful heir through his mother --> "Edward claimed the French Crown, proclaiming himself the rightful heir through his mother"
Done.
  • in which King John II of France, the son and successor of King Philip No reigns?
Ah! *Smacks forehead* Done.
  • estate in France since the reign of Henry II Same as above?
Done.
  • Link British pound in note 1.
Done.
  • failed to observe the terms of the treaty, Charles V No reign?
Done.
  • No reigns for Charles II of Navarre?
He wasn't that sort of ruler/noble. I have removed the "II" to avoid confusion.
  • was appointed constable of France on 2 October --> "was appointed Constable of France on 2 October"
Nope. It is used here as a job title, not a personal title.
  • South west vs south-west.
They look good to me. Hyphenated when used adjectively, and not when not. If you have spotted one that isn't, I can't find it.
  • and amounting to about one quarter of France --> "and amounting to about one-quarter of France"
Done.
  • where it was eventually run to ground outside Bressuire Castle Is it me or is this sentence incomplete?
It's you. :) (See these.)

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 11:36, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

CPA-5 See below. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:30, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Just when you think that it is nearly done, old Eagle Eyes comes along and picks up all of the bits that you have overlooked. Thanks for that. All addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:03, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  • @Gog the Mild: Well you know I want to finish this year with more reviews. I'm just bypassed this one and gave you the results of my review. Anyway I think (even though I have the feeling I have missed something) we're done here so I'll let it pass. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:55, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  • @CPA-5: Well you know I want to finish this year with more reviews :) I have just the remedy for your malais! But, thanks for lookng in here though, it's greatly appreciated! All the best! ——SN54129 11:21, 5 December 2019 (UTC)


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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 22 December 2019 [16].


Eastern green mambaEdit

Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:52, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

This article is was one of the latter ones improved by a person now banned for sockpuppetry. I took a look at sourcing and prose to check for problems and found this in better shape than I expected (feared). So I thought about buffing it for the main page, searched for all the sources I could and here we are. Have at it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:52, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Quick sources comment: Ref 4: you seem to have replicated the url into the "publisher=" field of the template, and got an ugly red error message as a consequence. Brianboulton (talk) 11:40, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I replaced it with a better reference Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:17, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Support from Jens LallensackEdit

  • However, Pook and colleagues – with the "however", I thought an opposite view would be presented, but no … maybe the "however" is not ideal.
Removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:37, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
  • However, the species has also been observed – same as above
Removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:37, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
  • otherwise aroused in some way – "in some way" seems unnecessary.
Removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:37, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
  • and east Africa. – capitalize East Africa?
Capped Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:37, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
  • sit-and-wait behavior – behaviour with different spelling than elsewhere.
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:37, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
  • 30 to 40 cm (12 to 16 in) or around an average of 44 centimetres – abbreviation of cm should be uniform. Also, a dot is missing in this and the also in the next sentence.
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:37, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
  • The longest living – here I first thought it is continuing talking about body length (as in the preceding sentence). Maybe use "oldest" to avoid this confusion?
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:37, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
  • A survey in South Africa from 1957 to 1979 recorded 2553 venomous snakebites – really the country South Africa or rather southern Africa? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 07:00, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
the latter...and fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:41, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Last sentence of the "Treatment" section has no citation. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 07:08, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:08, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Supporting now. Good work, as usual. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:35, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
thx! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:02, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:D-angusticeps-range.png: I'd actually suggest focusing in on the southern half of the continent for this map, perhaps with an inset of the whole. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:02, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
I haven't done one before - will go look at another and see what I can do. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:24, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Support from Gog the MildEdit

I have done a little copy editing, which you will want to check.

your edits look fine Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:58, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Link elapids at first mention in both lead and article.
linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:01, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "Link venom.
linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:01, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "Symptoms of envenomation by this species include swelling of the bite site, dizziness and nausea, accompanied by difficulty breathing and swallowing, irregular heartbeat and convulsions progressing to respiratory paralysis." Maybe a semi colon after "nausea"?
hmm, I'd then need to convert what comes after into a sentence. I have removed the "from this species", which shortens it a little Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:18, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "This suggests these two populations could be treated as distinct subspecies or even species." The paper suggests "could", and not 'should'?
it was a preliminary analysis and more investigation was being done, hence the classification was speculative at this stage (which is why I used "could" rather than "should") Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:14, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Fine. Thanks. (Just checking.)
  • "or just simply the green mamba" One of "just" and "simply" is redundant.
trimmed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:14, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "Adult males average around 1.8 metres (5.9 ft) in total length" Imperial measurements are given in feet and inches, not "decimal feet". Try "ftin" in the template instead of "ft".
hah clever. I didn't know that one. done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:29, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "of its fangs than in the case of other elapids" I have no real objections to this, but 'of its fangs than other elapids' seems simpler.
trimmed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:29, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Would it be possible to include, either in line or as a footnote, what the numbers under "Scalation" represent?
rejigged section a bit Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "This species is native to more coastal regions" I get what you are trying to say, but it seems to raise the question, more coastal than what? Is there another way to phrase this?
rejigged Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:33, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
  • The sudden switch from "the eastern green mamba" to "this species" and back jars a little. Is there a reason? Also consider 'it' or 'they' a little more often - after a full name introduction at the start of each paragraph. Or just skip - random example: "Individuals of this species usually reach adult coloration at ... " "of this species" can happily be deleted without losing any information or creating any possibility of confusion.
rejigged to get rid of a few - paused to see if some biger chunks of text need revisiting and will come back to this later Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:34, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "Behaviour" is one large paragraph. Split?
duly split Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:34, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "the researcher found that their activity range areas to be very low" Delete "that"; or replace "to be" with 'are'.
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:18, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "Depending on whether" usually precedes two or more options. Possibly 'If'?
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:18, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "Reproduction and lifespan" Another long paragraph.
yeah...but no clear spot to split it...? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:22, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "after which the female lays anywhere between" Delete "anywhere".
trimmed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:18, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "the summer months of October and November" Surely they are spring months?
bah, a bit wordy. removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:02, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "The eggs are usually laid in a hollow tree, among decaying vegetation" I am unclear if these are options, or if you mean among decaying vegetation which is located in a hollow tree.
it means leaf litter in the tree hollow. fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:46, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "they are approximately 30 to 40 cm (12 to 16 in)[13] or around an average of 44 cm (17 in) in length" It is not normal to find an average outside the range!
I just realised a former editor had used the wrong size range and wrong source. fixed now. Also - the second number is from a captive breeding so clarified Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:46, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "The eastern green mamba has a few natural predators" Suggest replacing "a few" with either 'few' or 'several'.
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:18, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "Hornbills and other snakes tend to prey on juvenile green mambas" I am not sure that "tend to" adds anything.
trimmed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:19, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
  • In "Reproduction and lifespan" it states that egg laying occurs in October and November; in "Venom" it states "breeding season from September to February". I am confused.
Breeding season generally encompasses courtship, mating, the time when the females are incubating, and then caring for young. Hence the egg-laying occurs in the middle of this Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:20, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
  • What is "systemic envenomation"? As opposed to non-systematic envenomation.
it means when the victim becomes generally ill - i.e. has generalised symptoms of a systemic disturbance Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:43, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "The snake tends to bite repeatedly and let go" I think that "and let go" is redundant.
trimmed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:33, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "is thought to be quite high" What does "quite" mean in this context.
have removed sentence as it doesn't really add anything Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:43, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "Another prominent component are the dendrotoxins" Either 'Other prominent components are the dendrotoxins' or 'Another prominent component is the dendrotoxins"; probably the first.
they are thought of as a group, so I did this. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:30, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

A really nice article. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:55, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Cas Liber. Just checking if you are ready for me to have a look at your responses, or are still working on them? I am easy either way. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:47, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
you may as well wait a day or two till I finish with the ones below too as there are some fiddly bits (I forget how annoying it is sometimes to get an article already developed and have to fix things....) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:18, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
okay @Gog the Mild: I think we're there now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
Take 2Edit

I forget how annoying it is sometimes to get an article already developed and have to fix things.... Oh yes, I know that one. Because there are so many changes I have been rereading the whole article, and picking up a couple of issues I missed on my previous readings.

  • "German-British zoologist Albert Günther", "Belgian-British zoologist George Albert Boulenger", "South African herpetologist Vivian Fitzsimons", " British biologist Arthur Loveridge". Can I urge that these be prefaced with 'The' or 'the' as appropriate, to avoid false titles. Also, it is not usual to give middle names.
I added "the", though I must confess it doesn't sound any more natural to me. I have looked and I can't find what G.A.Boulenger was called at all ("George" or "Albert") so am reluctant to change until I can find something what says he is called for short Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:11, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
OK re Boulenger.
  • "He concluded the differences in build, scalation" → 'He concluded that the differences in build, scalation'.
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:57, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "The eastern green mamba is, however, a fairly common species of snake throughout its range" Suggest "The eastern green mamba" → 'It'.
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:57, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "may pose a possible threat" I think that you need to lose either "may" or "possible".
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:57, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "B2ab (ii, iii, iv, v)" This could do with explaining, possibly via a footnote.
damn - the pdf isn't downloading for me. Will try later I just removed them as they mean its habitat is highly fragmented and disappearing, which is mentioned straight afterwards. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:17, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Optional: split paragraph here: "do not bite each other. Males locate females".
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:54, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "green mambas prey on any of the seven species of gerbil" Would "any" read better as 'all'?
trimmed to just "the" Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:54, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "The eastern green mamba is the most commonly encountered—though has the least toxic venom—of the three species of green mamba" The section within the dashes reads very oddly there. Possibly rephrase?
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:54, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "Another kunitz-type protein is calcicludine, which blocks high-voltage-activated calcium channels." For clarity perhaps add 'present' after "protein"?
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:54, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 23:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

That all looks fine. Happy to support, a great article. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:26, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
thx! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:26, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Aa77zzEdit

Lead

  • link Dendroaspis
"Dendroaspis" redirects to Mamba, which is linked two words previously, which is why I had only one link at mamba. I can link just the genus instead, or both (though that will then show up as a duplicate link..? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:15, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Taxonomy

  • "and points east." what does this mean?
checked ref - fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:02, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Reference 3: Smith, Andrew (1849). Illustrations of the zoology of South Africa, Reptilia. 4. London: Smith, Elder and Co. p. 70. This isn't a page number but plate 70: at=Plate 70 A link to BHL would be better than a google search: url=https://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/51564275 I've fixed this myself
thx Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:15, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Perhaps better to rejig paragraphs of Taxonomy to put in chronological order
it is now I have removed the bit you suggested Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:04, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I've added a cite to Günther 1865
thx as well Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:15, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "Pook and colleagues analysed the mitochondrial DNA of mamba species in a 2005 paper." This is only a conference abstract and as far as I can determine it wasn't subsequently published and the nucleotide sequences weren't deposited in GenBank (I searched here). I suggest you delete the two sentences unless you can find a better source. (The abstract is on p. 82 of the conference proceedings which are here)
the person who was investigating this subsequently has died sadly. Nothing around so I think the research is gathering mothballs somewhere sadly. Given that, I have removed it Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:07, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "FitzSimons again split them into separate species" I suggest you include a cite to the article by FitzSimons. The reference is: FitzSimons, V. (1946). "Notes on some south African snakes, including a description of a new subspecies of Xenocalamus". Annals of the Transvaal Museum. 20: 379–393 [392–393]. (you can copy my markup) Scans of back issues of the journal are online here - but unfortunately Vol 20 is missing. I've emailed a scan.
thx - added. I expanded a bit on how he did it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:07, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
thx - added. I think it helps show the research as robust Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:37, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Perhaps include a mention of the similar sounding allopatric western green mamba - mitochondrial DNA was sampled by Ainsworth et al 2018 (see Fig 2)) - it is sister to Dendroaspis jamesoni Jameson's mamba.
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:44, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Description

  • Suggest reordering to specify the skin colour before the details of the fangs.
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:14, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Ref 11 FitzSimons, Vivian F. M. (1970). The 2nd edition is specified - which I think was published in 1974. The ISBN is for the 1974 edition. Which is it?
fixed - removed 2nd ed tag and has 1970 isbn Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:05, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
  • The second half of the first paragraph of the description has two cites at the end: Ref. 10 WCH Clinical Toxinology website and Ref. 14 Carl H.; Zug, George R. (1996) Snakes in Question (see pp. 100-102). Neither source supports the detailed description. This is worrying.
Damn, that is a hangover from the GA reviewed version. I will read what I have and remove what I can't cite. On looking at it, some of it is pretty general Removed uncited and rejigged Cas Liber (talk · contribs)
  • "This species rarely exceeds lengths of 2.5 metres" - ref 13 Spawls and Branch 1995. The page range should be 46-47. (pp 49-51 is the Black mamba).
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:14, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Scalation

  • There is a "See also" but why aren't the technical terms linked to the wiki articles? eg Ventral, Dorsal, Subcaudal, Anal etc.
  • I'm surprised at the bold font as it tends to be used very sparingly on wikipedia - see MOS:BOLD
I have prosified it, allowing me to link and debold. Another editor formatted it like this - the other snake articles I have buffed have prose. Looking at it I think the prose works better, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:14, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Distribution and habitat

  • Ref 17 Branch, B. (1988) is a book - page numbers should be specified. The correct title appears to be: "Bill Branch's field guide to the snakes and other reptiles of Southern Africa". The ISBN links to a 1992 edition. I notice that there are various editions - the 3rd published in 1998 has the title "Field guide to snakes and other reptiles of southern Africa".
Damn I hate this (but agree is necessary) - used snippet view of 1994 edition to determine page...sigh...added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:00, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Behaviour

  • The first two sentence repeat some material from the start of the second paragraph of the Distribution and habitat section.
I have reduced repetition - removing bits from both segments Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:22, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Ref 18 O'Shea, Mark (12 September 2005) Venomous Snakes of the World is a book - page numbers should be specified. This seems very general - why not use one of the other sources?
this was frustrating. I figured out how to join the library finally and read the book. Neither sentence was in the source but oter interesting material was and has been added. Page number added. Orphaned material alterd and has new refs Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:27, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Reproduction and lifespan

  • "When the young emerge from the eggs, they are approximately 30 to 40 cm (12 to 16 in)[13]" this is cited to Spawls & Branch who have nothing on breeding or the size of the young. Marais 2004 has "hatchlings measure 30-45 cm"
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:12, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Ref 26 Müller et al - perhaps better to use Continuing Medical Education rather than the abbreviation CME.
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:12, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Venon

  • "which are akin to kunitz-type protease inhibitors that interact with voltage-dependent potassium channels, stimulating acetylcholine and causing an excitatory effect" - this is ambiguous as protease inhibitors don't interact with channels and I don't like "akin to". Suggest: "which, although structurally homologous to kunitz-type protease inhibitors, block voltage-dependent potassium channels stimulating the release of acetylcholine and causing an excitatory effect." - or similar.
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:12, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps more later. Aa77zz (talk) 13:15, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

The article is much improved.

  • The phrase "this species" is used to avoid repeating "eastern green mamba" but becomes rather repetitive. I've a culled a few but you may want to remove a few more.
I have removed a few more. I have used the term just to diversify so not to say "the eastern green mamba..." too many times, but realise the person that took this to GA used it alot..... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "was observed by William York." Why do we need to know his name? I assume he isn't notable. - Aa77zz (talk) 21:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
Tried to find out something about him but seems nonnotable so removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Support - I've reread the article and it seems fine. Taking on an article expanded by another editor can involve more work than one expects. Well done. - Aa77zz (talk) 22:20, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

thx, yes please remind me of this if I decide to fix another article....I thought this looked in better shape superficially than black mamba but actually there were a similar amount of issues WRT sourcing problems etc. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:26, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Sources reviewEdit

  • Verification:
  • No spotschecks carried out
  • Ref 15: needs a page ref
  • Ref 16: should have a specific page ref - source document is 22 pages long
  • Ref 18: needs page refs
  • Ref 19: ditto
  • Ref 27: 20-page range – needs to be more specific
  • Ref 30: and again – 17-page range here. There are several other cases where the range is 10+ pages, a little too wide in my opinion.
I've been moving content so these refs have been muddled up, but will see what I can do I think I got them all. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:24, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Links: all links to sources checked and working
  • Formats:
  • Be consistent in inclusion or otherwise of publisher locations
added locations Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Quality/reliability
  • Who publishes the Reptile Database?
the Reptarium association. added. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:24, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Otherwise, no issues. Sources appear appropriately scholarly, and fully meet the FA quality/reliability critera.

Brianboulton (talk) 16:28, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

SupportEdit

This has been well picked over above, my only minor quibbles are whether envenomation and polyvalent could be replaced by simpler terms Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:20, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Tricky - both have fairly specific meanings over and above more accessible terms. I changed on 'envenomation' to 'poisoning' in lead, the other is bluelinked. 'polyvalent'....'all-purpose' or 'multipurpose' sounds lame and something you'd buy from a hardware store. Will muse on this..thx 4 support Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:10, 26 November 2019 (UTC)


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

The article was promoted by Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 17 December 2019 [17].


William Bonville, 1st Baron BonvilleEdit

Nominator(s): ——SerialNumber54129 18:52, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Next in a series of bad or bonkers barons, here's Lord Bonville. Nothing to do with this, unfortunately. The early part of his career was pretty run of the mill—suing relatives, fighting the French—but in middle age, he found his niche: engaging in a long-running bitter and bloody feud with a more powerful neighbour, the Earl of Devon, in which they both had their share of victories and defeats. A small feud like that, of course, couldn't really stay the course against its bigger and badder brother, so both they and they squabble became part of a national political crisis which culminated, in early 1461 in both Bonville and his rival dying violently in quick succession for their favoured causes. Decide for yourself whether he was stitched up.
Having received an excellent GA review from User:Gog the Mild of this parish (thanking you), hopefully, it's time to give Bonville the treatment. All comers welcome, and many thanks for looking in those who do! ——SerialNumber54129 18:52, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Disambig, external links, redirects etc are all fine.
  • Earwig checks out, once you discount the quotes.

Support by Gog the MildEdit

I assessed this at GAN, so I will get the ball rolling.

  • The last paragraph of the lead is too long. IMO it could be cut by 50-69%. There is possibly scope for some winnowing elsewhere in the lead.
    • No worries: I've split it into a fourth para, per MOS:LEADLENGTH
What I mostly meant, was that I think that the lead is a bit long overall, and could do with a winnowing (word of the day check). Not a dealbuster though. Re MOS:LEADLENGTH, the readable prose size is just under 34,000, so it is only just into the "three or four paragraphs" range.


  • "By this time, Bonville was old enough to undertake royal service, which then meant fighting in France in the later years of the Hundred Years' War. This Bonville did, and in 1415 he joined King Henry V's uncle on the King's campaign" I think that "This Bonville did, and" is redundant. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:46, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Good winnow!
  • "landholder" Optional: 'landowner' travels better.
    • Yeeeas...thing is—and we don't want to get bogged down in a nest of feudal law vipers, but strictly he didn't own it; as a tenant in chief, he held land. The only landowner was the King (except to the church, to whom even the king held land off the Man). That's why it says what it says: having said all that, if you think that's too archaic/adjacent to the subject (i.e., it might be pertinent in an article on dynastic inheritance, but less so on an individual like this), then I don't mind running with that.
I remember my lawyer's horror at disovering that a residential property I was buying had a 999 year lease; they had never conveyed mon-freehold residential property before.
Yes, I understand the distinction. I don't insist, but the vast majority of readers won't care about the vipers and won't have a Scooby about "landholder". I leave it with you: but I suspect that you may be 'doing a Gog' and attempting to pitch the language for a scholarly audience, when that's not who we're supposed to be writing for. (That said, can I interest you in this?)
"Conveyancig, and What Alice Found Ther" :)
OK, done, at least partly because it turns out I already called Bonville a landowner in the second sentence of the lead!!! Cheers :) ——SerialNumber54129 16:09, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "Bonville had an illegitimate son, also named John, by Isabel Kirkby, to whom he bequeathed a "substantial" property and who died in 1499" It is not immediately clear whether it is John or Isabel who is endowed and dies.
    • Cut into two sentences, semi-c'd?
Looks good.
  • "This struggle was to take over six years, but he had succeeded in establishing his rights to the estates by 1422." "was to take" → 'took'; delete "had".
    • Good catch, winnowed.
  • "states a recent commentator" Sadly the MoS requires that the mystery commentator be named in line.
    • I'm sure that's correct—and I've clarified it's the Hist Parl. commentating anyway—but do you know where? On a High MOS alert, wary of playing the whole non-existent MOS:FALSETITLE-game malarky, you know :)

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:53, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Thought you'd had your say, Gog the Mild. Good to see you though, thanks for the review, which I have mostly attended to (except where discussion, clarification is suggested that is!). Cheers! ——SerialNumber54129 05:47, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
You know me - never settle for a sentence worth of comment when I can stretch it to a paragraph. Gog the Mild (talk) 07:07, 20 October 2019 (UTC)


  • "Bonville undertook royal service in France almost from the moment he was old enough to do so." I am not sure that this tells us anything. Possibly something a little more encyclopedic? Eg 'Bonville undertook royal service in France in 14xx and frequently thereafter' or similar.
I wanted to keep the opportunity to link the HYW, but I've cut the stuff about "as soon as" etc, and merged the portions together?
  • "Bonville returned to England at some point early the same year" "early"? Clarence died in late March; if Bonville left the next day I think that "early" might be a stretch.
True; how about "le had returned to England before May, when he attended parliam"?
Looks good.
  • "From then on, though, he was fully employed" Suggest deleting "though".
Done
  • " Other commissions included ... wastes ..." I suspect that "wastes" will go straight past most readers. possibly link to common land? Or else a footnote?
I've removed it, if that's OK...although it might refer to wastelands, a cursory search of the lit suggests other possibilities... ([18])
Very good :-)) . I wondered about Waste (law), although I am unsure how far back that goes.
I have somewhere a source which analyses the amount of fodder, food, water and alcohol needed daily for a medieval siege, and the amount of excrement, urine and soiled straw this produces. Mind boggling quantities. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:04, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "thirty galleys to patrol the channel" Upper case C and link.
  • "the new Earl of Devon" Lower case E.
  • "Stewardship" Lower case S.
^^^Three done
  • "regain the regional authority that his ancestors had had" I have no objections to "had had", but it may flow a little better if the second were replaced with 'held'?
Agree
  • "which one contemporary described as causing "grete trouble"" Again, the MoS would have you name this contemporaneous gossip.
As above, but it was a council minute, so clarified
  • similarly "imprudent treatment".
  • "King's Council" Could you link at first mention?
Right!

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 06:02, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

  • "even if an "unworkable" one, says the historian John Watts." "says" → 'according to'.
Good tweak. Thanks a lot Gog the Mild! (Again!)——SerialNumber54129 16:09, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
All looking good so far. I hope to wrap up the rest of this in a day or two. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:54, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
Arbitrary breakEdit
  • "a period of illness and mental collapse in which he was" "in" → 'during'.
Done
  • "He was, therefore, also unable to play the role of a king in the country's governance" Delete "also". Optional: "play the role of a king" → 'carry out the duties of the king'.
Agrre with this; was thinking perhaps "his royal duties"?
Yes. That's better.
  • "Bonville attended council at Westminster in early 1454 only after "maken all the puissance they can and may to come hider [to Westminster] with theym",[73] as a Paston correspondent reported; it was even rumoured that Bonville was planning to join up with other lords—those of Beaumont, Poynings, Clifford and Egremont—and march on London itself" A bit long for a sentence?
A monster! Have split it into three, and hoefully clarified along the way.
  • "The lords eventually appointed" Could it be clarified who "the lords" were?
House of; done.
Catch.
  • "he had committed flagrant acts of piracy on foreign shipping" "on" → 'against'.
Agree.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 01:16, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Cheers Gog, much appreciated! ——SerialNumber54129 13:21, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "Courtenay fought for the King and was wounded in battle". Optional: delete "in battle".
  • " once again they controlled government" 'the'?
  • "the Duke of York's appointment as Protector." Lower case P
  • Link "pardon".
  • "They caused proclamation" 'a'?
  • "collector of the royal loan" "the" → 'a'?
  • "bound over" is overlinked.
  • Likewise "House of Lords".
  • "bring Devon out into the open on as equal terms as possible" Perhaps insert '[Courtenay]' after "Devon".
  • Link "Powderham" to Manor of Powderham.
Yeeees; although I already link to Powderham Castle, which I think is more accurate re, the siege.
  • "His campaign lasted for two months>" What campaign? This comes after mention of a single incident.
How about "Courtenay continued his campaign against Bonville for two months"?
Fine by me.
  • "As neither party had sufficient military or political weight to crush their opponent" This needs an explanation (a fuller one) that you are no longer talking about the Bonville-Courtenay feud, and probably a new paragraph.
Actually, I did mean the B-C feud, but you're right, the sentence was completely unclear. So I've split it up, added a quote that clarifies we are talking about the region, which leads neatly into what was happening beyond it.
  • "Bonville was elected a Knight of the Garter" I thought that members were appointed, "at the Sovereign's sole discretion".
Well, the companions nominated X-amount of individuals each and the crown chose from their selection. But it's certainly not worth arguing about!
OK. Clearly the procedure changed over time. But your change looks good.
Many thanks Gog the Mild. All actioned, with a couple or three remarks. ——SerialNumber54129 13:26, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:37, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

  • "modern historians Roskell and Woodger in the History of Parliament" Optional: "the" → 'their'.
If you don't mind, I think I'll probably keep this: you see, the Hist. Parl. isn't really their work alone, it's a collaborative thing, of which they happened to write the Bonville article (so to use "their", then I'd have to say "...in their piece on Bonville in the History of P" or something lengthy). See what I mean?
  • "to what one historian has called the "general condemnation" of contemporaries" It may just be me, but I am left unsure as to whether the condemnation is of the executions or the executed.
How about, semi-colon, "the executions were met with what the historian David Grummitt has described as the "general condemnation" of contemporaries"?
  • "the 1461 attainder of the ex-King" Which ex-King would that be? And it should be a lower case k. (Although once you specify the king I suppose it flips back to upper case.)
Heh :) indeed. I've gone with "the 1461 attainder of ex-King Henry"; on reconsideration, perhaps just "the 1461 attainder of King Henry" would work? After all, no other King H. has been mentioned.
Footnotes
  • "Commissions of Array" → 'commissions of array'.
Done. The linkage was a bloody nuisance.
  • "was as old as the duchy itself" Possibly more informative to say 'was X years/centuries old'?
Difficult to find a source on that, but the Gascon Rolls Project allows "at least 1278"; a useful source, in its own very small way.
I'm not too bothered, but doesn't it date to when the Duchess of Aquitaine married Henry II in 1154?
  • "To the prince, Kyriel is said to have retorted" Upper case P.
Done.

And that's it from me. An impressive piece of work. I was serious re considering submitting it to WikiJournal of Humanities. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:59, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Cheers, Gog the Mild, always appreciate your input. See my comments above, but all are good with your critiques. I'll look into the journal, although I have a feeling I !voted against it's seceding in the recent RfC :) anyway. See you next—in Sarthe! ——SerialNumber54129 14:59, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Image review - passEdit

I have just remembered that I checked all of the images for GAN. None have changed, so I can confirm that all images are appropriately licenced, positioned, captioned and alt texted. Gog the Mild (talk) 06:02, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Source reviewEdit

Spotchecks not done

  • FN79: I'm confused by the page formatting here - are you citing one page and two notes, three pages...? Might even split this into multiple footnotes just to make it a bit more clear
  • Be consistent in whether you abbreviate page ranges and whether citations of notes use "n." or just "n"
  • Cheery 1981a: we don't need to say twice that this is a thesis
  • The two Kleineke sources have the same editor differently formatted
  • Pollard 2000 title needs editing for format
  • Reeves: should specify DC to avoid potential for confusion. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:40, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Many thanks, Nikkimaria, tweaked per you, think fn79 is clear now. Didn't split it up into two because...you know someone will only come along and change it back "because it's the same source" at some point in the not so distant future :) ——SerialNumber54129 05:47, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Comments by WehwaltEdit

  • "was a member of the English peerage" Why put it so distantly? Why not "was an English peer" or lord, noble[man], etc?
Yes, odd. Changed.
  • "and his father died before he reached adulthood." ambiguous.
Dismabiguated.
  • "Both Bonville's father and grandfather had been successful in politics and land ownership, resulting in Bonville immediately entering into a large inheritance of money and land on reaching adulthood." Well, it's the stuff after the comma. "entering into"? Maybe (post-comma), "and when Bonville came of age, he gained control of a large inheritance of money and lands". Some such.
Yes, both you & Hchc below mention this, so I've tweaked (and simplified) the sentence.
  • The second lede paragraph seems mostly not about Bonville. Can it not be consolidated?
Fair enough: scrubbed all of it exept a brief intro to the Courtenays.
  • "and both Bonville and Courtenay ravaged each other's properties." "both" really isn't needed.
Rm.
  • "the Earl of Devon watching". Maybe signal the reader it's not the same guy with "new" before "Earl"?
Check.
  • Why is the uncertainty of the year of birth in the body not reflected in the lede sentence?
Not sure I get you on this: the ambiguous date is given in figures? ((12/31 August 1392–18 February 1461))
  • "The dispensation was required because Elizabeth was already a godmother to one of Bonville's daughters." This probably could use further exposition, maybe changing the period to a comma and adding "thus, the Church regarded them as ..." or some such.
Done, and found a source for the detail.
  • The final paragraph of "marriages" should be put in some sort of chronological order.
Swapped in and out.
  • "Bonville's mother and grandmother each held a third of his inheritance in dower," Is this accurate? I'd expect it to be 1/3 of the father's estate held by the mother in dower, grandmother 1/3 of grandfather's.
Yes, this is a good point, and I suspect I was trying to avoid having to do the math. I think it's compound interest...his father dies and his mother takes a third; then (or whatever order it was) his grandfather dies and takes a third of what remained. Which might add up to 55%; but I'm uncertain of my competence in this area.
  • "because the Duke had made Bonville one of the mortgagees for the ducal estates in Yorkshire." Wouldn't it be simpler to say that the Duke had borrowed money from Bonville?
Indeed it would, thanks.
  • "From then on he was fully employed in the service of royal administration" This makes it sound like he was working full-time for the King which seems unlikely given his own property interests.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:36, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
From then on he was regularly occuppied with his duties as a royal official in the region perhaps?
  • "In 1440 Bonville, with Sir Philip Courtenay—a close friend of Bonville's[9]—commanded a small fleet[20] of thirty galleys to patrol the Channel, although they saw little action; what action they did see did not necessarily go in their favour, as on one occasion the Portuguese fleet captured two English ships from them.[2]" "English" seems unneeded.
Rm.
  • "for a lifetime term" Could this be simplified to "for life"
Yes.
  • "Courtenay had just come of age but—due to his mother's longevity—" Survival for 21 years past an age where one could bear a child seems unremarkable, thus I'm not sure "longevity" is required. Maybe just say that her dower interest reduced his income.
  • "but very materially impacted on his income" This makes it sound like he lost income he had been enjoying rather than being deprived of a hoped-for increase in income.
Tweaked (and shotrened) the whole sentence.
  • "the new earl of Devon" He wasn't new, as I understand it, just newly come of age.
Rm.
  • "6d. a day." I've more usually seen "6d" or maybe "sixpence" would work better.
Sixpence, with a link, is much better.
  • "although in the event this did not occur..[75][note 13] Everyone, including Bonville, was preparing for war on a national scale, although in the event this did not materialise.[79]" A little close to use that phrase twice. One or the other could be eliminated.
Agre; lost the second one.
  • "York and Salisbury were dismissed and resigned from their offices respectively and retired to their estates." This seems a bit clunky (especially the "respectively")
York and Salisbury were removed from their positions in government and retired to their estates?
  • "York; York" I'd rephrase
Sorry—I must be going blind or mad, nut I couldn't find this at all! Could you narrow it down?
"Several chroniclers of the day suggest that Somerset was poisoning the King's mind against York;[83] York and the Nevilles may have feared imminent arrest. In any case, they reacted swiftly and with violence." I skipped the ref which may account for difficulty in searching.
Right, many thanks for that Wehwalt; how about "...York. He..."? ——SN54129 10:05, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "shalle have vjd. every day as long as he abideth with theym".[2]" After some puzzling, I imagine vjd. is sixpence?
Yes: inseerted [sixpence] after the roman numerals.
  • The quote box pushes the "Trial by battle" heading to the right.
So I've pushed the quote box to the right, better?
  • As I understood it, trial by battle was a one-on-one thing. This doesn't seem to be. And per the sources I read for Ashford v Thornton, the last certain trial by battle in England was in 1446.
Yeeeas...per the sources, I've changed it to duel.
  • "He certainly swore to uphold the rights of the Prince of Wales at the Parliament of November 1459[10] and in early 1460 he was commissioned to raise an army in the southwest against the Yorkists.[2]" I'm not sure I like the "certainly". We could use a link, I imagine, to either "Prince of Wales" or the article on the individual (who is linked to in the following paragraph). And shouldn't "against the Yorkists" appear a bit earlier in the sentence?
Rm certainly; moved and linked PoW to earlier mention.
  • "Bonville's son marched with York," not much discussion of family to this point so a name would be good.
Added William.
  • "Warwick's force was rapidly isolated by the swift-moving Lancastrian army, and Warwick fled, resulting in a Yorkist defeat.[115]" I'm not certain about cause and effect here. I assume Warwick fled because his army had been defeated.
I admit it may not be quite as simple as that; but I've reworded the sentence to avoid any confusion.
  • In the "Aftermath" section. You might want to start with an explanation that there was no attainder because if there had been there would have been no estate to descend.
Well, that's trur, but it's rather "If we had some sour cream" :) there was no attainder because the Lancastrians had neither the time nor the machinery to call a parliament.
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:55, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks very much for the detailed review, Wehwalt, it's much appreciaetd. I've attended to your suggestions in this edit. There's a couple of outstanding point above, but nothing major I think. Cheers! ——SerialNumber54129 15:14, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Support Looks OK. No objection to the suggestions made in reply above.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:34, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Much appreciated as ever Wehwalt—if anything jumps out at you in the future don't hesitate to pop back and point it out! Cheers, ——SN54129 16:29, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Hchc2009Edit

An interesting piece, although I think the text needs a bit of a copy-edit. I've had read through the lead, and some comments below, although the rest of the article looks like it also needs a scrub:

  • "as a member of the English peerage and an important, powerful landowner in the southwest of England during the late middle ages. Bonville was born in the last decade of the fourteenth century" - felt repetitious to me. The article already says in the same sentence when he was born and died, so I don't think we need to be told it was in the late middle ages; similarly, we don't need to be told that 1392 was in the last decade of the 14th century.
Removed "last decade" as pointless; keeping "LMA" as it allows for a link.
  • "Bonville's father and grandfather had been successful in...land ownership," - not a phrase I've really heard before. "land management" or "property management", yes, but not "I've been successful in land ownership" - it read oddly to me.
  • "a large inheritance of money and land " - is it necessary in the lead to give the details of the inheritance, or could it just be "a large inheritance"?
Yes, Wehwalt suggested somethng similar, so I went with ...he gained control of a large estate?
  • "In 1415 he joined King Henry V's uncle on the King's campaign, which would result in the Battle of Agincourt." - unclear what the "would" means; does it mean that he did or didn't take part in the Battle of Agincourt? You can't really tell from this construct what's meant...
Yes, I don't know why it had to be so complicated: In 1415 he joined King Henry V's uncle on the King's campaign, and fought at the Battle of Agincourt sums it up.
  • Agree with Wehwalt about the second paragraph - it seems to divert quite a lot from the subject of this article.
Yep, that's been got rid except for a sentence introducing Courtenay.
  • "In 1437 the new king" - why the previous upper case for "the King's campaign", and the lower case here?
Typo.
  • "the earls of Devon" - why lower case, when the previous paragraph had "Earls of Devon"?
Well Court[enay] :) have corrected personal Earl and the general earls.
  • Same with Earl and earl - this doesn't seem in line with the Manual of Style.
See last.
  • "and both Bonville and Courtenay ravaged each other's properties." - "both" and "each other's" is repetitive
Rm.
  • "the crown" - why the lower case? (The relevant wikiarticle uses "the Crown")
The crown is now capitalised on the two occasions its used.
  • "the crown appointed—by accident, it is assumed—" - assumed by who? If generally agreed, why not "the crown appointed Courtenay by accident"?
Detail of historiography unnecessary for the lead: removed.
  • "Henry and his government either failed to intervene between the two parties or did so ineffectually. " - unclear if this means they both failed to intervene and when they did intervene did so ineffectually, or did one but not the other.
Generally, Henry and his government failed to intervene between the two parties; when it did, its efforts were ineffectual, perhaps?
  • "Violent feuding was becoming increasingly common between members of the mid-fifteenth-century nobility and Henry's government was unable to address it. " - unclear why the wider context is needed in the lead
This bit removed.
  • "This was in a similar vein to many other of the ongoing noble internecine disputes, and the breakdown of law and order in the shires became subsumed into national politics. This, in turn, was drifting towards civil war, which would break out in 1455 with the First Battle of St Albans. " - ditto. Plus the "would" doesn't seem necessary.
And some of this.
  • "his son was killed alongside York at the Battle of Wakefield" - I don't think you've said who "York" is yet. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:14, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Now linked York previously in the sentence.
Many thanks for looking in Hchc2009; glad you're out of retirement! Thanks very much for this though. ——SerialNumber54129 15:14, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Comments by DudleyEdit

  • southwest of England. The "of" sounds to me odd and unnecessary.
Removed the / of.
  • "In 1415 he joined King Henry V's uncle on the King's campaign, and fought at the Battle of Agincourt." In the main text you say king's brother, not uncle, and do not say he fought at Agincourt. Also I would avoid repetition of "king" if possible. Maybe "In 1415 he joined the English invasion of France in the retinue of Thomas, Duke of Clarence, King Henry V's brother, and fought at the Battle of Agincourt."
Thanks for this; I've used your wording, except to clarify that although it is known that he was on that campaign, I have no source that definitely identifies him as being as the battle. (E.g., he could've been guarding a captured castle, had dysentry, etc) And I think someone like him—probably a captain with men under him at the least—would have been noted somewhere. But it's not, so...
  • "This had traditionally been a hereditary office of the earls of Devon, and the Earl was thus enraged." I would delete "thus" as superfluous.
Removed "thus" (also added ...at its loss"?)
  • "Says the historian Christine Carpenter" This is too colloquial.
Reworded.
  • "described by one twentieth-century historian" I think you should name him.
Named Griffiths.
  • "In 1414 he married Margaret Grey, daughter of Reginald, Baron Grey of Ruthin,[9] widower of another daughter of Poynings." Why another daughter? You have previously mentioned a cousin of Poynings, not a daughter.
Very well caught, Actually, since I couldn't find a way of phrasing that so that it didn't read clumsily, I've removed it; who Bonville's father-in-law had earlier been married to doesn't seem particularly relevant now.
  • You do not say that his son was "also named William", whereas you say his illegitimate son was "also named John" even though none of his relatives had that name.
I've swapped them over, more or less.
Thanks for these points, Dudley Miles, always nice to see you. I've addressed (hopefully satisfactorily) your suggestions with this edit. Looking forward to your next salvo! :) ——SN54129 12:05, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
I am not feeling 100% at the moment but will come back to this shortly. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:23, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
  • "Bonville's mother and grandmother each held a third of his inheritance in dower, although the former had died a few months earlier." Earlier than when? And what does the sentence mean - that he only received £300 out of his £900 income until they died?
    • "Following her husband John Bonville's death—before William came of age—she granted" Who is she? His grandmother as you say his mother had died?
    • "she granted her Fitzroger inheritance to her second husband, Richard Styuecle" I am struggling with this paragraph. Now it appears that you meant his mother and that she died shortly before he came of age.
(Taking these three points as one, if that's OK) Yes, it was a bit of a monster. I've pretty much re-written it. Added a footnote to explain the principal of dower; clarified Elizabeth married again, with some chronology and further detail. Hopefully reads better now.
  • Agincourt campaign. I think you should clarify that it is not known whether he took part in the battle.
Done, incl. a footnote highlighting that many who started on the campaign didn't get to A'court.
  • "He departed for France again in 1423 in the service of the King's uncle, Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester," I think you should mention Henry V's death.
Expanded this slightly: HenryV dying, son's accession, the regency and Gloucester, Bedford (and footnote re lack of Clarence).
  • "the Portuguese fleet captured two ships from Bonville's fleet" So he was serving in a war against Portugal? This should be explained.
Shouldn't have used the word fleet there: replaced, clarifying they were "just" rival merchants.
  • "Courtenay's wealth was already reduced by his mother's dower,[23][note 5] and so granting Bonville the stewardship was not only a blow to the regional hegemony the Courtenays traditionally enjoyed but reduced the income he could have otherwise expected to enjoy." This seems a non-sequitur. You say the dower reduced Courtenay's wealth so the loss of the stewardship reduced his income.
Tweaked to "...but reduced the earl's income further"; the point about the sentence is that Courtenay faced a bit of a double-whammy on the income front.
  • "among whom Bonville was pre-eminent". According to who?
Martin Cherry, done.
  • "the minority created a power vacuum in the county" You say in a note that he had reached his majority but most of his wealth was controlled by his mother.
Yes; when he entered his majority, he inherited his patrimony, but the lands that dowagers held were retained by them until their deaths (the whole point was to give them a guaranteed income without menfolk). The note I added re. dower above should now make this clearer.
  • "as Bonville's son-in-law, Tailboys, was closely associated with Suffolk." You date this to 1444-5 but above you say that the marriage was not until 1446.
True; clarified that he was at this point only a neighbour/associate.
  • This is an interesting article but sometimes difficult to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:30, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks very much Dudley Miles, hope you're feeling better. Your points addressed, I think, here. Cheers! ——SN54129 17:09, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Support. Looks fine now. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:30, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanking you, Dudley Miles, always appreciate your input. Slightly early festive greetings to you! ——SN54129 20:36, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Merry Christmas to you. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:40, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments from JimEdit

Very comprehensive, scholarly, and well illustrated. Some nitpicks to show I've read it before I support.

  • English invasion of France — any suitable link for this?
Tricky one, it would be! :) Se, we've got an article on the Hundred Years' War, we've got one on the portion of the war that began in 1415 with the Agincourt campaign, and of course we've got one on the battle itself. But not on the Agincampaign on its own. So: How about I delink the HYW main article and link to the sub-article on the 1415–53 part? ——SN54129 16:11, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
  • No indication in the lead that the civil war is the Wars of the Roses even though that's what the Easter-eggy link goes to
Ah, named WotR outright.
  • Richard, Lord Rivers and his wife Jacquetta, Lady Rivers. —No indication of why they matter
They attended as the King's personal representatives; which is now clarified.
  • Link King Henry V and godparent at first instance
Done, and according to the DupLinksHighlighterTool, caught a couple of others too.
  • Many thanks for looking in, Jimfbleak, greatly appreciated as ever. I've attended to your queries; what d'you think on that tricky first point, which is a bit of a 50/50! ——SN54129 16:11, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
I phrased my first point as I did because I suspected that it might not be straightforward, so I'm happy with whatever you think is appropriate, no other queries so changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:26, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, Jimfbleak, and festive greetings to you! ——SN54129 06:59, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Coord note - I see Hchc2009 has only edited 4 times since leaving the comment - I don't think pinging him is going to do that much good. I double-checked the sources (duh!) and did a quick pass for some obvious MOS things. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:06, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:09, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 14 December 2019 [19].


Whisky Galore! (1949 film)Edit

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 13:40, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Whisky Galore! is a 1949 film based on a novel which was based on the sinking of the SS Politician – an article that recently went through a successful FAC. This article went through GA three years ago under one of my nom de plumes, but I've recently expanded it further with new material. Any constructive comments are welcomed. – SchroCat (talk) 13:40, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Comments from JMEdit

I mostly had my say at GAC; I think the article looks very strong.

  • "Mr. Farquharson" In British English, the period after titles is non-standard. Unless you have a particular reason to include the period, perhaps it should be removed?
  • "Local inhabitants from the island and from nearby South Uist, heard that the ship was carrying 22,000 cases of whisky" The commas are a bit off here; you either need an additional comma after "island", or you need to lose the one after "Uist".
  • "Mackenzie annoyed with aspects of the adaptation and, because of removal of religious divide, opined "Another of my books gone west"" Struggling a bit with this sentence. How about "Mackenzie was annoyed with aspects of the adaptation and, referring to the removal of the religious divide, described the production as "[a]nother of my books gone west"".
  • Yep, much better. - SchroCat (talk) 09:56, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "with the exception of Radford and Greenwood" - They've not really been introduced yet!
  • We have them in the Cast list. - SchroCat (talk) 09:56, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, I noticed this, but other actors are introduced in both the cast list and main body of the article. I think there's an argument for introducing them fully from both a reader-clarity and consistency perspective, but I leave it to you. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:06, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Good point: a little extra added to clarify. - SchroCat (talk) 16:02, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "Not all outsiders to the island are intruders: the other Englishman, Sergeant Odd, "acts as the audiences entry point into the community"" Does your source miss the apostrophe? If so, maybe [sic] would be a good addition?
  • Mea culpa. Now added. - SchroCat (talk) 09:56, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "while The Manchester Guardian thought the" I'm generally not keen on this kind of personification. You're quoting an anonymous critic rather than the paper as a whole. (There are other examples.) I leave it to you whether you do anything about this, but note that I prefer the way you do it when you refer to "The reviewer for the Manchester Guardian"
  • It's not my preferred version either, but Tim riley reassures me that it's not a problem. - SchroCat (talk) 09:56, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
  • BB pulled me up, rightly, years ago about my phrase "The Times wrote..." (papers don't write themselves) but that apart the editorial voice is traditionally personified: "we think" etc. The Times thought, said, considered etc are standard forms. This is from a Guardian article: "the Times thought it 'sound' ... The Times said: 'Recreational drug use...'" Also "The Telegraph thought Fleabag's narcissism grew 'wearisome'...". The Guardian has or had a regular feature on paperback books with the recurring subheader: "What the Guardian thought". Tim riley talk 10:51, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Done. I await the wrath of Riley, but I know he can be calmed with red wine! - SchroCat (talk) 16:02, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "the studio's first" Plural or singular studio? You previously referred to to the studios plural!
  • Gone with "Ealing's" instead. - SchroCat (talk) 09:56, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I'd maybe like to hear a little more about the remake and the stage show.
  • There is only a very brief mention of the stage show, so there isn't anything else to say about it. How much do you want on the remake? I didn't add anything more as we have a full article on it, but I'm happy to dig out some more if needed.
  • I'd have thought only a sentence or two; I think it'd be particularly useful to note whether it was a critical/commercial success, and note how it compares to the original film (in terms of plot, but perhaps anything else that you have a source on). No doubt some critics (I note one quoted in Wikipedia's article on the new film, for instance) compared the two films, so you can definitely keep the focus on the original film even while talking about the new one. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:06, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
  • OK, I've added a couple of contrasting opinions, which pretty much covers the general feeling about the film! - SchroCat (talk) 16:49, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
  • And on the stage show - perhaps the names of a few people involved (playwright/adapter, director, leading performers) would be helpful. No doubt it's not as notable as the new film, so no need for too much detail. Just a thought - not a demand. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:07, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
  • A good thing I looked for other referneces for more details: it was an adaptation of the book, not the film. I have, however, found a musical based on the film, which I have added. - SchroCat (talk) 16:30, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Please double-check my edits. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:50, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Cheers Josh, much appreciated, as always. - SchroCat (talk) 09:56, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Trawling through Google Scholar...

  • From the final page of doi:10.5594/J13675: "Among the milestones I am reviewing, mention must be made of the mobile studio unit system, so useful in our vari- able climate when shooting exteriors at a particular location for a number of weeks. Tight Little Island (known in England as Whiskey Galore) was one of the first pictures to utilize this system. When the weather was too bad for ex- teriors, the unit moved into the im- provised film studios and shot small sets, which had been prefabricated and sent from the main studio at Ealing, London." Worth a mention, perhaps?
  • Have you taken a look at McArthur's Scotch Reels? That's apparently about Whiskey Galore and The Maggie.
    • I have. His 2003 work Whisky Galore! and the Maggie: A British Film Guide is an updated volume and much better. - SchroCat (talk) 21:08, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
  • What about Philip Kemp's Lethal Innocence? From p. 29 of Scotland: Global Cinema: Genres, Modes and Identities: "...the comedic aspect of Forsyth’s fi lms brushed away as though a façade, in favour of ‘uncovering’ the more weighty subject matter that laughing might somehow obscure. This stance on the director is not uncommon. It is apparent, for example, in Philip Kemp’s book-length celebration of director Alexander Mackendrick, in which Kemp defends Whisky Galore! for its use of the baser ‘conventions of comedy’ in relation to the otherwise more weighty considerations of Mackendrick’s oeuvre".
    • I'm stuggling to get hold of this at the moment, and don't have time to go to the BL to have a look at theirs. I've purchased a copy from Amazon, so will go add the relevant parts in a few days. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:53, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
      • Got it at last.A couple of nice touches in there. I've added the entirely new information, and I'll go through the rest to see what else can be strengthened or expanded upon. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 22:34, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
  • pp. 46-7 of the same: "A number of British road movies pass through or conclude in Scotland, including The 39 Steps (1935), I Know Where I’m Going! (1945), What a Whopper (1961), Hold Back the Night (1999) and The Last Great Wilderness (2002). This tradition typically sees an English character cross the border into Scotland, and is part of a broader trend of fi lms depicting outsiders (usually English or US characters) either stepping o ff the boat or plane in Scotland. This tradition includes: Whisky Galore! (1949), Laxdale Hall (1952), The Maggie (1954), Brigadoon (1954), Trouble in the Glen (1954), Rockets Galore! (1957), Local Hero (1983), Loch Ness (1996), The Rocket Post (2004) and Made of Honor (2008). In many of these fi lms, in particular the road movie, the outsider is either humiliated or rejuvenated (or both) by their experiences in Scotland. Moreover, their experiences often re fl ect upon the changing relationship between England, Scotland and the USA at di ff erent points in history. 9 However, in the 1990s/2000s things have changed. Coinciding with the increasingly contested issue of Scotland’s cultural and political devolution from the state of Britain (following the failed referendum of 1979) and the impetus towards indigenous expression created by Forsyth in the 1980s, the Scot fi nally emerged as the central character in a road movie in Soft Top, Hard Shoulder (1993)."
    • We cover the main point of this (the outsider being humiliated) in a better work already. - SchroCat (talk) 21:13, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
    • I've added this anyway: although we cover the humiliation, we don't cover the rejuvenation, which could be applied to Sgt Odd (although the text doesn't make it clear). - SchroCat (talk) 11:09, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • And p. 63 of the same: "Traditionally, in fi lms set in Scotland, from Whisky Galore! (1949) to The Last Great Wilderness (2002), a ceilidh is the place where inhibitions fall way as the alcohol and dancing break down the barriers between locals and guests visiting Scotland. The ceilidh, then, is typically a symbol of Scotland associated with Tartanry that illustrates the curative charms Scotland o ff ers to the tourist or visiting outsider."
    • We have most of this, but the "curative charms" for the outsider is angle we can add. - SchroCat (talk) 21:13, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
    • Now added - SchroCat (talk) 11:21, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Hope that's helpful. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:14, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Support; a well-researched article, and an engaging read. There's a question mark over an obscure book that may have more, but I know steps are being taken to chase that down, and it's not the end of the world if it's not included anyway. (Though maybe it could be added to a further reading section.) Josh Milburn (talk) 14:07, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Image reviewEdit

  • Suggest adding alt text
    • Yep (I know - I always forget the stuff!) now added - SchroCat (talk) 10:27, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • File:Compton_Mackenzie.jpg: source link is not working - when/where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:00, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
    • 1922: Now added, with an archive link to the book it was published in. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 21:18, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments from Tim rileyEdit

I reviewed – and much enjoyed – this article in the summer (offline, for reasons I have forgotten). It looks in v. good shape, but I have a few bijou quibblettes:

  • Lead
    • "The initial cut of the film was considered poor by Michael Balcon, the head of the studio" – not sure why the passive voice is wanted here. Why not just MB thought it poor?
    • "so one of Ealing's directors" – there are fogeys old enough to remember their English masters telling them that "so" is not a conjunction. Perhaps it is now so regarded by the young, but not by me.
    • "was well-received on its release" – hyphen not wanted, I think.
  • Plot
    • "Sergeant Odd returns on leave to court Peggy" – on leave from the army, I imagine, but it might be as well to say so. And as you later say he is an Englishman, it might be helpful to say briefly why he is returning.
    • "The whisky also gives the teetotal Campbell" – "the hitherto/previously teetotal"?
  • Filming
    • "MacPhail re-write it" – the OED doesn't hyphenate "rewrite"
      • Well it bloody well should! - SchroCat (talk) 10:22, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
    • "Mackenzie was persuaded ...Mackenzie played" – perhaps just "he" the second time?
    • "pre-fabricated in Ealing" – another hyphen the OED doesn't go in for. (We pass lightly over Sir Winston Churchill's comment, "We must have a better word than 'prefabricated'. Why not 'ready made'?")
    • "the pompous, high-minded attempts of Waggett" – can attempts be pompous? Is this more the high-minded attempts of the pompous Waggett?
  • Post-production
    • "Charles Crichton, added additional footage at Ealing Studios and re-edited the film back to the version Mackendrick had filmed" – if CC added additional footage he surely didn't restore the film back to Mackendrick's version? Something like it, perhaps, but with new bits.
    • "Mackendrick was still not satisfied with the final film and thought it looked like an amateur work. Because of financial pressures on the studio he decided to release it with little promotion. Is Mackendrick the right man? One might expect "Balcon" rather than "Mackendrick" here.
      • The "He" should be Balcon, bu Mackendrick didn't like the film much. - SchroCat (talk) 10:22, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Release and reception
    • "In France, the film was retitled Whisky à gogo; the name was later used as that of a discothèque in Paris. It was released into the US." – If we're being really pedantic, grammatically the "it" relates to the name of the discothèque, and you ought to use the name of the film rather than the pronoun. As to the Parisian establishment, I have my doubts that it was a discothèque – more a night club, I'd say, but what I do know about Parisian nightlife? (Answers on a postcard, please.)
      • Discothèque may be correct (it's certainly what the source calls it) and a quick search shows an inclination to the term, although club, night club, hot spot etc are also in the mix. - SchroCat (talk) 10:22, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
    • "The reviewer C. A. Lejeune, writing in The Observer" – it's rather a revelation of the obvious to tell us that the writer of the review was a reviewer. Similarly for "The critic Bosley Crowther, writing in The New York Times" later.
    • "The reviewer C. A. Lejeune ... the reviewer for The Manchester Guardian ... The Manchester Guardian's reviewer" – a helluva lot of reviewers. See my comments above and consider blitzing the damn things. The papers said it. All right, please yourself!
    • "while the reviewer ... while the lead roles" – too much whiling. Using the word to mean "and" or "although" is never necessary and is, I think (and, more to the point, so does Fowler) better avoided.
  • Legacy
    • "Much of the influence is because of the Kailyard effect used in Whisky Galore!" – this accusation ought, I'd say, to be attributed inline.
    • "McFarlane, writing for the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography" – why not just "in" rather than "writing for"?

That's my lot. Nothing of great consequence, and I look forward to supporting on my next visit here. – Tim riley talk 22:30, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Many thanks Tim. All your comments duly attended to here. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:22, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm not mad about "re-edited the film closer to the version Mackendrick had filmed" – the repetition is not pleasing – but such a minor matter does not prevent my adding my support for the elevation of this article to FA. It seems to me comprehensive, well researched, a pleasure to read, and as well illustrated as imaginable given WP copyright policy. Tim riley talk 17:56, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Many thanks Tim. I've tweaked "filmed" for "produced", which should cover things. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:18, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Sources reviewEdit

No issues with the sources: all links are working, formats are consistent and MoS-compliant, the sources themselves meet the FA criteria for quality and reliability.

But: will you please look at your note (c), which equates £2,000 in 1948 with £714,000 in today's money. For £2,000 read £20,000, according to your text.

Brianboulton (talk) 13:33, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Many thanks Brian. Note c tweaked accordingly. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:18, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Comments by CassiantoEdit

  • "The film was produced at the same time as Passport to Pimlico and Kind Hearts and Coronets, and with the studio's directors all working on other products, Danischewsky asked Balcon if Alexander Mackendrick, one of Ealing's production design team, could take the role. -- Three things here: Firstly, is "products" the right word here? "Projects" sounds better and more accurate for a film. Secondly, you say that he could take on the role, but don't actually say what that role was. Sure, you allude to it, but is this enough to say that the film lacked a director and that Mackendrick was scouted for "the role"? Thirdly, "role". Not usually reserved for a director, I think, more for an actor, as the role they play is of someone else. Surely a director is a director and they are themselves while they are directing. All three could be sorted by a simple swap of "role" to "director".
  • "The screenplay was written by Compton Mackenzie and Angus MacPhail, based on Mackenzie's novel; he received £500 for the rights to the book and a further £1,000 because of the film's profitability." -- who's "he"? We mention three men in this sentence.
  • "Alastair Sim was offered the role of Joseph Macroon in the film, but turned it down, to avoid being typecast" -- is the second comma needed here?
Filming
  • Is there a reason why you link Barra on its second mention and not on the first, two paragraphs up?
  • Link to Gordon Jackson has been omitted in the last para.
Themes

"Martin-Jones—describing the scene as a ceilidh—" -- is the coding broken?

Support - The rest, all good. It almost makes me want to cheer on Mackendrick who, after reading this, it appears, wasn't well-liked at Ealing and who was professionally kicked into the gutter by Balcon and his money men. Well, I'm pleased that Mackendrick had the last laugh as it is a great film and the critics confirmed this. Not his best effort by a long chalk (this was), but I can see where he got his disdain for the British film industry; no wonder he sodded off back to the states in '55. CassiantoTalk 18:11, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

  • I completely agree that Ladykillers was a better film - darker, tighter and much better all round. I'll get round to doing that one at some point soon! - SchroCat (talk) 09:53, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Support and comments from JimEdit

Very entertaining, like the film. A few minor nitpicks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:23, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

  • based on his 1947 novel Whisky Galore, and Angus MacPhail. The story—based on a true event—Avoid two based ons?
  • an incident in the Second World War, when the cargo ship SS Politician' —why not give 1941 as the year
    • I was trying to stress the war element as the most important part, rather than the year, which 'introduces' the idea before we get to the Home Guard etc. 1941 now added - SchroCat (talk) 21:40, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Jonny Murray, the professor of film and visual culture...—slightly odd, either a professor or say where he's a prof perhaps?
    • Tweaked to remove the professor bit.
    • Hi Jim, Many thanks for these; all duly tweaked. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 21:40, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments by JennyOzEdit

  • S.S. Cabinet Minister runs aground - remove dots (per MoS no punc in prefix), (others, SS Cabinet Minister and SS Politician are fine)
  • could take direct the work - remove "take"?
  • Roger Hutchinson - wlink Roger Hutchinson (writer), and authorlink?
  • Keep the Home Guard Turning - wlink
    • Excellent - a new article since I wrote this one. - SchroCat (talk) 09:15, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Everything had to be - not really everything?maybe 'Nearly everything'?
  • the feet of one of the islanders - same local just mentioned?
  • the feet of one of the islanders was used - were rather than "was", or even 'were filmed'?
  • dinner at the Savoy Hotel, London. - in London
  • This is true of both Whisky Galore! and Mackenzie's other Scottish-based Ealing comedy, The Maggie. - definitely referring to actor Mackenzie here, not director Mackendrick?
  • McArthur, in his work comparing Whisky Galore to - missing exclamation (ie film not book?)
  • Jeffrey Richards - wlink in prose? (already has authorlink)
  • name was later used as that of a discothèque - 'for a' discothèque instead of 'that of a'? Was it named directly after the movie? There are others, Aus and NY but not related?
  • for the Manchester Guardian considered - cap T and italics on The per others
  • Rockets Galore, Mackenzie's sequel - wlink Rockets Galore (novel)
    • And another new one. - SchroCat (talk) 09:15, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Rockets Galore, Mackenzie's sequel to Whisky Galore!, was adapted - remove exclamation mark if this refers to the novel?
  • thought it an "innocuous, unmemorable remake" that there was "little reason for it to exist". - 'and' before that?
  • Newspapers... Muir, Kate - authorlink
  • Ref 16 "Whisky Galore". Sight & Sound. - italics on S&S per others
  • McArthur, Colin (2003). Whisky Galore! and the Maggie: A British Film Guide - 'the' should have cap here?
  • Brown, John (Winter 1983). "The Land Beyond Brigadoon". Sight and Sound. 53 (1): 40–46. - ampersand, ie Sight & Sound?
  • ibox Gerald Gibbs - doesn't appear in prose ie no ref for him
  • water of life - even though within a quote, could wlink Aqua vitae
  • possible category: Films set on the home front during World War II

Thanks for this SchroCat, I look forward to watching the movie! Regards, JennyOz (talk) 07:25, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

  • All done, JennyOz. Many thanks for your fine eye for detail on this - it is as appreciated as always. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:15, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • This gnome very happy to sign support. Thanks SchroCat for tweaks!. JennyOz (talk) 14:36, 3 December 2019 (UTC)


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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 14 December 2019 [20].


Peter van GeersdaeleEdit

Nominator(s): Usernameunique (talk) 18:29, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Peter van Geersdaele was, as a colleague remembered him, among "the last of the team of conservators and specialist craftsmen who responded to a challenge that had left archaeologists daunted". Spending the bulk of his career at the British Museum, he led the moulding, and subsequent fibreglass reconstruction, of the impression of the Sutton Hoo ship-burial. He later worked briefly for Parks Canada; retiring after a final move to the National Maritime Museum, he was appointed an Officer of the Order of the British Empire in recognition of his services to museums.

This article is a concise and complete account of van Geersadele’s recorded contributions to archaeology and museums. It attracted the support of The Rambling Man when nominated before, but few other comments; the nomination thus failed, 1 vote for and 0 against. Hopefully the nomination will attract more attention this second time around, for it is, I believe, featured article material. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:29, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Support from The Rambling ManEdit

  • Support as noted in the nomination comments. Nothing has changed for me here. And for what it's worth, if the nominator needs any help with addressing any comments to get this over the line, please don't hesitate. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 18:08, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Source review by FiamhEdit

  • Try to avoid duplicate refs.
    • Try: After school... 1951.[1][3] all as one unit.
      • Moved.
    • Para that starts: In the early 1950s... is all sourced to the same reference, so it should only have one in-line citation at the end of the paragraph.
  • Ditto with Van Geersdaele.. 1993.
    • I generally prefer to cite after every sentence; among other benefits, it maintains clarity when revisions are made and further sources are added.
  • 6. van Geersdaele 1969. Shouldn't this have a page number?
    • The entire article is being cited, since it's the article he wrote about the subject of the sentence.
  • He was remembered by colleagues Should be directly attributed to the one colleague that said it.

Other comments

  • a project in which, as with the Sutton Hoo ship,[10] he was assisted by Nigel Williams,[11][12] This reads really awkwardly. If he was assisted by Williams in a prior project and it's worth mentioning, why not put it back where you're discussing the other project?
  • the Anglo-Saxon burial is widely identified with Rædwald of East Anglia what does this mean?

Image reviewEdit

Thanks for the image review, Fiamh. Looking at the edit description of the file, it appears to have been uploaded by a family member: "Screen capture of image from home movie, shot by Harold John Phillips, of 1939 excavation of Sutton Hoo burial ship. Permission for unlimited use granted by son William Phillips. Uploaded by grandson Jeremy Gilbert". --Usernameunique (talk) 21:20, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
    • Anyone can post such a comment claiming to be a family member. Without OTRS permission it's impossible to confirm that this is indeed the case. Fiamh (talk, contribs) 07:59, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Support from CeoilEdit

Support on prose. Very nicely written. Ceoil (talk) 12:10, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Support from Tim rileyEdit

I have looked at the previous nomination and at the state of the article at the time, and I am sad that not enough reviewers looked in first time round. I hope the same won't happen this time. This seems to me a top-notch article of its kind, and I am happy to add my support. A few thoughts:

  • I could do with a little trimming of the paragraph about the punch-up over the Council Tax (it is really rather yawn-making) but I don't press the point.
  • Yeah, can't really argue that it's a gripping paragraph. Trimmed a bit, and combined two of the sentences. Interestingly, the Daily Telegraph partly copied this paragraph in their obituary of him ("In 2003 he was one of a group of pensioners who protested against a steep hike in council tax by Suffolk County Council, and the following year he was summoned to court for having insisted on paying his tax in 12 monthly instalments, rather than the required 10.").
  • If I'd been writing the list of van Geersdaele's publications I wouldn't have put his name in each entry - it seems unnecessary and over-repetitive - but we all have our own ways of doing these things, and again I don't press the point.
  • This is a bit of personal preference, although given the number of coauthors, it probably would be a bit hard to include a line for repetitive author names, as some others do.
  • But I would definitely suggest changing the heading "Bibliography" in the citations area: to many people a bibliography in a biographical article means a list of the subject's publications rather than a list of cited works. "Sources" is the usual form in WP articles, in my experience.
  • I've changed "Publications" to "Works by van Geersdaele," a subsection of "Bibliography." This also has the advantage of placing it below "References," since a number of the references link to van Geersdaele's publications.
  • I am no doubt showing my ignorance when I ask why the subject is "Van G" (capital V) at the start of a sentence in the main text but "van G" (lower case v) at the start of each line in the list of publications. I merely mention the point, and am happy to go with the nominator's judgment on the matter.
  • That's a good point, and not one that was arrived at by any great deliberation. It looks, however, as if this is actually correct (link 1; link 2).

Nothing of any great import in those few points, and I am happy to add my support. The article seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. Tim riley talk 20:03, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the support, Tim riley. I've responded to all your points above. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:17, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
Good. I hope there will be more supports this time. They will be well deserved. Tim riley talk 21:39, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Support and comments from JimEdit

I fixed a typo in the lead (mold). I'm happy to support, just a couple of suggestions that you are free to ignore Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:59, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

  • I'd prefer the section heading to be just British Museum
  • Good point, done.
  • Done.

Thanks for the comments and support, Jimfbleak. Adopted both of your suggestions. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:06, 5 December 2019 (UTC)


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

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 12 December 2019 [21].


UserkafEdit

Nominator(s): Iry-Hor (talk) 13:05, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

This article is about Userkaf, founder of the Fifth Dynasty of Egypt in the 25th Century BC. Userkaf's reign heralded a period of ascendancy for the cult of Ra over that of the other Egyptian gods. Epochal, paradigmatic shifts in the conception of kingship that held sway during the previous Fourth Dynasty took place under Userkaf. These changes are perhaps best manifested in the small size of his pyramid as well as the parallel construction of the first Sun Temple. Egypt's military might and trade relations seemed to have flourished at the time.

This is the third nomination for this article, however the previous two failures were not up to the article itself: the first candidacy failed owing to me being unforeseeably absent from wikipedia just after posting it; the second because FAC rules do not allow for two nominations by the same editor at the same time (the other candidacy was that of the promoted Atlanersa). All comments received in these two candidacies were implemented. I am thus looking forward to your reviews!Iry-Hor (talk) 13:05, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Dank (Support)Edit

  • "Bernhard Grdseloff argues that as a descendant of pharaoh Djedefre marrying a woman from the main royal line—that of Khafre and Menkaure—Userkaf could have unified two rival factions within the royal family and ended possible dynastic struggles.": That would be a little clearer if it started off "Bernhard Grdseloff argues that Userkaf, ...".
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:31, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "Userkaf received from a funerary cult after his death": ?
Fixed it is a mix-up between two formulations "received a funerary cult" and "benefitted from". I chose "received a funerary" because as was pointed out by a reviewer he could hardly have benefitted from it being dead.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:31, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "urae": ?
Done I have wikilinked this to the relevant article.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:31, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you Dank for your review and support !

Support Comments by Mr rnddudeEdit

Eventually, when I am able to get around to it. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:55, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

In contemporary culture
Egyptian Nobel Prize for Literature-winner Naguib Mahfouz - Nobel prize recipients are laureates, leave winner to sports fans.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:43, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Middle Kingdom
... by a block showing the king undertaking a ritual ... - The word undertaking sticks out for me here, perhaps performing would fit better.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:43, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
pyramid of Amenemhat I - Wikilink?
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:43, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Old Kingdom
... as well such resources as fabrics ... - I believe this should read "... as well as such resources as fabrics ..."
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:43, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Pyramid complex of Neferhetepes
The core of the pyramid was built with the same technique as the main pyramid and the cult pyramid ... - You mean the main and cult pyramid of Userkaf, yes?
Yes. I replaced with "The core of the main and cult pyramids were built with the same technique, consisting of three".Iry-Hor (talk) 07:43, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
... as compared to those of Userkaf's Fourth Dynasty forebears ... - Forebearers, not forebears.
Are you sure? on Google Dictionnary it says "forebears" designates the ancestors of predecessors of someone, which is what I mean here, whereas forebearers is unknown.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:43, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Odd. Merriam-Webster has forebearer but Cambridge does not. Collins lists it as Americanese, so I'll assume I'm wrong here. It just seems very strange to me. You would call someone who gambles a gambler, someone who precedes a predecessor, someone who murders a murderer, but apparently you don't do that with someone who forebears (i.e. forebearer). I didn't know that. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:06, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Ok these subtelties of English are beyond my abilities. I could perhaps just write "predecessors" instead ?
... its roof made of gabled limestone beams ... - I tend to wikilink gabled because I'm never sure if the reader will know the meaning of the term.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:43, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
... at the north-eastern edge of the wall surrounding Djoser's pyramid complex - Usually referred to as the "enclosure wall".
Done you are right!Iry-Hor (talk) 07:43, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Name
The Ancient Egyptians ... - ancient should not be capitalized as it's adjectival in use, and not part of a proper noun. There is more than one such instance of this.
Fixed everywhere.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:43, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Significance
... social-political tensions - We have a proper term for this, it's socio-political (or sociopolitical for AmEng).
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:43, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Children
... this being also the name of the queen who owned the pyramid next to Userkaf's - You mean believed to have owned, as you state later in the article, her name was not found in the satellite pyramid complex. I've read something relatively recent on early Fifth Dynasty filiation, which may be relevant, but I'm not sure if it had anything to say about the relationship between Userkaf and Sahure or not. Will check when given the chance. Personally, I'm given to the 'family tree', so to speak, developed by Verner and adopted by Bàrta.
Fixed yes you are right, the attribution of the pyramid is not beyond debate.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:43, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

That's all I'm able to do for now, will review the lede later. Excellent work, as ever. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:33, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Mr rnddude Thanks for your detailed reviews!Iry-Hor (talk) 07:43, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Mr rnddude Could you please indicate whether your review is finished or not, and if so if you support or oppose the nomination ? Thank you for your input!Iry-Hor (talk) 12:35, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
I've gone through the lede as well now, but didn't have any comments to make about it. I do have a question though re ... a location that forced architects to put the associated mortuary temple in an unusual position, to the south of the pyramid. On the one hand, given the location of the pyramid inside Djoser's complex, is it not possible that he intentionally mimicked the north-south axial orientation of the Djoser's architects used? but on the other, why then not place it on the north side, as Djoser's north temple was? I haven't researched these two pyramids in depth, so maybe the answer here is obvious. Otherwise, support. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:49, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
Mr rnddude I have no idea, I just wrote what the source says: apparently it was sufficiently important for Userkaf to place his pyramid where it is to force his architects to violate the normal layout of the mortuary temple. Perhaps what you say is true, that they wanted to mimick Djoser's but the source does not say so, thus I guess that an in-depth study of this question show that this is not the case. Or perhaps the source just did not think of this?Iry-Hor (talk) 07:21, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments from Aoba47Edit

  • Would a wikilink to Ra be helpful for this part (His reign heralded the ascendancy of the cult of Ra)? Would it be helpful to wilink him in the first mention in the body of the article as well?
Done you are right this is important for general readers.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:56, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
  • For this part (In doing so he instituted a tradition followed), I believe there should be a comma between "so" and "he".
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:56, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
  • For this part (were primarily concerned with both Ra's creator function and as his role as father of the king.), I do not think the "as" is needed.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:56, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Are the gender symbols next to the children's names in the infobox a common or regular practice for these types of articles? I would not think that they are necessary, but I would like to get your opinion about it.
This is now an established practice, such symbols are present in the following FA articles: Nyuserre Ini, Djedkare Isesi, Unas, Menkauhor Kaiu, Neferefre, Ramesses VI, and Neferirkare Kakai. The idea was to help the reader know at a glance the sons and daughters of a pharaoh. Because I thought without this, given that the names of these people are so different from ours it is really hard to know just from this if they were male or female.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:56, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I would wikilink Fourth Dynasty in this sentence (The identity of Userkaf's parents is not known for certain, but he undoubtedly had family connections with the rulers of the preceding Fourth Dynasty.) as it is the first time the dynasty is mentioned in the body of the article.
Done and as per MOS, I have unlinked the second appearance of 4th Dynasty, which was wikilinked.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:56, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
  • For this part (The Egyptologist Miroslav Verner), I do not believe "The" is needed.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:56, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
  • For this part (and was possibly a full brother to his predecessor and the last king of the), I do not think "was" is needed as it is a continuation of the previous part of the sentence.
Done thanks you are right and this makes the text "lighter" and easier to reader.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:56, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
  • The "Raddjedet (myth)" part of the infobox does not appear to be mentioned anywhere else in the article and does not have a citation. The same comment applies for this "Thamphthis (possibly known as Djedefptah)" as I only see this mentioned in the infobox without being referenced or cited elsewhere.
Footnote 3 talks about this a bit. The trouble with Thamphthis is that this is a complicated situation (whether or not he existed at all) the debate about which should best be placed in Shepseskaf's article and I would like to avoid going into this here as it is really tangential to Userkaf.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:56, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Since "state-god" is wikilinked in the body of the article, I think it should be wikilinked in the lead as well for consistency.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:56, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
  • For this part (According to Coppens, Janák, Lehner, Verner, Vymazalová, Wilkinson and Zemina, Nḫn here might actually refer instead to the town of Nekhen, also known as Hierakonpolis.), I would recommend putting the citations in numeric order.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:56, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I hope my review is helpful. Once my comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this for promotion. Have a great rest of your day and/or night! Aoba47 (talk) 16:40, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Aoba47 Of course your review is helpful! Thanks a lot for taing your time to do this for this article. I hope I have adressed all of your comments.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:56, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for addressing everything! I support this for promotion. It was a very interesting and informative read and I look forward to reading more of your nominations in the future. Have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 10:03, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Sources reviewEdit

  • No spotchecks carried out.
  • Links: The checker tool does not highlight them, but I was unable to make the links to Verner 1994 and Verner 2000. Please check. No other link problems that I could see.
I don't understand, I clicked on Verner 2000 and all Verner & Zemina 1994 and they all worked both ways (text to ref and ref to source). Perhaps, the issue come from the fact that some of these citations are in a footnote, and the footnote being just above the ref list the screen does not appear to move when you click on it (e.g. for ref 45), yet the light blue highlight shows that it works properly.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:06, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Formats: A number of minor issues:
  • Ref 34: inappropriate mdash
Fixed.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:06, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Ditto 62, 64
Fixed.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:06, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Ref 100: requires pp. and ndash not hyphen in range.
Fixed.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:06, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Ref 102: needs space between 2 and 90
Fixed.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:06, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Ref 134: Oddly formatted - is the ampersand in the right place? Where does "1969" come into it? Also, inappropriate mdash.
Fixed.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:06, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Edwards out of alphabetical sequence in list of sources.
Fixed.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:06, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Language should be stated for Helck
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:06, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Lepsius – language?
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:06, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Nuzzolo: the text is in French. Also specify that "Dudley" refers to Dudley MA
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:06, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Sethe: why are you referencing an uncited Wikipedia article?
Well I thought it nice that there is a Wikipedia article on this book. Should I remove the link from the reference ?
  • Verner 1980a – language?
It is actually in English, it is only the name of the journal which is German.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:06, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Verner 1998 – language?
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:06, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • von Beckerath 1997 – language?
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:06, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Voẞ – language?
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:06, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Quality/reliability: The sources are comprehensive and scholarly and I believe meet the requirements of the FAC criteria.

Brianboulton (talk) 19:33, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Brianboulton Thank you for your detailed review! I have addressed everything except for your remark on Sethe, do you want me to remove the wikilink to his book?Iry-Hor (talk) 07:06, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

NoteEdit

NOTE to the coordinator: On the image review, I wanted to indicate that it had been done for the 2nd FAC of Userkaf on the 5 October 2019, so very fresh. See here.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:24, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Comment from Laser brainEdit

In reading the article to determine readiness for promotion, I noticed mention of "Papyrus Westcar" which redirects to "Westcar Papyrus" and then further mentions in the article to "Westcar papyrus" (lower case). Consistency is needed. --Laser brain (talk) 13:46, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Laser_brain Fixed now it is "Westcar papyrus" throughout.Iry-Hor (talk) 14:06, 12 December 2019 (UTC)


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

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 12 December 2019 [22].


Brandenburg-class battleshipEdit

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 11:56, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

This is the article that got me started writing on German warships, all the way back in 2007 - the article has come a fair way since then, with multiple rewrites as I've acquired more sources - the most critical have been Nottelmann's Die Brandenburg-Klasse for the technical details and design history and Hildebrand et. al.'s Die Deutschen Kriegsschiffe for the ships' service histories. Thanks to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 11:56, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

DankEdit

CommentsSupport by PMEdit

This article is in great shape. I looked at during its recent Milhist ACR. I have a few comments from re-reading it:

  • 9,800 long tons→9,800-long-ton
    • Fixed
  • no given name for Chief Constructor Dietrich?
    • Ah, I found him here
  • in parts long tons are used first, elsewhere tons, perhaps be consistent within the article?
    • Fixed
  • "by existing infrastructure" is this referring to dry docks, or the canal as well?
    • The canal didn't exist at that time - work had only begun the previous year - but increases in size required not just larger dry docks, but also construction facilities, deeper channels dredged (and sometimes harbor bottoms)
  • "As Dietrich continued to work on the plans" doesn't make sense to me, in that reducing the number of guns to three from four or six would reduce the weight of fire regardless, wouldn't it? Maybe I'm missing something implied?
    • See if what I added works
  • you could put the draft range in the infobox
    • Done
  • you could put the speed range in the infobox
    • I prefer to use rated speed in the box, not trials, since speed tests were frequently under unrealistic conditions
  • theortically
    • Good catch
  • rounding with the British and German 45 cm TTs, one is 17.7 in and one is 18 in
    • fixed
  • it isn't clear where the 5 June 1894 completion date for Weissenburg comes from. The article says 28 August 1894 or 10 October and its infobox says commissioned 14 October?
    • That date is from Conway's, but I'll opt to go with Hildebrand instead
  • a similar issue for Kurfürst Friedrich Wilhelm's completion date
    • Ditto
  • not sure about the capitalisation of Westerners
    • De-capped
  • link marines
    • Done
  • Marshal→Generalfeldmarschall and link
    • Done
  • for neutral link Neutral country
    • Good idea
  • "In April, the British and French fleets had launched"
    • Done

That's all I have. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:22, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:46, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Sources reviewEdit

Sources were checked out at the recent A-class review, but I've taken another look.

  • No spotchecks carried out
  • Formats: I imagine the François book is in French?
    • Good catch
  • Quality/reliability: no issues

Subject to the one format query, all looks well. Brianboulton (talk) 15:23, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Brian. Parsecboy (talk) 13:38, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by CPA-5Edit

I'll do this one tomorrow. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:33, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

  • other officers, including Hans von Koester, August von Thomsen, Hans Sack, Wilhelm Büchsel, Carl Barandon, Conrad von Bodenhausen, Gustav Schmidt, and Curt von Maltzahn No ranks?
    • I didn't think it was worth bogging down the prose any more by including the ranks and translations to the long list of names.
  • replaced by C/01 semi-armor-piercing (SAP) shell Is semi-armor-piercing here an adjective?
    • Yes
  • on 16 February 1894 that killed forty-four men: twenty-five crew members, eighteen shipyard workers --> "on 16 February 1894 that killed 44 men: 25 crew members, 18 shipyard workers, and 1 from the commission"?
    • I generally prefer to spell out numbers
  • Chinese nationalists laid siege to the foreign embassies Pipe Chinese to the Qing dynasty.
    • I think it makes more sense to pipe it to "westerners in China"
  • Link marks.
    • Done
  • Pipe Bulgarian to the Kingdom of Bulgaria.
    • Done
  • Pipe Greek to the Kingdom of Greece.
    • Done
  • Dardanelles fortresses during the Dardanelles campaign --> "Dardanelles fortresses during the Dardanelles Campaign"
    • There was a bit of a stink earlier this year about whether campaign ought to be capitalized (actually, I started it by pointing out that some were capitalized and some weren't, but I didn't particularly care one way or the other), and after much yelling and gnashing of teeth discussion, it was decided that they should not be capitalized.
  • British and French fleets launched the Gallipoli campaign Same as above.
    • As above
  • meaning that it was a naval gun of built-up construction American build-up or is this official in American English?
    • It'd be built-up in either version

That's it I think - sorry for the delay I was really busy with family stuff. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 16:18, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

No problem, family stuff is more important! Parsecboy (talk) 14:29, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Great to hear; looks good to me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 13:38, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Image reviewEdit

  • Update the licensing for the Heimdall lithograph to reflect when Graf died and the same for the lithograph for Wörth
    • Done
  • And the same for F. K. Barnes
    • Done
  • Not thrilled with the placement of the Kurfürst Friedrich Wilhelm image as there's a ton of whitespace to its left on my monitors. Perhaps after the table?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:42, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
    • The image isn't causing the whitespace - the table isn't wide enough to cover the whole width on wider monitors - so moving the image will actually make the problem worse, not better. Parsecboy (talk) 19:53, 22 November 2019 (UTC)


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

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 12 December 2019 [23].


San Francisco–Oakland Bay Bridge half dollarEdit

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 05:34, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

This article is about... a half dollar a bit different from the run of the mill anniversary commemorative. For one thing, it was the first commemorative coin ever sold on a drive in basis. Only in California.Wehwalt (talk) 05:34, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

SN54129Edit

Sup Wehwalt, well met.
Just wondering about the turn of phrase, the low hundreds of dollars? Slightly unwieldy—I know what you're saying of course—could it be tweaked I wonder?
Slight MOS:SANDWICH issue in the Prep/Design/Prod sections.
Interesting what you say about the drive-thru distribution, Since it was the first occasion—sufficiently a clam to notability on its own—can more be said upon it? It would add a human element that the WP:READER, etc, might identitfy with, without having to be a numismatist :)
Take care! ——SerialNumber54129 15:59, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Hope you're doing well. On the low hundreds of dollars, can you suggest prose here? This is one I've struggled with, how to put it into a thumbnail. I don't have too much more info on the drive-in booths. What you've said is why I keep stressing the point, it's a very California thing to do. I've moved one of the images which I hope will help. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:54, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Sources reviewEdit

Greetings. Just a couple of points, barely worth mentioning:

  • Refs 19, 22 and 34 breach the MoS-preferred format for page ranges (232–233 etc)
  • Ref 8: I always like to see the publisher's name rather than/as well as the web address. In this case the publisher in Numismatic Guaranty Corporation. Up to you.

Otherwise, links to sources are working, formats are consistent, and the sources chosen all meet the FA criteria for quality/reliability.

On to 200. Brianboulton (talk) 21:18, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, hope you're doing well ... those things are done. As for numbers, we shall see ... harder to bring enthusiasm to the table sometimes.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:59, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

SCEdit

The usual high-quality fare. A few minor, rather picky points:

Legislation
  • "John Cochran of Missouri reported that bill back on April 23, with a recommendation that it pass,[13] Cochran brought the bill to the House floor on May 27, 1936." Aside from the comma splice (I think a semi colon would work best), "he" can replace the second "Cochran".
  • "come forward this year": that year?
Preparation
  • This may be an Engvar thing, but to my rather jaundiced British eye, "gotten" feels wrong, particularly when "got" will do just as well. Ignore me if this is fine in AmEng, obviously.
I believe it’s acceptable in American English, but a bit colloquial. Proceeded, began, started, commenced.. any would probably be a better fit.ManfromButtonwillow (talk) 04:58, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
  • BTW – that's in a very long sentence with a lot of sub-clauses
Avoided the phrase per MfB's suggestion, more or less. Sentence divided.--!!!!

That's the lot. As always, this is a prose review only. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:52, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

  • All done. Thanks for the review and MfB for their contribution.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:17, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. All good; another great article. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 23:26, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Image reviewEdit

  • I'm astonished that critics actually liked the depiction of the bear. It seems almost cartoonish to me. The reverse is rather interesting though.
  • All images appropriately licensed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:06, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for that.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:32, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments from UsernameuniqueEdit

Lead

  • It's an American coin, so shouldn't it be "catalogs" instead of "catalogues"?
  • The obverse depicts ... and the reverse shows ... — Is this stated too authoritatively, given what the body says about guessing which is the obverse/reverse?
Both dealt with.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:31, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Infobox

  • Do cents need to be translated into dollars (50 cents = .5 dollars), and is there any reason dollars is linked but cents is not?
The infobox at present gives the usual rendering to two decimal points, which is fine I think.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:31, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Conversion given for diameter, but not thickness
Looks like a formatting error that I've fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:31, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Background

  • no fewer than fifteen were issued for the first time — Meaning 15 were issued that year, more than in any previous year?
Or since, for that matter, in terms of distinct issues. Expanded.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:07, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
  • several coins minted in prior years were produced again — Are these included in the 15?
No. Clarified.
  • Mr. Farley, the New York city committeeman — Worth a red link?
I've spent a couple of hours on this and I would consider a redlink (if need be) if I had his name ... The first Farley is very clear, James A. Farley, FDR's postmaster general and political fixer, hated by Republicans. The second is a bit more obscure. I thought it might be Thomas M. Farley, the corrupt sheriff of New York County but he died in 1934 and FDR removed him from office while governor so it wouldn't make sense. The joke is obscure but it's the most notable thing that was said during the discussion. It's not actually sure whether this is a public official or political type, but in NYC I'm not sure there's a difference. I'll keep looking.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:31, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Preparation

  • Jacques Schnier — Worthy of a red link? Any information about him?
A lot out there on Google. I agree worth a redlink.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:47, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
  • the original designs — Do these, and/or photographs of them, survive?
Yes, they are illustrated in The Numismatist for September 1936. The copyright might be a bit dodgy though because even though the magazine wasn't copyrighted at the time, Schnier lived until 1988. The bear looks more or less the same, but it's a slightly different bridge view. You might be able to view it here.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:47, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Would he hold the copyright himself, rather than the government—in which case, it would be in the public domain?
He can transfer the copyright to the government, it doesn't become copyright free until it's issued on a coin. So if the original design is significantly different, he probably still holds the copyright.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:40, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Design

  • Why is the question of which side is which so confusing? Is "Liberty"/"In God we Trust"/the mint mark/the denomination not usually on the obverse?
True, but there has been considerable variation on that on commemoratives. For regular issue coins, which side is which is determined by the requirements of the Coinage Act of 1873 that the obverse be a design emblematic of Liberty and that there be an eagle on the reverse of all except the smallest coins.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:47, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Production, distribution and collecting

  • the San Francisco Clearing House Association, a group of banks — the San Francisco Clearing House Association was a group of banks, or is this a list of different entities?
Clarified, I hope.--Wehwalt (talk)`
  • Drive-in, or drive-through?
I think drive-in covers it.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:01, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

References

  • #9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16 — Page links redirect to govinfo.gov
That's what the template generates. I think you can search through from there, but I've had trouble linking directly.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:17, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Linking to a different page (e.g., here) might do the trick, or to the pdf (e.g., here).
I'll play with it more.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:40, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Solid work, Wehwalt. Minor comments above. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:22, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the praise and for the review. Those things are done or responded to.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:17, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
As a supplement, the links suggested by Usernameunique have been implemented.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:23, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
No problem, Wehwalt. Adding my support. Two minor comments above. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:10, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the support. Responded.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:40, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Everything in every review has been done.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:23, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Comments from EpicgeniusEdit

Reference 16 seems to be missing its ending bracket.

Otherwise, I don't really see anything seriously wrong with the article. Just a few minor points:

  • it allowed motorists, for the first time, to drive quickly and easily between San Francisco and Oakland. - there's a lot of commas here, do you want to move "for the first time" to the end?
I think the phrase would get a bit lost at the end and there's some risk of ambiguity.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:56, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Fair enough. epicgenius (talk) 14:21, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • building of the Golden Gate Bridge - "building" sounds like an awkward way to say "construction". Do you mean the actual construction or the completion?
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:56, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • and had not yet been completed - I suppose it may sound better if you say "that had not yet been completed"
Done.
  • The bridge had opened with a celebration on November 12, 1936 that continued for three days - "a three-day celebration that started on November 12" perhaps?
Done slightly differently but to the same effect.
  • Reference 35 has some weird formatting. Are the pipe characters supposed to be in the title?
Done.
  • .[38]. - an extra period there
Done.

That's all I have for now. epicgenius (talk) 04:00, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

I've done all those things, except as noted. Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:56, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Support - thanks for another great article! If you have time, could you take a quick look at my current FAC? I'd appreciate it very much, but it's OK if you can't. epicgenius (talk) 14:21, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the review and support. I'll be over there hopefully by tomorrow.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:15, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Support and comments from JimEdit

Happy to support, just a couple of comments for your consideration Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:16, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

  • one to honor the Bay Bridge's completion that year, the other to honor both that and the Golden Gate Bridge, also under construction. The bill that only honored the Bay Bridge was — could do with some variation
Variated.
  • extend 8 miles (13 km) — As a Brit, I'd tend to extend for, just seeking reassurance that your wording is standard in AE
It's not something that I ever thought of as ENGVAR but it sounds good to me as is.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:15, 5 December 2019 (UTC)


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

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 12 December 2019 [24].


French battleship BrennusEdit

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:50, 13 October 2019 (UTC) and Parsecboy (talk)

As part of our recent push bring French battleship articles to FA-class, we present for your consideration the first modern French battleship, named for your favorite sacker of Rome and mine. The article passed a MilHist ACR last month. As usual, we'd like reviewers to look for any stray bits of BritEng and infelicitous prose.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:50, 13 October 2019 (UTC) and Parsecboy (talk)

CommentsSupport by CPA-5Edit

  • Sturm you sure it should be written in British English? Because if so this nomination needs a major overhaul in replacing American spellings with British ones. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 13:54, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Other way around, we want stray bits of BritEng identified so that we can them to change to Am Eng.
      • @CPA-5: You'd be more than welcome to come back and review this one.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:51, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Blimey!!! How did I forget this one?
  • on a naval construction program that included the ironclad battleships Hoche Is there a name of the "construction program" or was it part of a major programme?
    • Not sure if it had a formal name or not, none of our sources really discuss the legislative history since Brennus was so different than the first four ships.
  • parts of the original were reused in the latter vessel --> "parts of the original were re-used in the latter vessel" it just looks odd in my eyes to not use a hyphen in it.

Those are the only things I found here. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:11, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

    • Both are acceptable since "re" is a prefix. Thanks for responding to my reminder.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:27, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Looks good to me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 16:53, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by PMEdit

I looked this over at Milhist ACR, so don't have a lot to add:

  • convert the main guns in the body?
  • the commissioning date in the infobox is unsupported in the body
  • move the (Captain) after Capitaine de vaisseau to first mention

That's the lot I could find. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:29, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

All done, thanks for looking this over.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:08, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
No worries, supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:58, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Some of the details in the infobox, such as cost, don't appear to be sourced anywhere
    • Good catch
  • How are you ordering References?
    • Ooops
  • Suggest including state for Annapolis. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:26, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Support by Gog the MildEdit

  • "she served as its flagship early on." Possibly it is just me, but "early on" doesn't sound encyclopedic. Is there a more formal phrase?
  • " The ship had been decommissioned before the beginning of the First World War in August 1914" This reads as if Brennus were decommissioned in August 1914 - I assume that wasn't the case.
  • "The ship also suffered from very poor stability" Delete "also".
  • "The ship could carry 706 t (695 long tons) of coal which gave her a range" Comma after "coal.
  • "semi-armor-piercing, capped (SAPC) ... SAP" Which?
  • " protected by armor plates 455 mm (17.9 in) thick while those of the aft turret" Comma after "thick".
  • "where some 70 t (69 long tons) of material were removed" Removed from what, the propellers which had just been mentioned? And what was the nature of the material removed?
  • That's a very big quote in the middle of the article. Is there some reason why it hasn't been paraphrased into Wikipedia's voice per MOS:QUOTE? ("It is generally recommended that content be written in Wikipedia editors' own words. Consider paraphrasing quotations into plain and concise text when appropriate ..."
    • I'm a bit reluctant to eliminate this quote as I like contemporary ship evaluations, but I've cut the second para as not that interesting in the hopes that it isn't too long now.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:17, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
Ho, hum. I am also fonder of quotes than the MoS approves of, so OK.
  • "Gervais was relieved by Vice-amiral Jules de Cuverville on 15 October and was replaced in his turn by Vice-amiral Edgar Humann" "and was" → ',who was'.
  • "ironclad battleships Neptune and Marceau got 26 percent hits at a range of" → 'ironclad battleships Neptune and Marceau achieved a 26 percent hit rate at a range of'.
  • "prompted the Navy to make the method" "the" → 'this'.
  • "The ship participated in the annual fleet maneuvers during 8–20 July and then Navy Minister Édouard Lockroy observed gunnery exercises aboard her in September" Suggest breaking the sentence after "July".
  • "The Mediterranean Squadron included five other battleships, including Gaulois, Charlemagne, Charles Martel, Bouvet, and Jauréguiberry" It's not "including" if you list them all. Suggest a colon instead of ", including" and semi colons to separate the other parts of the list.
  • "At this time it consisted of" Suggest deleting "At this time". I think that can be assumed.
  • "a reduced crew, which were augmented" "which were" → either 'who were' or which was'.
  • "she was reduced to reserve" Should that be 'the reserve'?
    • Maybe. Like most navies the French had several different levels of reserve and I'm not sure which one she was in on this occasion.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:17, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
I didn't realise that. OK.
  • "lest she sink" Optional: → 'to prevent her sinking'.

The prose flows along very nicely. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:32, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your very thorough reading; see if my changes are satisfactory.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:17, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
Nah. That was the quick skim. Let me know if you would like the very thorough version. ;-) Your usual fine job of work. Supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:47, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
Good eye, then, 'cause you caught stuff that had been missed earlier. Either way happy to have benefited from your attention to detail.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:50, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Coordinator notesEdit

Image review? --Laser brain (talk) 15:57, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Image review:
  • Only insofar as we can trust the NHHC to reliably indicate what images fall outside of the statement; I've seen a number of them over the years I've been using their images that, for example, note an original author and state when it was donated to their collection. Photos like these are, most likely, French photos that were commercially acquired either by the naval attache or the Office of Naval Intelligence for the purposes of ship recognition training, or less likely, photos taken by the attache or ONI (and so for our purposes, even if we assume French copyright applies, the fact that they were available when the ship would have been of interest to the USN is evidence that they were published before 1924, so at the very least, they'd be PD in the US even without the NHHC statement). Parsecboy (talk) 17:11, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
Location of all images seems reasonable. No ALT text that I can see anywhere. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:57, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Comments Support from HarriasEdit

I reviewed this article at the ACR, and it has only improved since then. A couple of minor points:

  • Since that review, I have discovered the {{lang}}, which should be used instead of '' for foreign-language terms such as Jeune École, Marine Nationale, soufflage, Capitaine de vaisseau, and other ranks per MOS:LANG.
  • "..the guns had a range of 10,900 meters (11,900 yd).." Given the distance, would this be more useful in kilometres and miles? If so, there are multiple other uses of the range.
    • Most navies have traditionally reckoned gunnery distances in yards/meters, dating back to the days when ranges were measured in hundred of yards or meters. More importantly, those are the units universally used by our references.
      • Fair enough. Perhaps for improved comprehension, consider adding miles as a conversion: 10,900 meters (11,900 yd; 6.8 mi) ({{convert|10900|m|yd mi|sp=us}}). With them being such big numbers, it is easy for the eye to skip over them as meaningless: telling someone a gun fires 11,900 yards means less to them than telling them it fires 6.8 miles. Irrespective of whether you make this change, I'm happy to support the article though, great work as usual. Harrias talk 08:58, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • The final paragraph of Construction and career (before 1896–1900) is unreferenced, including the quote. Harrias talk 14:13, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Good catch. Thanks for looking these over.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:30, 2 December 2019 (UTC)


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

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 12 December 2019 [25].


ApororhynchusEdit

Nominator(s): Mattximus (talk) 22:46, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

This is my first ever featured article nomination, so if it not up to standard I'm happy to withdraw quickly. I conducted a little experiment to see if I could research and expand the article for the first animal listed alphabetically using the taxonomy system (Animalia, Acanthocephala, Archiacanthocephala, Apororhynchida, Apororhynchidae, Apororhynchus). I've now done my very best and appear to have gathered all the information I could from google scholar articles (there is not much out there on these tiny parasitic worms). Yes, I am claiming comprehensiveness (to the best of my knowledge) despite the relatively few lines for each species. Prove me wrong! I had an excellent good article review by Chiswick Chap which improved the article considerably. Fun fact: I'm also the creator of this article 10 (!) years ago. Thanks! Mattximus (talk) 21:14, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments from Tim rileyEdit

Looks pretty good to me, though I know nothing at all about the subject. The article will certainly have benefited from having the Chiswick Chap treatment, and all I can find to quibble about at a first read-through are the inconsistent –ise/–ize endings for "parasitise/parasitize". I'll re-read and look in again later. Tim riley talk 13:45, 24 September 2019 (UTC) (Incidentally, and not that it matters perhaps, is the date of 31 July 2019, above, the right one? Tim riley talk 13:49, 24 September 2019 (UTC))

Thanks! And yes Chiswick Chap's review was fantastic. And almost nobody on earth knows much about this topic (including myself!), I think I've incorporated every article that exists and is available on google scholar. "ize" has been changed, and date fixed. Mattximus (talk) 21:14, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
After second perusal happy to support. The co-ordinator should note my total ignorance on the subject, but the article strikes me as comprehensive, well researched and referenced, suitably illustrated and a surprisingly good read. Meets the FA criteria so far as this layman is any judge. Tim riley talk 17:14, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Sources reviewEdit

  • No spotchecks carried out
  • Verifiability
  • Ref 8: rather a wide page range (273–305 = 33 pages). Can the citation be more specific?
Yep, found the url as well.  Done
  • Note (b) appears to be only partly referenced
Oops. Fixed now. Very bizarre reference but I think I did it accurately. Done
  • Links to sources checked and working, per the external links checker tool
  • Formats
  • Ref 13: give language  Done
  • Ref 15: Publisher - the book lists about 16! Maybe choose one and add "and others"?
Used your suggestion, but also happy to type out all 16!  Done
  • Ref 22: Language?  Done
  • Quality and reliability: No issues - sources appear to meet the required FA criteria

Brianboulton (talk) 17:47, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Apororhynchus_hemignathi.png needs a US PD tag and author date of death
  • I added the tag with the death year of 1927. I think I did this correctly, this is my first featured article nomination.
  • What's the source for the latitudes and longitudes in the distribution map? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:47, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Each sample specimen (only 1 or 2 from each species exist) have a location attached. The citation of each location is included in the respective paragraph. I searched that location on wikipedia and used the latitude and longitudes to create the map. Is there a better way of doing this?
  • I'm not sure what alternative to suggest, but there are problems with this approach. For example, one sample was found in Hungary - this is a good-sized country, but your dot for that sample specifies particular minutes which don't appear to be supported by any source. If we don't know where in Hungary the sample was found, this level of precision is inappropriate. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:42, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I've been thinking about this, and I wonder if it is actually ok to simply reduce the precision in the data, the map itself won't change at all since the dot covering Hungary is larger than the country itself! So graphically there is no issue with precision, just in the underlying data.
Thanks for your review! Mattximus (talk) 13:03, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Cas LiberEdit

Taking a look now.....

  • It'd be good to add that they are tiny or microscopic in the lead.  Done
  • Link cloaca in lead.  Done
  • The section marked Genus is more properly about the description/anatomy and should be called such. It does need a section on this anyway.  Done
  • There seems to be a lack of information on biology - the hosts section is very small. Do birds suffer and get ill hosting these things? Do we know? Does anyone speculate yea or nay?
  • A great question, and as far as I can tell there is no description of the effect on the birds, apart from the possible age at infection (which I included in the final paragraph) for one species only. The sources of information on any of these species is extremely scant.
  • Yeah a tricky one. Even ay source that says "the effects of infection are unknown" would be valuable here. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:16, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes I would be happy to write that, but as of yet have no source which claims that. Hmmm.... Ok I found one reference! It only applies to one species, but it's likely it's generalizable. Added to host section.  Done
  • Has anyone done any cladistics or DNA analysis on the group and its closest relatives?
  • I very much agree with the addition of this information (it was also brought up by Chiswick Chap in the GA review). But according to this recent paper [26] "insufficiency of morphological data seems also to explain why the taxon has not been included in phylogenetic analyses so far" so we are out of luck there apparently. This paper [[27]] claims to have molecular sequences for some related species, but I can find nothing on this genus or it's place in the larger picture.
  • Do you think it worthwhile to include this information in the article? "No phylogenetic analysis have been completed on this genus."
If a source says it, then yes! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:16, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Yep found the source that says that very thing. I added it to a new paragraph which I normally wouldn't do for a single sentence but it's not related to the other two.  Done
Great - the last sentence of the paper adds something about the anatomy and speculating on where the family lies in the Acanthocephala. It would be good to add something about this as it is about where these critters are likely to lie in the Acanthocephala family tree..fulltext at here..Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:04, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
Well that full text article you've given me allowed me to significantly expand the first paragraph of "description". It was a great find, thank you! I think I've incorporated all relevant information, and I'm just a bit weary of readability and closeness to the source material. I tried to summarize and reword, however I'm not sure how to approach list of anatomical terms any other way besides copying the list. What do you think Cas Liber? Is it an improvement? Mattximus (talk) 15:14, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes, this is very difficult as one cannot sacrifice accuracy. There are some similar sets of words but I can't think of alternatives. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:20, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Overall the article seems a bit on the slim side but can imagine this might reflect the meagreness of knowledge about the subject. Still would be good to confirm/rule out above. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:00, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. And thanks for the review! All changes I could make have been completed. Mattximus (talk) 13:12, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
Looks like I found the last two points, thanks again for the review. I'm happy to continue to improve the article in any way. Mattximus (talk) 00:28, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Ultimately I think I am in tentative support territory in comprehensiveness and prose. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:21, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks again for your review, and digging up that paper. The article is much better now. Mattximus (talk) 12:04, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

FunkMonkEdit

  • I'll have a look soon, but at first glance, I'm a bit puzzled that there's no taxonomy section? Especially since so many higher level taxa are covered here too. We would need a section that goes into the naming of each taxon mentioned here, as well as etymologies and authors. The current species section would be a subsection of the taxonomy section.
  • Likewise, there could also be an evolution/classification section, as well as one on behaviour/biology.
This I believe was addressed above. There has been no phylogenetic analysis, no behavioural, biological, or evolutionary information beyond what is already included related to the genus. All those would be great to add, but as far as I can tell, they do not exist. Information on this genus is extremely limited. And I do have a citation saying that no evolutionary studies have been done, and it is from a recent source. Mattximus (talk) 22:49, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Well, even then, surely there is info on the taxonomic history, as in who named it, when, and based on what. Especially the many higher order taxa the article covers warrant discussion. Why so many, what do the names mean, etc., and I can't believe this info doesn't exist in the original descriptions. FunkMonk (talk) 07:55, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Who named it and when is included for every species, including a link to the original paper. I even added a discrepancy with the link to both dates for one species. The etymology seems to be the only thing that is missing. I have searched as best as I can and found 3 of the 6 species name origins. Only 1 has an explicit etymology source that could be found, however the other two are almost tautological (being named after a parasitologist and a region where the parasite was found). The remaining three remain a mystery despite my best efforts. Is this sufficient to meet your request? If not I am happy to work on any other issues that you see fit. Mattximus (talk) 22:57, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
I mean the higher order taxa, such as the genus name. For example it is rather unusual for orders to contain a single family which contains a single genus. Since all these taxa are covered in this article, I expect discussion of them. I see the order was named by someone else than the family and genus, for example, so it leaves questions that should be answered here. Same with the etymology, what does the genus name mean? FunkMonk (talk) 14:39, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
I think I covered what you said, and placed it in a new section. What do you think? Mattximus (talk) 11:23, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Looks good, anything on the naming of the family and order? FunkMonk (talk) 10:17, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Would be good to spell out and link the names of the people mentioned in the text.
  • Great idea. I found a wiki page for Shipley and spelled out and linked accordingly, but no other authors.
  • Why to the species have links if they all redirect to this article? They are selflinks.
  • All links removed. Done
  • I think you could specify the taxobox image is a drawing and from when.
  • "of samples of species of Apororhynchus" The tripple of is repetitive, could be spiced up.
  • Changed to: "Worldwide distribution of Apororhynchus samples collected in the field"
  • "Infection can cause enteritis and anemia in Hawaiian honeycreepers" Surely they can't be the only species badly affected by infection?
  • I'm certain they all are, however this is the only record of any effect I could find for any of the species. No other article mentions anything about how the birds are affected (as far as I can tell)
  • "Apororhynchus species parasitize exclusively avian hosts" Exclusively parasitize would seem like a better order.
  • Order changed.  Done
  • Have you searched places like Google Scholar and JSTOR for additional sources?
  • Oh yes, as far as I can determine, I've cited *every* article published on this genus. If there is any that I have not discovered, I'm more than happy to add them. Mattximus (talk) 21:43, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Terms like retinacula, protonephrida, cement glands, as well as others, could be explained in parenthesis, as you do with other unfamiliar terms.
  • I added short descriptions in parentheses to these and a few others. I also wikilinked where appropriate. Great suggestion.
  • The infobox image still contains a selflink.
  • Fixed.  Done
  • "and renamed by, also by" Double by.
  • Fixed.  Done
  • "Although Apororhynchus has not been included in phylogenetic analyses thus far due to insufficiency of morphological data, the lack of features such as an absence of a muscle plate, a midventral longitudinal muscle, lateral receptacle flexors, and an apical sensory organ when compared to the other three orders of class Archiacanthocephala indicate it is an early offshoot (basal).[6]" This paragraph seems like it would fit more in a taxonomy section, or perhaps made into its own paragraph under description. Now it is lumped with rather unrelated text.
  • Yes, I noticed as this excellent review goes on, paragraphs are getting larger and less connected. I made your suggested change. What do you think now?
  • I wonder if Casliber thinks we could give a specific etymology for the genus name using dictionaries? Rhynchus means beak, at least...
  • I added a note with a link to the wikitionary for the Greek root rhúnkhos, which does indeed mean nose, snout or beak. Is this what you were thinking?
  • "The spines on proboscis" On the?
  • Nice catch, fixed.  Done
  • "It was described in 1971[23] or 1966." Seems a strange discrepancy, sure it can be figured out?
  • The most recent publications all say 1966, however when looking for the original article, I could only find the 1971 version. It's possible this 1971 version is just a collection of older papers. The linked reference indicates how there was confusion and to use the 1966 date and not the 1971 date. I've made a request to WP:RX to see if they can find that very article in question.
  • Not all the species have their diagnostic features listed? Sources not found online can be requested at WP:RX.
  • I've requested one for Apororhynchus paulonucleatus, which is one of only two that lack diagnostic features.
  • The intro could be longer, as it is supposed to be a summary of the entire article. Now there is no description, for example, which is a pretty significant omission.
  • I've rewritten the introduction, so it is now about twice the length. What do you think?
Thanks for this excellent review! I'm still working on some of your excellent comments. Mattximus (talk) 00:33, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks again FunkMonk for this amazingly good review of this article, it's significantly better once again. I've addressed all comments (but awaiting your opinion and a reference that I've requested). Mattximus (talk) 15:02, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
Nice, I'll take a new look once the requested source is incorporated. FunkMonk (talk) 15:52, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - the changes look good, and it seems it will maybe take a while before the last source can be found, so I won't hold this back. FunkMonk (talk) 12:41, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
I've collected one of the sources and will incorporate the description soon. Already incorporated the etymology. No luck at all on the Russian one, and similar doubts about the German article from 1931. Thanks FunkMonk on your review. It was so good you've inspired me to write another one of these articles! Mattximus (talk) 02:04, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Support from Gog the MildEdit

LeadEdit
  • "suggests a basal branching from the other three orders of class Archiacanthocephala; however no phylogenetic analysis has been completed." As it happens, I know what you mean, but I suspect that very few general readers will. Would it not be possible to phrase this more accessibly in the lead? With all of the technical details being in the main article?
  • I added two explantions for technical terms but I see what you mean about reducing the technical aspect. I will think about this one and get back to it.
  • I think it's better now. What do you think?
Still too technical. Just as a suggestion to get you thinking, what do you think of 'A lack of features commonly found in Acanthocephala (primarily musculature) suggests an evolutionary branching from the other three orders of class Archiacanthocephala; however no analysis has been completed to determine the evolutionary relationship between species.'?
  • That sounds good, I used your structure to reword that sentence, then reworded the next sentence accordingly. I think this is what you were suggesting all along, does it work now?
It does.
  • Done.  Done
  • "that might have undergone complete reduction" Again, could this be phrased more accessibly?
  • Just removed it, it's too much info for the lead anyway I think... ?
  • "The proboscis receptacle and receptacle protrusor are also reorganized in this order." What is a "proboscis receptacle", a "receptacle protrusor" and what does "reorganized" mean? If that can't be succinctly summarised, then consider a more general statement. Just what the statement means will be explained in the main article.
I think that you missed this one.
Sorry, I missed this one. Sentence rearranged in a more summarized tone. What do you think?
Good.
  • "six species that are distributed globally" → 'six species that are each distributed globally'. (Assuming that this is the case.) I see that it isn't. Ignore. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:46, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "being collected only sporadically in Hawaii, Europe, North America, South America, and Asia" It seems to me that "only" gives a meaning to this that you probably don't intend. Consider deleting it.
  • Done.  Done
  • "These worms parasitize exclusively birds" Perhaps 'These worms exclusively parasitize birds'?
  • Done.  Done
ArticleEdit
  • "The first species to be described in this order" → 'The first species in this order to be described' might flow better?
Done, changed in two places.  Done
  • Done  Done
  • "The name Arhynchus was chosen based on the characteristic absence of a proboscis" I think that you need to explain what Arhynchus means, or a reader won't "get it".
  • Yep, there is a note right after that with an explanation and link to wikitionary. Is that not enough? I can take it out of the note and into the body if you think that's better?
To be honest I missed the note. I mistook the [a] for a cite. Personally I would include it in the main text, which seems to be standard practice; but your treatment is acceptable. (I dislike the single letter footnote signifiers as I almost always miss them. Personally I use [Note 1], so a reader is fully aware that there is supplementary material. But [a] is more common, and even preferred by many experienced editors.
  • I would put your footnotes above your references.
  • I see exactly what you are saying, it was hidden beside the reference. I've moved it directly to the word itself so it will be impossible to miss. Also moved the footnotes. Great suggestion!  Done
  • "However, it was later renamed to Apororhynchus" Delete "to".
  • Done  Done
  • "the name Arhynchus being used by Dujean" Optional: → 'the name Arhynchus having been used by Dujean'
  • Done  Done
  • "Although Apororhynchus has not been included in phylogenetic analyses thus far due to insufficiency of morphological data, the lack of features such as an absence of a muscle plate, a midventral longitudinal muscle, lateral receptacle flexors, and an apical sensory organ when compared to the other three orders of class Archiacanthocephala indicate it is an early offshoot (basal)." IMO, you need to Wikilink and/or explain - either in line or in a footnote - phylogenetic analyses; morphological data; muscle plate; midventral longitudinal muscle; lateral receptacle flexors; apical sensory organ; and, in more detail than "(basal)", what you mean by early offshoot. When this crops up elsewhere, I shall simply stste "explanation needed".
  • Linked morphological, phylogenetic, wikitionary for midventral, longitudinal. I cannot find a good explanation for muscle plate. A few more I will continue searching for.
  • Provided wiktionary links to more anatomical terms. I'm not sure I like this, as it seems like overlinking, but I believe it satisfies most of your concern.
That made me smile. Usually I am the one complaining of overlinking. I don't think that you have linked any words or terms that an average reader would be expected to know the full meaning of. This is a fairly technical article, so there will be a lot of links. If you differ, flag up the specific examples and we can discuss.
  • "microscopic" You have a consensus of sources for this? 2.5-5 mm is not what a layperson would consider microscopic.
  • Yes I agree. However it's certainly not macroscopic... any suggestions on an alternative word? "Very small" also doesn't seem precise.
Why say anything? If people don't have an idea what 2.5-5 mm is, then a single word or two won't help. How does "The genus Apororhynchus consists of ectoparasitic worms, 2.5 mm to 3.5 mm long, or 1 mm to 1.5 mm longer when distended." sound to you? At a push, insert "small" before ectoparasitic. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:07, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
Good suggestion, I've adopted your wording for the body of the article, but used "small" for the lead.
  • "motility" I think that linking to Wiktionary - thus motility - may be appropriate here.
  • Done  Done
  • "the hooks (or spines)" Explanation needed.
  • Some references use hooks, others spines. Not sure how to clarify any further. Any ideas?
OK. Let's leave that one for later.
  • "neck retractor" and "receptacle retractors". Ditto.
  • Hmmm not sure how to describe without changing the source material. Retractor is simply a muscle that retracts, the receptacle is the part of the worm where the proboscis goes in, as stated earlier. Not sure how to clarify further here either.
Well you just explained them clearly and succinctly. Work exactly that wording into the text, or into a footnote, and I'm happy.
  • I added my explanation into parentheses, however I'm not sure if this is enough.
Looks good to me.
  • "the proboscis receptacle and receptacle protrusor both are reorganized" → 'the proboscis receptacle and receptacle protrusor are both reorganized'.
  • Done  Done
  • "are no longer involved in" The "no longer" doesn't really make sense. (Assuming that you don't wish to go into a great deal of detail about their [assumed] evolutionary history.) Perhaps simply 'not'?
  • Yeah there isn't enough info to go into the assumed evolutionary history. Changed as you suggest.  Done
  • "Two regions of musculature are considerably different in Apororhynchus compared to the other Acanthocephalan orders" and "Additional anatomical features that can be used to distinguish this genus among other acanthocephalans include" There seems to be a certain amount of overlap there.
  • Agree completely. With all these (excellent) reviewer comments, this section on description has two paragraphs but they are no longer containing distinct ideas. I think the content is still good but the wording now is a bit confused. Any suggestions here?
I have made a change to the article. See what you think. Feel entirely free to change or revert it if you aren't happy. I have tried to put a description in the first paragraph, and distinguishing features in the second. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:01, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
SpeciesEdit
  • "There are six species in the genus Apororhynchus.[9][10] A seventh species, Apororhynchus bivoluerus Das, 1950[11][12] (also called A. bivolucrus) from an Egyptian vulture (Neophron percnopterus) from India was considered to be a strigeid trematoda by Yamaguti (1963)." I am confused. Are there six or seven species. Is Yamaguti the only authority who considers Neophron percnopterus to be a strigeid trematode? Or is this the consensus?
  • In this case there are 7 names assigned to this genus, however one of them is not considered to be accurate. Modern consensus appears to agree with Yamaguti. It still appears on indexes, but in all articles it is not considered valid. It is often listed with a note like mine saying it's not real. I'm not sure how to rephrase this and am open to any changes, but what is written is accurate, however unusual.
Again I missed the note. Maybe 'There are six species in the genus Apororhynchus. Apororhynchus bivoluerus Das, 1950 (also called A. bivolucrus) used to be [/was once] considered a possible seventh species, but the modern consensus is that it is not.' Then put the vulture, India, Yamaguti stuff in a footnote? Merely a suggestion.
  • Done  Done
  • "which is likely a crested oropendola" I am not sure if that "is" should not be a 'was'?
  • Done  Done
  • "A. aculeatus is the second parasite to be discovered" "is" → 'was'.
  • Done  Done
  • "different host and geography" Should "geography" not be something like 'location'?
  • Agree with you, but that is the terminology used in the paper. Changed.  Done
  • The origins of the species names is given in some cases but not in others. Would it be possible to fill the gaps for A. aculeatus, A. hemignathi and A. paulonucleatus?
  • No luck on the aculeatus and paulonucleatus. I did include a good description of hemignathi. I will try requesting hard to access articles. I tried at the reference request and no luck for paulonucleatus but they suggested I try the Russian wikipedia request. I don't speak Russian but I will keep searching.
  • No luck on finding the source
OK. If it's not in the sources, it's not in the sources. Can't be helped.
I'm fairly sure it is in the source, the issue is that nobody can find a copy of this old Soviet paper that would,in any event, require translation. There are just references *to* the paper, which is what I included in the text.
Do not hold this FAC up for it, but have you tried asking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request?
  • "immature eggs around 0.035 mm to 0.015 mm" Possibly insert an 'are'? And it is conventional to give ranges starting with the smaller value.
  • Actually that whole sentence was worded weirdly. Fixed.  Done
  • "A. hemignathi is the first species" "is" → 'was'.
  • Done  Done
  • "due to the uniqueness" "the" → 'its'.
  • Done  Done
  • "A. silesiacus was found in the cloaca of the European robin (Erithacus rubecula), the thrush nightingale (Luscinia luscinia) and the common nightingale (Luscinia megarhynchos) in Wroclaw, Poland[25] and Hungary" Just checking that it has been found at both locations in all three birds.
  • All 3 at first location, 1 at second. Clarified.  Done
Tweaked a little. See what you think.
  • "it is the newest Apororhynchus species to be classified" I know what you are trying to say, but what you have written means something slightly different. Perhaps 'it is the most recently classified of the Apororhynchus species' or similar?
  • Changed to it is the most recently classified species of the Apororhynchus.  Done
  • "potentially also the intestinal wall" What do you mean by "potentially". Surely it either does or doesn't. If you mean something like 'sometimes' or 'in some cases', then say so.
  • Actually it is unknown if they infect the intestinal wall according to the most recent sources, however an older source does indicate that a sample was indeed found in the intestine. Have added your wording "in some cases".  Done

In passing I note that a lot of your references lack identifiers - ISSNs, OCLCs, or whatever. WorldCat is your friend here. Scroll down for the OCLC.

  • This one took a while but I collected as many OCLCs for all those missing identifiers.

A fine article. I am impressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:22, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you so much for this very thorough review. These are all excellent recommendations. I will start working on them but it may take a few days to address all of them. Mattximus (talk) 22:16, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
@Mattximus: As and when you feel that you have addressed all of my comments, could you give me a ping? Thanks. (I assume that you are still working on making the language of the lead more accessible.) Gog the Mild (talk) 20:47, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Will do! I will need some time, I want to address every signle one before giving you a ping. Progress is slow but consistent. Your review has been excellent and this weekend I will aim to finish everything. Mattximus (talk) 23:37, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
From my point of view there is no great rush. And I can see that, as you say, you are making steady progress. When you are ready. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:39, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi Mattximus. You ready for me to look over your responses yet? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:29, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Hi Gog the Mild. I have addressed every single comment you made, I think most are resolved satisfactorily, however each time I couldn't complete your request I made a comment for your input. Thanks again for this excellent, and thorough review. Mattximus (talk) 17:09, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
No worries; other editors do the same for me. Looking good. Five points above with responses needed from you. Plus: In "Description" you refer to "hooks (or spines)", then two sentences later "spines". Choose one, stick to it and parenthesise the other on first mention. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:20, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Great! I've addressed your comments. Thanks again, this is my first featured article nomination, and I received such great reviews that I'm very thankful. Especially for such a random topic. Mattximus (talk) 19:43, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
I think that you missed my point above. You use "hooks" (5 times) and "spines" (7 times) apparently interchangeably. Is there a reason why you can't choose one, stick to it and parenthesise the other on first mention? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:33, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
Got it, went with hooks throughout. Mattximus (talk) 23:28, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
You have worked hard and have a very classy article here. More than happy to support. The first of many I hope. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:34, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Gog the Mild for walking me through my first featured article nomination! Your review really made the article significantly better. Appreciate your time! Mattximus (talk) 01:10, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
It was enjoyable working with you, and if I ever get stuck for a reviewer for one of my nominations, I shall feel free to ask if you fancy being on the other side. Happy editing. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:31, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Coord noteEdit

Hi Mattximus, since this is your first FAC, we'll need a spotcheck of sources for accurate use and avoidance of plagiarism or close paraphrasing. If one of the existing reviewers would like to carry that out, that's great, otherwise you can put a request at the top of WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:42, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, just finishing up the last comments from the final reviewer now. If nobody does a spotcheck I will request above. Mattximus (talk) 00:15, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

JJEEdit

Imma try to get a dual source and image review, here. All images seem to be adequately applied and licensed. Only one has ALT text. Regarding sources:

  • Thanks! Alt texts seemed to have been all there but formatted incorrectly, fixed.  Done
  • 1#Not sure that I am finding the text of the infobox that is referenced to this in the source.
  • This was a recommendation from an above editor. I added that caption based on the context of the source. That source is the first description of this genus. This is the diagram found within. Is there a way to word it a different way?
  • 2#Don't have access.
  • 3#Doesn't seem to support most of the information referenced to it, except for the "anus of birds" part.
  • Oops, not sure how that slipped into the lead. Removed. The location in the body of the text contains multiple references for all the information in that sentence.
  • 4#Checks out.
  • 5#Checks out, but proboscis receptacle, a receptacle surroundingmuscle (receptacle protrusor), retinacula, neck retractor, probos-cis and receptacle retractors, circular and longitudinal muscula-ture under the metasomal tegument, and a single muscular layerbeneath the proboscis wall in the source might be too close to the article text and cement glands are not mentioned in the source.
  • Yes I agree. This was a concern above from another reviewer, and the conclusion was that although it's too close to the article text, being a list of technical terms, it was determined that there was no reasonable alternative. Cement gland reference (#8) added.
  • 6#It doesn't seem like this source or the other ones support the sentence cited to them.
  • Removed ref 6 altogether. However the following ref has the information you are looking for: "...these cloacal and potentially also intestinal bird parasites...". Mattximus (talk) 14:54, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
  • 7# large, globular, with numerous deeply set spirally arranged rootless spines usually not reaching the surface, or with none is exactly identical in the article as in the source. That and I don't think the parenthetical actually appears in the source.
  • Same reasoning as #5 for the identical list of technical terms. Parentheticals were suggested by another editor above to help clarify words, based strictly on definitions, which I don't believe need to be cited.
  • 8#Checks out; any similarity of the text to the source probably falls under WP:LIMITED
  • 9#I am not sure if the source says there are six or seven species. Otherwise, it checks out.
  • 10#This one mentions seven species, not six. As with the prior, I see that #13 might endorse treating one of the species as not an acanthocephalan, but perhaps the wording could be changed to make the source-text contradiction less jarring.
  • Yes I agree that this is a bit jarring, however in this paragraph several of the sources show 7 species, but also explain that the 7th one is not considered accepted by taxonomists (in various wording depending on the source), not just #13.
  • 11#Checks out.
  • 12#Can't access this.
  • 13#Checks out.
  • 14#Can't access this.
  • 15#I am not sure if I am seeing the Kauaian bird mentioned there.
  • 2nd paragraph, hemignathus procerus, the old name for the Kauaʻi ʻakialoa (which is confirmed by the following sentence, with a reference)
  • 16#There is something wrong either with the link or with the source, as I don't see "cacicus cristatus" mentioned.
  • Just clicked, it's there third paragraph from the bottom on the left column, on page 345. You should be able to access this link.
  • 17#Checks out.
  • 18#Checks out, but this and the preceding might work better with their references shifted around a bit.
  • Happy to do so, however I'm not sure how it can be better placed than it is now.
  • 19#Can't read this.
  • 20#Can't access this.
  • 21#"srishailam" does not appear there.
  • I recall reading this. I believe it does appear there however it uses a different spelling, or an older spelling. I do not recall the original spelling to search for it, but I believe it's on page 211.
  • That should be clarified in the article, then. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:30, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
  • 22#Does not support the etymology.
  • Agree, moved the original citation for the naming of this species next to the description of the person to cover etymology correctly.
  • 23#Can't access this.
  • 24#Can't access this.
  • 25#Can't access this.
  • 26#I am not seeing the etymology and the research history in the source.
  • Not sure what you mean by research history. Reference 25 contains the original description which states that silesiacus comes from Silesia since it was found in Silesia so I can solve this issue by moving reference 25 to beside the etymology.
  • 27#Checks out.

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:57, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Thank you Jo-Jo Eumerus for your review! I've addressed all comments, made as many changes as I could, and when the change could not be made I commented for your advice/approval. Thanks again! Mattximus (talk) 15:01, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi JJE. As a bystander, and knowing that Mattximus is new to FACs, I was wondering if there was anything else for them to do? Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:24, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
@Gog the Mild:The only thing that I see which Mattximus might want to address is #6, I am not sure if it was resolved. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:17, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
You are correct, I missed that one. I have the correct ref in place with the quote from the text, as well as removed #6 altogether. What do you think? Mattximus (talk) 14:54, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
Seems OK, with the caveat that I didn't recheck everything. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:55, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks to all these incredible reviews. I believe I've addressed every comment. Mattximus (talk) 01:29, 6 December 2019 (UTC)


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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 1 December 2019 [28].


Roman temple of BzizaEdit

Nominator(s): ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 08:17, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

This article is about a Roman temple dedicated to the Semitic god Azizos. Sources pertaining to the article's subject were exhausted; the article covers all the available information about the temple, the deity, documented timeline, architecture and the function of the temple/later church. ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 08:17, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Comment: Multiple citations in the lead – almost every sentence, in fact. The lead is supposed to summarise what's in the main text of the article; everything mentioned in the lead should be in the main text, which is where the information should be referenced. Apart from that, there seems to be substantial over-citing of simple facts, e.g. do you need three refs to support the statement about stamps? Brianboulton (talk) 23:17, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

My bad, I tend to overdo it. I'm a bit rusty from an extended WikiLeave. I forgot about lead requirements. Regarding the stamps, I couldn't find one page that hosts all three images. I could upload them onto an image hosting website if that's okay. Also about over-citing, I prefer to do it to keep track from which source page each statement comes from. Multiple sources provide, for example, small bits of information about architectural elements. I had to sequence them in a logical way, from the outside of the structure to the inside. This is what caused me to cite every statement so that they are traceable. If that is a huge no no please let me know.
Thank you for taking the time Brian, it's a real privilege to have you guide. ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 05:38, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
On the issue of the stamps, or in any other case where you need multiple sources to support a single statement, you could follow WP:CITEBUNDLE, which tells you how to combine several citations into a single footnote (I often forget to do this myself, by the way). Brianboulton (talk) 16:32, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

FunkMonkEdit

  • Nice to see this here, will review soon. Some preliminary comments first. FunkMonk (talk) 16:20, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Single sentence paragraphs are advised against, perhaps the ones here could be placed together with other paragraphs. BlueCheckBoxCheckedRed.gif -ez
  • There are a good deal of unnecessary WP:duplinks, they can be highlighted with this script:[29] BlueCheckBoxCheckedRed.gif -ez
  • Images should generally be spread around in the article body rather than being "dumped" in galleries at the end (see WP:galleries). I think you could place some in the article where relevant, and some could probably go since they are somewhat repetitive.BlueCheckBoxCheckedRed.gif -ez
Beautiful tool, thank you. ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 19:53, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "Greek god of war Ares" Some links could be given here? Byzantine could also be linked at first occurrence instead of where it is now (perhaps other words are also only linked at second mentions, could be checked).BlueCheckBoxCheckedRed.gif -ez
  • "the church of Our Lady of the Pillars" Shouldn't church be capitalised too if the word is part of this name?BlueCheckBoxCheckedRed.gif -ez
  • The image captions could have some links for names and places.BlueCheckBoxCheckedRed.gif (as much as possible) -ez
  • "Nineteenth century paintings and photographs taken in the early twentieth century show the removed chapel remains" Are these shown in any of the images used here? If so, could they be pointed out in the captions? BlueCheckBoxCheckedRed.gif -ez
  • I wonder if the Azizos section should be incorporated into the history section? It stands a bit alone now with no context.Three dots.jpg (moved it under the said section, I prefer not to merge them) -ez
  • "uncovering the podium and an architectural sketch" What is meant by sketch here? Anything to link to?BlueCheckBoxCheckedRed.gif (explained) -ez
  • "Lebanese Directorate General of Antiquities" Is this a person? Name?BlueCheckBoxCheckedRed.gif (linked, its a governmental entity) -ez
  • "was converted to a church" Into? BlueCheckBoxCheckedRed.gif -ez
  • In other articles about such monuments, like for example Smythe's Megalith, the location section is first, perhaps it should be the same here.Three dots.jpg (in that article it adds context, here it doesn't. I prefer to keep tucked down there) -ez
  • I wonder if any useful Arabic sources have been overlooked? BlueCheckBoxCheckedRed.gif (added some, mostly etymologists. Lebanese archaeologists and historians mostly publish in French or English, depending on their academic affiliation) -ez
  • Where in the town is the temple located? Outskirts? BlueCheckBoxCheckedRed.gif (Added, including Bziza's close proximity to Ain Akrine temple) -ez
  • "he interpreted the name of the town of Bziza as a corruption of Beit (or Beth) Azizo" So is this still considered a fact? It is written now as if it is only a theory. BlueCheckBoxCheckedRed.gif (In page 134 Renan wrote it implying interpretation, turned assertion in a later chapter when the town names was compared with other town names with reference to Semitic gods. This attribution is widely accepted) -ez
  • So is the idea that the temple was built for Azizos only based on the name Bziza perhaps referring to Azizos, or is there other evidence? If not, I think it should be clearly stated that it is one interpretation, now it it is presented as fact. In extension of this, I think it would be best to present the theory first, and then explain who Azizos is afterwards (under history or function); now his section doesn't really establish any context, even though it is the first one, and is therefore somewhat confusing.BlueCheckBoxCheckedRed.gif (agreed, Azizos section moved down- As for the toponym; Renan explained in length the origin of town name stemming from, as mentioned earlier, a combination of two words: Beth / Beit followed the divinity name. Beth or Beit means both house and temple in the ancient semitic languages thus the inference. Renan and later archaeologists did not find any epigraphic evidence on site. Renan notes in his report that the townspeople told him of an inscribed stone but they later negated this; Renan believes that the townspeople hid the stone thinking that he is a treasure hunter. Evidence of this stone is yet to be found. The orientation of the temple is west-east as the morning star rises in the east. This finds root in Vitruvius' writings and Taylor noting that Bziza's temple and the Beit Mery temple are the only ones facing west, an anomaly in Lebanon. Around the hermon mountain, the temples are arranged in a what seems like a circle with the front oriented to the mountain peek. in baalbeck, the temple of Jupiter heliopolitanus and the temple attributed to Bacchus point eastward. Renan's conclusion is widely accepted by later writers) -ez
  • "meaning the house or temple of Aziz" Aziz or Azizos, as you say elsewhere? BlueCheckBoxCheckedRed.gif (fixed but it's the same difference, the phenicians rarely wrote vowels. In epigraphies found in palmyra the name is written, as would have been expected in ancient semitic writing systems as ('ziz). The greeks may have hellenized the name to Azizos which is the name we find in Julian's hymn. Also i have to note that in norhtern lebanon highlands , the letter A is written as A but pronounced as a soft O. In The north, Bziza is written بزيزا but is spelled Bzizo (بزيزو).-ez
  • What language is the towns name thought to be derived from? (northern Semitic - phoenician, REnan explains this when he explains about the town names starting with B /Beth.) -ez
  • "categorized the temples of Lebanon into three groups" Only based on location? BlueCheckBoxCheckedRed.gif (removed, it's based solely on geographical location, i did not find an accessible source explaining this categorization or if features differ; there is one publication [published in an IFPO journal in 1971] that is not accessible online, nor did i find it the local library. The snippets I found online allude to Groups A, B and C but i need to the entirety of the text to tell if this is also based on attributes. I think that taylor did not come up with this categorization.) -ez
  • "showing, among the different temple types, a tetrastyle prostyle temple without an adyton." If that represents the type of the one in the article, it should be stated clearly in the caption. BlueCheckBoxCheckedRed.gif (done but i don't think i can put it in less words) -ez
  • "Lebanese-Armenian archaeologist Harutune Kalayan noted that" He is already presented under history, so you only need to refer to him by last name after that point.BlueCheckBoxCheckedRed.gif -ez
  • "The apses have a four-sided polygonal chevet, the apses are horseshoe-shaped" Repetitive, you could say "and they are horseshoe-shaped" at second mention.BlueCheckBoxCheckedRed.gif -ez
  • "comparable to that of the ancient blocks that they reuse" Reused? BlueCheckBoxCheckedRed.gif (rewritten; you're right it wasn't clear) -ez
  • "reuse and date, according to Krencker and Zchietschmann, to the early Byzantine period." A bit confusingly written, I thought the "according to Krencker and Zchietschmann" referred to both "reuse and date". Perhaps divide reuse and date with a comma, like "reused, and, according to Krencker and Zchietschmann, date to the early Byzantine period", or similar. BlueCheckBoxCheckedRed.gif-ez
  • "that were removed during the restoration of the temple" Which restoration, the recent one? I'd specify "1990s restoration" then.
  • "Subterranean rock-carved tomb" Tombs or a tomb? BlueCheckBoxCheckedRed.gif-ez
I see no difference? If it is singular, it should say "a subterranean rock carved tomb". FunkMonk (talk) 01:00, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I wonder if the Philately single sentence paragraph could be moved into the end of the modern history section. Single sentence sections are discouraged.BlueCheckBoxCheckedRed.gif-ez
  • "contrasted to the private character of modern religious services" Contrasting? BlueCheckBoxCheckedRed.gif-ez
  • You link Vitruvius twice. BlueCheckBoxCheckedRed.gif-ez
  • "is a well-preserved" You only state this in the intro, which should not have unique info. BlueCheckBoxCheckedRed.gif-ez
  • Canaanite mythology could be linked in the article body as well. BlueCheckBoxCheckedRed.gif-ez
  • byzantine should be capitalised in the intro. BlueCheckBoxCheckedRed.gif-ez
  • "Christian devotion was still maintained in the nineteenth century" Period only stated in the intro. BlueCheckBoxCheckedRed.gif-ez
  • FunkMonkI addressed all the issues you pointed out; kudos for your good eye. I may have to do a cleanup pass but gotta run for now. ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 11:04, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
There are a bunch of points that don't seem to have been addressed, always a good idea to check each point with "done" or another response (that's what people generally do anyway), then oneself as a nominator will also have a better overview of what has been done or not. FunkMonk (talk) 04:07, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi Funkmonk, I marked the changes I made, and one of your recommendations that I did not apply. my replies for 24/09/2019 at 14:30 EET are followed by "-ez" ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 11:52, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Much easier to navigate now, thanks. Though it is hard to see where my comment ends and yours begin, so in the future, it would be good to make the indentations in the same way as here, so it is clear your reply is separate from mine (if you understand from my weird explanation). I have added one comment above, then I should be ready to support. FunkMonk (talk) 01:00, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
You know when I write something, no matter how many times I proofread it I always miss something because i read what i intended to write not what is actually written :( , thus the grammatical errors and typos. Your last concern was addressed buddy. ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 14:03, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - that's what I could find, looks good to me now. Any chance you'll get Jeita grotto here one day? FunkMonk (talk) 15:44, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Wow you don't forget? do you :) Jeita is close but it's too many fronts at once. I need to prepare the ammo :) ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 18:58, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
And thank you ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 18:58, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Le_temple_sur_les_hauteurs_du_village.jpg should include a tag for the original work
  • File:The_temple_of_Bziza_by_Monfort,_1838.png needs a US PD tag
  • File:Bziza_temple_by_Lemmens_1894.png needs a US PD tag and author date of death
  • File:Reconstitution_of_Baalbek.jpg: what is the source underlying this reconstruction? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:18, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Hi Nikkimaria File:Reconstitution_of_Baalbek.jpg the work is by Franck devedjian as noted in the mediawiki file page. The image is part of the Roman Sites templates is not constituent of the article.
  • File:Le_temple_sur_les_hauteurs_du_village.jpg is licenced under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International by the owner. What other tags does it required? Other issues fixed. ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 11:04, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I understand that File:Reconstitution_of_Baalbek.jpg is by Franck devedjian, but my question is with regards to its accuracy - what source was used to ensure that, or what source supports that. If the template's in the article, so is the image.
  • The Creative Commons tag on File:Le_temple_sur_les_hauteurs_du_village.jpg is for the photo, whereas there should be an additional tag indicating that the copyright on the pictured structure has expired due to age.
  • It's a 2000 years old temple, can you help with that? I have checked images of old momuments and I did not find such tag. I'll ask someone from the help desk for instructions.
  • In the The Lebanese copyright law : Article 49 states that the term of protection expires 50 years after the author's death. Article 52 says that right of protection for anonymous or pseudonymous works, expires 50 years after the work has been lawfully made available to the public. Tag added accordingly; 'No FOP' applies to modern works whose authors are living or died less than 50 years ago. ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 22:07, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Also just a reminder that if you add pings in a separate edit from your signature it will not be sent. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:15, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Sources reviewEdit

There's quite a few issues that need addressing:

  • Page ranges: A number of these are very wide, e.g. ref 26, 527–568 (42 pages); ref 38, 5–76 (72 pages); ref 39, 769–820 (52 pages). These are the most egregious – there are other dodgy ones, too. Is it not possible to be more specific in the citations?
  • I had put the ranges of the articles not the actual pages of cited passages; fixed ^
  • Ref 2: you should give the publisher name (Livius) as well as/instead of the web address
  • Didn't know hot to go about this, Thank you, done ^
  • Refs 3, 12: Krencker: dated 1938 in citations, 1838 in the bibliography
  • Sorry, fixed ^
  • Ref 14: Kalayan 1965: why is the page ref given in the bibliography rather than in the citation, as with Kalayan 1971?
  • the 1971 article covers the same topic, replaced ^
  • Ref 15: Lacks publisher details
  • Done ^
  • Ref 18: The link goes to a book called The Tree of Life, by E.O. James. Perhaps "Bentley Layton" is the overall editor of a book series called "Studies in the history of religions"? It needs sorting out, so that what is being cited is clear: author, title, publisher, year of publication, etc. Also it needs a page ref – citation to a whole book is not helpful
  • Fixed ^
  • Ref 20: Lacks publisher details
  • Done ^
  • Ref 22: Same point as in 2 above. publisher here is Localiban
  • Done ^
  • Ref 23: Same point
  • Done ^
  • Ref 24: As with 2 above
  • Done^
  • Ref 28: De Blois et al: 2004 in citation, 2006 in source
  • 2004 conference, report published in 2006; fixed (*)
  • Ref 32: What is the nature of this source?
  • Merged with Kalayan 1971, automatically generated reference issue. (*)
  • Ref 37: "Pomey 200p" should be "Pomey 2009"
  • Sorry (*)
  • Ref 43: requires pp. not p.
  • Done (*)
  • Bibliography sequence: "Annales archéologiques..." is apparently out of alphabetical sequence
  • as above, replaced with Kalayan 1971 (*)
  • ISBNs: stick to one format (see Jordan)
  • Done (*)
  • Dates: stick to one format (also see Jordan)
  • Done (*)
  • Note 1: referenced by "(Cf. ʿAbboudi, Dibs, Forrest, Iskandar)". "Forrest" is "Garreau Forrest in refs and bibliography. Also, you need page references; three of these four sources are books. I'd replace "Cf" with proper citations.
  • Done (*)

Give me a ping when you've addressed these. Brianboulton (talk) 16:17, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

I'll get to you soon. Thanks buddy ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 15:11, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
Second round soon, all entries made today are marked with "^" ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 19:25, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
@Brianboulton: I think I have everything covered. Thank you for your feedback. ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 09:03, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing out mistakes I could never have seen Brian. Thanks to everyone here for your valuable input. ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 07:49, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Cas LiberEdit

Reading now....

The History section seems pretty brief - is there anything that can be added about worship in the area?
Hi Cas Liber, I expanded the section. I will review my additions later tonight or tomorrow to check if there are wikilink conflicts and such. Let me know if you think anything else needs fixing. ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 08:45, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
The cella consists of two chambers, the first chamber is roughly square followed by an adyton to the back of the building - this is not grammatical. You can either make it two short sentences joined by a semicolon, or a sentence with a subordinate clause, "The cella consists of two chambers, the first of which is roughly square followed by an adyton to the back of the building"
A 4.33 metres (14.2 ft) rectangular masonry pillar --> "A 4.33 metre (14.2 ft) long rectangular masonry pillar"
The aedes main function was to house --> "The aedes' main function was to house" (possessive here?)

Otherwise Support looking okay on comprehensiveness and prose....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. I will do the necessary as soon as I have the time. History and background section is in the works. ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 08:21, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi Cas Liber I'm drafting my historical background plan. There's too much clutter there so I need a bit of time to make it flow better. ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 06:43, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
That's fine - take your time Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:15, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

MirokadoEdit

I have made a couple of copy-edits en passant. In addition:

  • History
    • "AD" is important for the first mention, but redundant thereafter.
  • Modern history
  • Architecture and description, para 1
    • wl ashlar
    • "All four of the temple's portico columns": there is nothing actually wrong with this, but it is not clear from the content that pronaos is a bit more than just a posh word for portico. Perhaps you could change the earlier sentence to "... it is fronted by unfluted columns, standing on bases carved in the Attic style, forming the portico."?
    • "supporting an elaborate frieze": in what way is it elaborate?
      Looking at the photographs, we can see the decoration on the lintel of the main entrance, but it is difficult to see any decoration on the blocks topping the colonnade. That area of the colour photograph is in shadow and there is little to see there on the black and white photo File:Bziza temple by Lemmens 1894.png. Please confirm that you really mean decoration on those blocks. Is it possible to further clarify that sentence? Are the decorations there weathered? --Mirokado (talk) 23:53, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Tue, I re-checked Aliquot and Sommer, both don't mention an frieze decorations but both mention the lavishly decorated lintel. I'll go with Aliquot's description, he is the most reliable. I'll fix it.~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 07:28, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
    • "The colonnade was added at a later stage of the temple's construction owing to the style of the ionic capitals that adheres to the model found in ...": This is an incorrect use of "owing to", I suggest instead: "... temple's construction as indicated by the style ...".
    • wl pilasters
    • "accessible from a staircase that was dismantled": I think of a staircase as a construction with normally air underneath it and rails or walls either side, rather than a set of steps leading up to a building as in "the steps of the MET". Please rephrase this so it is clear what is meant. As an example, the File:MaisonCarrée.jpeg has what I would describe as "entrance steps" rather than a "staircase", there may well be a suitable technical term.
  • Architecture and description, para 2
    • wl cella here, nobody will remember it also occurred in the lead.
  • Architecture and description, para 3
  • Architecture and description, para 5
    • "absidal": unless you mean something else, this a misspelling of "apsidal" (but correct in French etc) which you should wikilink (it redirects to apse but will not be familiar to many readers).
    • "superjacent": this is indeed a real word, but not one I have ever encountered before: either wl to wikt:superjacent or rephrase ("from the semi-dome above" for example).
  • Architecture and description, para 6
    • Please explain briefly who Nordiguian is, in the same style as "Lebanese-Armenian archaeologist Harutune Kalayan" above.
    • "posits" is not exactly wrong, but is unfamiliar and I think "suggests" would be better.
    • "reserved exclusively to women worshipers": I would say "reserved for", is this an difference between American and British English ("worshipers" indicates American English for the article)?
  • Architecture and description, para 7
    • "bifid cross": I can't find any other reference to this by googling the term, so I would not myself use it in an article. Do you mean a cross with two horizontal beams at the top (like the patriarchal cross), or one with the second beam lower down (like File:Russian cross.png))? See Christian cross variants (which is linked in the article and does not use the term "bifid") for illustrations and alternative names.
      The latest version will I think be OK with the link to East Syriac which I added while correcting a typo, since that cross is the lead image in that article. By all means change further if that is inappropriate for any reason. It also occurs to me to wonder whether you can say which branch of the Church was practising there in the nineteenth century (§Modern history)? --Mirokado (talk) 23:53, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for correcting the typo, the link is correct. I don't have any sources to support what denomination used the church. Bziza is majoritarily Maronite with some Eastern orthodox residents. ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 07:28, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
That is OK, it was just a question. --Mirokado (talk) 07:54, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Notes
    • I suggest encapsulating the French quotations with {{lang|fr|...}}. You could use square brackets to indicate the translation, thus: ... [...]. If you retain the current phrasing, you need to tidy up the double quotes around both English versions, and capitalise "English".
  • References
    • I like the archive links for web page references. Please add one for the Localiban too (there is already a recent archive).

-- Mirokado (talk) 21:17, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

I've learned a lot from your input; thank you. I'm not a native English speaker, I tread carefully when translating text, but there's still much to learn about word nuances. I applied most of your recommendations; I have some questions / reservations about the following:
  • Pronaos vs portico: I prefer Pronaos in the context of classical architecture. Readers who are unfamiliar with the word can navigate to the Portico page. Sorry :|
    Better now, I will read it all again later to check the changes for clarity etc. --Mirokado (talk) 01:07, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Bifid cross: none of the cross variants in the article you referred to accurately depicts the Bziza crosses. The variant that resembles it the most is the East SyriaC cross. However the Bziza cross' branches have equal lengths.
    Still some improvement needed here. Of course pictures of the actual cross styles would be ideal. Let us think for a day or so... --Mirokado (talk) 01:07, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • The nuance between Staircase, Stairwell, Staiway, Stairs, Star, Steps, flight is new to me :S. thank you for pointing this out. I went with stairway after consulting google *facepalm*; please tell me if this is accurate.
    Much better now, thank you. --Mirokado (talk) 01:07, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I could not archive localiban. It's impossible
    I was able to access the archive from here in Germany, so I have updated the citation and made a few other related changes, see the recent edit to the article. --Mirokado (talk) 00:55, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Is the notes section okay now? ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 23:05, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
    I have tweaked it a bit further, using the 2= param instead of nowiki for equals signs in the text and putting some punctuation in the quote language. Not sure whether nested invocations of lang work (Hebrew inside French in this case), that will be fun to investigate. (Sometimes the highlighting I have defined for lang in my css file is not working, something else to investigate but nothing to do with this article itself.) (I discover the documentation for lang mentions the 1= param instead of 2=, I will correct that.) --Mirokado (talk) 00:13, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Please make the date formats in the article consistent. It looks as if you are writing in American English, so I would suggest mdf format (July 25, 2015). (If you want me to do that for you, just ask.) --Mirokado (talk) 00:55, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for all the above. I reviewed the dates I hope i didn't miss anything. PS: still working on expanding the historical background section. ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 18:29, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
There were a few more, see the edit summary for the script I used to fix them. --Mirokado (talk) 21:21, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Mirokado I made some addition, I'm pretty confident that there's a ton of typos and wikilink issues. I will review the edits tonight or ASAP. ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 08:48, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Latest updates look good (please check two remaining points above):

  • Construction
    • wl [[|suzerainty|suzerain]], this is not a familiar term in the modern world (see the article). --Mirokado (talk) 23:53, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
thank you for your input, I'll work on it. ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 07:28, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Support. Thank you for your latest updates. The article looks fine now from my point of view. --Mirokado (talk) 07:54, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Coordinator notesEdit

@Elie plus: It looks like it's been quite a few years since you've been at FAC (welcome back!). As sourcing and citation requirements have gotten more stringent over the years, I would like to see a source spot-check for any close paraphrasing and verification issues. I've requested on at WT:FAC. --Laser brain (talk) 17:47, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Sure, let me know if you need anything ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 05:38, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
@Elie plus: We need to see some movement here or the nomination will have to be archived soon. Comments below are a week+ old. --Laser brain (talk) 13:40, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
@Laser brain: I have addressed all the issues raised by Jens and those of the other reviewers (| my last edit on November 11). ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 07:30, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
@Laser brain: I can do the spot-checks in the next couple of days. A. Parrot (talk) 03:01, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
@Elie plus and Laser brain: I've spot-checked 20 of the 119 citations (counting separate citations to the same page such as 3a and 3b). I saw no signs of plagiarism, but there are some problems with verification.
  • 3a: The page cited here doesn't seem to really be talking about Phoenician gods under Hellenized names. Other pages in Aliquot 2019 easily support the assertion that Phoenician gods were known by Greek names, but if I'm reading Aliquot correctly, Philo was actually detecting the underlying Phoenicianness of the local gods. It seems unnecessary to mention Philo here at all.
  • 4b: Aliquot actually challenges the assumption—apparently a widespread one in the study of Roman Syria—that the high-altitude sanctuaries were a remnant of the era before Hellenization.
  • 6: I don't see where in the text it says that inhabitants of coloniae were granted Roman citizenship.
  • 19b: The Livius page doesn't specify that the statues are of deities.
  • 35: A couple of problems here. Drijvers' name should be in the citation, not Layton's, and the name of Drijvers' study should be given in the bibliography entry (matching the format you use for other studies within larger volumes, such as Aliquot 2019). More importantly, Drijvers argues against the assumption by other scholars that Arsu/Monimos was the evening star, so we have here a difference of opinion between him and Teixidor. Drijvers does say that Azizos can play the role of the morning star, but it seems that this paragraph needs to be adjusted.
  • 43b: This citation is oddly placed, because it doesn't support the sentence that immediately precedes it (about Ozza) but does support the one before that. Citation 45, which does support the sentence about Ozza, points to page 296 instead of 302, which is where that fact is stated. A. Parrot (talk) 23:30, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi there, thank you for your very thorough review. I will address your concerns one bullet at a time:
  • 3a: The bottom of the first paragraph on the cited page reads: "Philo discovered that the divinities honored in Phoenicia were not Greek, but, rather Hellenized Phoenician gods and goddesses." Hellenized in this context not only covers attributes but also theonyms. I could change the article text to "By then, Phoenicia was heavily Hellenized and so were the local theonym divinities."
@Elie plus: Sounds good.
  • 4b: Aliquot is bold to challenge other scholars' "pre-suppositions" AND the descriptive texts of "ancient ethnographers" as he calls Philo and Lucian. He also boldly presupposes that the Phoenicians under the Roman rule reproduced the ancient Phoenician "stereotype" that the mountains were the dwellings of the gods. I referred to Aliquot's text because it showcases the writings of the ancient travelers but personally I don't agree with what I also consider an orphan presupposition contradicting with the conclusions of numerous other scholars. I still believe the reference here is valid. What do you propose I do about it? Add a reference by another scholar?
Yes, adding another reference would be good.
  • 6: Ius Italicum is Roman citizenship. The Antonine Constitution gave all free men living in the Roman Empire and its colonies full Roman citizenship.
Ah, I see. It might be worth mentioning and linking ius Italicum in this passage.
  • 19b: Fixed.
  • 35: I made it clear that Teixidor made the connection.
OK. A. Parrot (talk) 01:52, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Hello @A. Parr