Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/July 2020

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 31 July 2020 [1].

Evelyn Mase edit

Nominator(s): Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:58, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This fairly short article is about Nelson Mandela's first wife. I got the Mandela article through the FAC process several years ago and it would be good if this article, currently a GA, could join it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:58, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Nick-D edit

This is a very complete looking article, though as a proviso to the following comments I know nothing about this lady, and have only a broad familiarity with South African history.

  • "Moving to Johannesburg to train as a nurse, it was there she met and married Mandela." - bit over-complex (how about something like "She met Mandela after moving to Johannesburg to train as a nurse"?)
  • My only concern about this change is that it reverses the chronology, which might make things a little less clear for the reader. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:43, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we know when Mase and Mandela first met?
  • Unfortunately not, but if said information ever surfaces (perhaps unlikely) then it would certainly make for a worthwhile addition to the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:45, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The biographer David James Smith later argued that Mandela's presentation here was "not quite the whole story"." - what does Smith say was missing?
  • Smith argues that the account Mandela provides in his autobiography overlooks his own adultery at this period by emphasising the idea that his disagreement with his wife was primarily ideological. At present, I've used the Smith quote at the end of this article to help lead onto the next paragraph, which discusses the adultery. I you think it is just causing confusion, however, then it could be removed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:53, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd suggest removing if it's discussed elsewhere, as this is confusing. Nick-D (talk) 07:14, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 08:42, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "may have been so as not to damage the heroic reputation he had at this time" - bit complex
  • I've changed this to "may have been to avoid damaging his heroic reputation." Do you think that that works? Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:49, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not fond of describing Mase's life after she and Mandela's wedding ended as merely her "Later life" - it suggests she was defined by who she was married to.
  • I can see your point here, but I'm not sure whether any of the obvious alternatives would be preferable. Something like "Life after Mandela" would replicate the same problem. Anyone out there have any suggestions on this count? Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:38, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think a heading like that would be much better - Something like "post-divorce" is another possibility. Nick-D (talk) 07:14, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Mase travelled there to meet with him, but Mandela refused to see her" - do we know why? Nick-D (talk) 01:41, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your thoughts, Nick-D! I appreciate you taking the time to read through the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:53, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support My comments are now addressed Nick-D (talk) 08:38, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:Mandela_e_Evelyn_1944.jpg: when and where was this first published?
  • Unfortunately, that's not clear. The image appears in various biographies of Mandela, but I do not know what was its first appearance. Midnightblueowl (talk) 08:44, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, so that's a potential problem since the URAA tag partially relies on publication date. What's the earliest publication that can be confirmed? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:22, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies for the delay on this. I've done some delving, and I've not been able to find any published version of this image prior to David James Smith's 2011 book Young Mandela. That being the case, I don't think we can continue to use this image under a URAA tag. I've replaced the tags with a non-free tag attached to a slightly different version of the image, which I have uploaded locally at Wikipedia (File:Nelson Mandela and Evelyn Mase.jpg). Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:01, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Nelson_Mandela,_2000_(5).jpg: as per the Flickr tag this should include more specific copyright tagging. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:18, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have removed this image from the template at the bottom of the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:04, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mike Christie edit

I've made some copyedits; please revert anything you don't agree with.

  • She initially filed for divorce, but withdrew this action: "this action" is a bit stilted. I don't know the right legal term, but could this be changed to something like "but later withdrew the petition" or "did not go through with the legal proceedings"? Similarly did not contest this, in the next sentence, isn't as smooth as it could be; how about "In 1958, Mandela, who was hoping to marry Winnie Mandela, obtained an uncontested divorse from Mase"?
  • I've gone with "did not go through with the legal proceedings" and have made the latter change that you propose too. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:20, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • was attended by Mandela, Winnie, and Mandela's third wife, Graça Machel: I can't find it, but I think somewhere in the MoS it's discouraged to speak of women using their first names only, as it can be regarded as demeaning. Could we make this "was attended by Nelson and Winnie Mandela, and..."?
  • This is a tricky one; I've changed it to "Winnie Madikizela-Mandela" but that does look a bit clunky and repetitive given that we already give her full name in the paragraph above. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:16, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • a man with whom he went to school: how about just "schoolmate"?
  • they were also related, with their respective mothers being sisters: seems easier to say they were cousins than "related". Perhaps "they were cousins, as their mothers were sisters"?
  • It would be nice to avoid having some members of Mase's family starting two consecutive sentences. How about joining them with a comma and making the second one "and some of them"?
  • I've merged the two sentences with a semi-colon and start the second part with "moreover, some blamed Winnie". Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:10, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's everything I can see. The article is in good shape and I expect to support once these minor points are addressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:58, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for taking the time to offer these comments, Mike! Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:20, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The fixes look good. I agree Winnie’s full name looks a little clunky but I don’t see a better solution. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:35, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note edit

I've added this to the urgents list to hopefully drum up some more reviews. It also needs a source review, it appears? --Ealdgyth (talk) 14:17, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support by David Fuchs edit

  • Her father, a mineworker, died when she was a child, leaving his second wife and their six children,[2] three of whom died in infancy.—this is a bit unclear I think because it's trying to sandwich together two different facts. I assume not all the children died after Evelyn was born and after the father. Might want to split up the details about them having six kids, three of whom died, and then explain the father died when she was a child.
  • I've now split this up into multiple sentences along the lines you recommend. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:40, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 1939, Evelyn joined her brother and Sisulu in Johannesburg. I don't think you need the "in Johannesburg" bit since the previous paragraph ended explaining that.
  • She trained as a nurse in the city's non-European hospital at Hillbrow, fulfilling the wishes of her late mother. What was her mother's wish? That she be a nurse, or that she work at the non-European hospital?
  • To be a nurse, I believe. I shall make this clearer in the text by changing the sentence to the following: "She trained as a nurse in the city's non-European hospital at Hillbrow, fulfilling the wishes of her late mother that she would enter that profession." Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • When the Sisulus moved to a larger house at 7372 Orlando West—It's kind of weird you give the address the people who are not the subject of the biography moved to, but we have no idea where the house that is relevant was. The new address makes much more sense in the following sentence; alternatively, I don't see why it's really necessary to mention they gave the house to Sam when it's not relevant to the following passages.
  • I don't think that the address house which Sam Mase took over is actually known publicly; if it were, it would definitely be worth including it. I agree with your point that the second address, 7372 Orlando West, is better mentioned in the second sentence than the first here, so have moved it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:29, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your comments, David! Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:42, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It'd be a shame to lose the only image of the article subject, but we need publishing info for File:Mandela e Evelyn 1944.jpg to verify it is in fact PD, and right now it's missing that.
  • Sources look okay. I did a NYPL and Google Books search for the subject and found some more recent scholarship, but it appeared much of them relied on sources presented in this article, so I don't think there's much evidence anything is missing. I did a spot-check to statements attributed to current refs 2, 11, 18, 34, 45, 51, 72, 75, 76, and didn't spot issues with close paraphrasing or inaccuracies; I don't have access to the print sources used besides Meredith and Sampson but don't see any issues with what I can. I would say it would be preferable to split references in some cases to make it clearer which source exactly is covering what part of the statement. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:14, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David, Midnightblueowl, where are we at now? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:20, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, the only thing we have to sort out is where the lede image was first published. I'm having a bit of trouble with that and wondering if the image should be changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 08:05, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If there's a verifiable free image, I would definitely swap it. Otherwise, you can just remove this one and work on finding one without the deadline of FAC. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:57, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that there is a verifiable free image so I've added a local version of the same image with a non-free tag. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:02, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The fair use rationale could use some elaboration. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 11:49, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've expanded on it, adding additional detail. Midnightblueowl (talk) 07:52, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rationale looks much better. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:27, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Carabinieri edit

Hi, looking at the article my first thought was that a lot of it is based on Mandela's autobiography, a primary source. I'm happy to give a full review, but first I'd like hear your thoughts on this. According to WP:OR: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources". I'm concerned that the extent of the reliance might be too great.--Carabinieri (talk) 15:12, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that the article does cite Mandela's autobiography 34 times, but in 26 of those instances it is used alongside other, secondary sources. Of those seven instances where Mandela's autobiography is the only citation, four are used to cite direct quotations from Mandela. In the three other examples, Mandela's autobiography is specifying particular facts that I don't think are contentious. In addition, it might be worth noting that we also use Mandela's autobiography as a source in the Nelson Mandela article, which has been FA-rated for several years now. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:08, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed one of the sentences that relies solely on Mandela's autobiography, which takes the overall total down to six. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:19, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In the cases where it's used alongside other sources, are those sources sufficient to verify the claims made? Eg if you removed the bio (which, to be clear, I'm not requesting), would all of that material still be appropriately cited? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:33, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I believe so. Let me double check. Midnightblueowl (talk) 07:53, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've checked and yes, everything that appeared in Mandela's autobiography was also in other cited sources in this instance. The only issue I encountered was the statement that Mase came from a Xhosa family; it is implied by both Mandela's autobiography and other sources but is not stated explicitly, so I have removed this statement from the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:22, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Given that Mandela's autobiography is a very prominent book, it will have received a lot of attention from his biographers (many of whose bios of Mandela are prominent in their own right), historians, people who knew the couple and other relevant experts. Unless they've raised concerns with the relevant material or the book more broadly, this should be an OK source if used carefully, which seems to have been the case here. Nick-D (talk) 22:52, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note (2) edit

Hard to believe a month has gone by since I last stopped by here. There's been some further commentary but not consensus to promote. I can wait another 24 hours or so to see if David and Carabinieri are satisfied the criteria are met but after that we'll have to call it a day for this one. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:49, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We now have three statements in support of promotion; let's just see what Carabinieri thinks. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:54, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Carabinieri seems to have been editing sporadically the past few weeks; given all the responses to those concerns I feel comfortable enough to promote, subject to my own once-over. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:16, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 30 July 2020 [2].

Portraits of Odaenathus edit

Nominator(s): Attar-Aram syria (talk) 02:30, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Odaenathus king of Palmyra is a much celebrated figure in Roman history, credited with saving the Empire from the Persian monarch Shapur I. Sadly, we do not know how he looked like, but we do have portraits that are more likely to represent him than others. Some of those sculptures are lost, and we only have photos of them. This article traces every single possible depiction of the king, and clarify what portraits do not represent him despite being promoted as such more than the ones that might be actual depictions. The article is definitely for lovers of obscure artifacts and antiquities, and was copy-edited by a member of the copy-edit guild to guarantee its reading quality. This is the second attempt after the first one few months ago failed to attract more than one reviewer.Attar-Aram syria (talk) 02:30, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley edit

  • I would have a better portrait for the lead image.
  • "he defeated the Sasanian emperor of Persia Shapur I". Persia Shapur I is MOS:SEAOFBLUE.
  • "besieged him in his capital Ctesiphon in 263". If you mention the siege, you should say what the result was.
  • The account of Odaenathus's life in the first paragraph is brief and unsatisfactory. I suggest that it would be better to provide a summary of the lead to Odaenathus for the portrait article.
  • "which is fitting of Shapur's description in the thirteenth Sibylline Oracle" This is ungrammatical. Maybe "which fits Shapur's description in the thirteenth Sibylline Oracle".
  • More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:18, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments Dudley. The portrait is an issue as most portraits do not represent Odaenathus but are popularly held to be representations of him, which was the reason I wrote this article to clarify the matter. Therefore, the portraits that most likely represent Odaenathus are of bad quality because they are mostly clay Palmyrene tesserae (though tessera is a piece of mosaic, academics use the designation Palmyrene tessera to indicate a clay engraved token that allowed entry to temple feasts and important celebrations and occasions). The lead image is the best I found, unless Im gonna use the mosaic photo, which is tentatively identified as depicting Odaenathus but the figure in it has no royal attributes nor a name is mentioned nor a royal title. Actually, the most likely portrait of Odaenathus is available here, but I cant use it due to Wikipedia's rule of no "NonCommercial" photos (which is counterproductive tbh). I have dealt with your other comments, and expanded the overview section to be a short summary of his life.
  • "presided over Palmyra's apogee". This is unreferenced and controversial. Most historians would say that the apogee was under Zenobia.
changed
  • "Mosaic panels found in Palmyra might have a depiction of Odaenathus" I am not clear what the purpose is of this sentence. They might have a depiction of anyone.
re-worded
  • "Odaenathus belonged to an important Palmyrene family and became the ruler "ras" of Palmyra in the 240s." This is vague. What does "ras" mean? Was he appointed "ras" by the Roman emperor?
clarified
  • "After a successful campaign in 263, where Odaenathus besieged the Persian capital Ctesiphon,[5] and resulted in the eviction of the Persians out of the Roman provinces they conquered,[6] he assumed the title of King of Kings in 263 and declared his son Herodianus co-ruler." This is ungrammatical and clumsy. Maybe "In 263 Odaenathus besieged the Persian capital Ctesiphon[5] and evicted the Persians out of the Roman provinces they conquered.[6] In the same year he assumed the title of King of Kings and declared his son Herodianus co-ruler."
done
  • The more I read of this article the more doubtful I am that Wikipedia is the right place for it. It is too technical for a general readership, and it is very unlikely that specialists will come across it. Have you tried submitting it to a scholarly journal? Dudley Miles (talk) 14:02, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
While not the easiest read, it is still a very descriptive article that does not satisfy the criteria of scholarly journals. I did not introduce any new insights, just provided what scholars had to say. Technical articles still belong to Wikipedia, but we need to make them easy to understand as much as possible without jeopardizing the quality and knowledge value of them, which is something I hope I managed to do.
  • "photos of it survive". I think you should say "photographs".
Done
  • "Alexander the Great of Macedon". I do not think you need "of Macedon".
Done
  • "This tessera is at the museum in Damascus". Should be "This tessera is in National Museum of Damascus. Similarly the next two tesserae should be described as "in Damascus Museum".
Done
  • "on macroscopic observations". What does this mean?
I added a wikilink. The guy counted on his eyesight to determine its marble
  • At the start of the article "the king of Palmyra from 260 to 267". This should be 260 to 267 CE (or AD). Dudley Miles (talk) 11:30, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done
  • Support. Looks fine now. You might try submitting the article to the WikiJournal of Humanities at [3]. This accepts submission of Wikipedia articles and publishes them after peer review by experts. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:53, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks alot for your support, and for the suggestion.

FunkMonk edit

  • So now that image we found on Flickr has finally come to good use! I'll review soon. FunkMonk (talk) 17:07, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hey FunkMonk! Yes, that photo opened the door for this article, was a very nice find
  • Link names of places and people in captions?
  • Mention museums in all captions for artifacts?
  • There are some duplinks.
Done- Gallienus is linked in the overview section, and in the "In the Damascus and Palmyra museums" section, there is another link to that page when I mention the Gallienic model. I dont think many readers will understand what its meant with the Gallienic model if I dont link it to Gallienus because we have no page on the Gallienic style of portraits
Link Palmyrene kingdom, Vaballathus, Herodianus, Hairan, and Heracles too in captions? FunkMonk (talk) 21:50, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done
  • "Odaenathus belonged to an important Palmyrene family and was elected as "ras" (lord) of Palmyra by the city's council in the 240s." Quite a few names and term here that are not linked at first mention in the article body. I wonder if ras should link to anyone, would Rais be misleading?
As far as I read, no scholar compared it with the Arabic rais. It is translated as lord, and for me this indicates some kind of monarchical power (specially that Odaenathus was gifted a throne when he was ras by a city notable. Today in Arabic you can use rais to indicate a captain of a ship, so Im not sure its wise to link ras to rais
  • "As a Roman city on the borders with Persia, Palmyra was affected by the constant war between the two empires,[3] which culminated in 260 with the defeat and capture of the Roman emperor Valerian by the Persian Sasanian emperor Shapur I" Here Roman is only linked at second mention, and could Shapur I be linked?
Done
  • "assumed the title of King of Kings" King of Kings also has an article, wonder if it is relevant.
linked
  • "Germanic raiders" Link?
Done
  • "A few small clay tesserae" Link term?
We have no article for Palmyrene tesserae which are banquets tokens (invitation cards) and not the same as a mosaic tessera
  • It seems most of the intro is a repeat of the overview section, more so than a summary about the subject itself, which are the portraits? I wonder if it could be more balanced?
Intro expanded and re-written
  • "Depicting a "strong, severe personality"" According to who? Such direct quotes should probably get in text attribution.
Deleted
  • "and the Istanbul specimen is 40 centimetres" Isn't specimen more properly used for biological examples?
changed
  • "Ingholt concluded that the heads should be dated to 250, and represent Odaenathus I" Represented?
Done
  • Any info on where and when the Copenhagen and Istanbul heads were found?
Sadly no. Ingholt does not know, and it is probably that this will never be known as they were excavated before the age of academic archaeology when documenting the provenance of finds was not of importance
  • "Three head sculptures were excavated from a hexagonal tomb in Palmyra's northern necropolis by its head of antiquities, Khaled al-As'ad" Dates?
Done
  • Having read a few of the first examples, it is unclear to me when and by who each was claimed to depict Odaenathus, maybe it could be stated clearer for each of them?
Here is a problem as I start with explaining about the piece and how it was found before mentioing which shcolars identified it with Odaenathus. It is clear however in each section, though normally at the end of it
  • It is also a bit difficult to figure out where to look for when these claims were doubted, and where one overall section begins and ends. Maybe this would become clearer if you could make more top level sections so that for example limestone portraits are broken more clearly away from Marble portraits with a line, so that the conclusion section is more easily seen as belonging within the former section? Then also the Tesserae portraits could begin after a line as their own section, etc.? In that regard, the "Portraits" top level section is perhaps redundant, since the article is already called Portraits of Odaenathus?
Done
  • "drawing on exclusively on macroscopic" First on is unnecessary.
Done
  • "found a material indicating the presence" Not sure if the a is necessary.
Deleted
  • "Mosaic of the tiger hunt" You put this title in italics and with capitals in the article body, shouldn't it be in the caption too?
Done
  • "the tigers are Panthera tigris virgata and were once common in the region" maybe ", which were once common"?
Done
  • Yu link Hellenistic at the last instead of first mention.
fixed
  • "he most likely portraits are two marble heads depicting a man in a royal diadem, and an eastern royal tiara, in addition to Palmyrene tesserae of a bearded king wearing a diadem." I think this could maybe also be made clearer in their individual sections?
re-worded
  • Support - nice to see an article from you strictly about art also! I think the new section layout makes the article much easier to navigate. FunkMonk (talk) 22:21, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

  • All images appear to be free and correctly licensed. However, I am seeing sandwiching in the "In the Damascus and Palmyra museums" (see MOS:IMAGELOC). buidhe 03:19, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In the Damascus and Palmyra museums is a short section and thats the problem as its photos will push into the next one. If I dont sandwich, the photos of the Limestone sculptures section will push to the marble section, and so I believe that this single case of sandwiching is justified.
I fixed the sandwiching myself, as long as the issue does not reoccur, the image review can be considered passed. (t · c) buidhe 21:30, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note edit

  • I don't see a source review and I'm going to add this to the urgents list for another comprehensive review. Also @Buidhe: over the image concerns, are you satisfied? --Ealdgyth (talk) 14:43, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SG notes edit

I fixed a surprising number of faulty hyphens to WP:ENDASHes ... there may be more. External images belong in external links. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:12, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing the hyphens. As for the external images, I disagree. They do not belong in external links, they are not an extra thing a reader can look at, but essential for the article. If they belong in the external links, then why does the Template:External media exist?. Those images are very important for understanding what the article is talking about as I describe the features of each portrait which will require the reader to open the link and see the image. Putting these images in the external links will reduce the possibility that a reader will see them or understand fully what is being explained in the text
Oppose, external links do not belong in articles. WP:LAYOUT, sections which contain material outside Wikipedia (including "Further reading" and "External links") should come after sections that contain Wikipedia material. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:37, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why do the template external media exist? As I explained, these materials are essential for each section and the good delivery of information is more important. Anyway, external media is exempted from the rules regarding external links, rendering your argument for oppose invalid. You can find this mentioned in note 2 in the Wikipedia:External links, which states: "With rare exceptions, external links should not be used in the body of an article.[2]"- these exceptions are clarified as: "Other exceptions include use of templates like external media, which is used only when non-free and non-fair use media cannot be uploaded to Wikipedia".--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 14:46, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict after you signed post) Could you please sign your posts? Otherwise, when the Coords read through the FAC, it is difficult to know who said what.
Thanks for the explanation on the external images, as I see you discuss each case in text and are subject to the exemption accordingly. There has been a serious problem in medical content with the use of external media in articles in inappropriate ways, and my concern was that we not set up a precedent. I have struck my oppose for this instance. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:47, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Sandy. I normally do not sign because I use the colour Green for my comments. I shall be more careful next time.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 14:49, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, no prob :) So now that you understand my concern about precedents, let's look at each image separately.
  • Why is the image of B2727/9127 needed? It isn't specifically discussed in text, and it's not clear (to me) that it differs significantly from the Wikipedia Commons image of B2726.
I mention that there was 3 identical heads found. Providing and image of B2727/9127 will help the readers to compare and see the similarities--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 15:34, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Since the image is not discussed and the template is ruining the layot as it is pushing the template of the Benaki portrait down, I moved this to external links.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 22:55, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Presumably the Benaki Museum portrait is the 36361 mentioned in text? Can that info be added to the external image?
Done--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 15:34, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do we need five external images from the l'Institut Français d'Archéologie du Proche-Orient  ?
The website does not gather the five images of the portrait (which is lost, and only these photos of it exist) in one place. The readers, if they open image 1 from the external media, will see a frontal photo, but will not easily find the remaining photos, which are important since the features of the portrait from all angles are explained in the section. For example, on top of the portrait there is a hole that was used to attach a crown (a tiara probably) to the turban, and for that you need to check photo 5.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 15:34, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:57, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Some of the details in the lead don't appear to be cited anywhere - for example, that he ruled with imperial consent
All information are cited. For example, the imperial consent part: "Odaenathus was made the effective ruler of the Roman East by Gallienus, the son and successor of Valerian, who appointed Odaenathus a Corrector totius orientis (righter of the entire East)"
  • How are you ordering multiple works by the same author?
Chronologically- No idea why I have so many mistakes now. Fixed
  • Butcher 1996: why not cite this to the book itself, rather than a book review?
Its Butcher's commentary that is cited and not the book he is reviewing
  • de Blois: can you verify that the given series name is correct?
According to worldcat: The Policy of the Emperor Gallienus
  • Fortin: is the given publisher for the original or the translation?
The translation, as it is the work cited
  • Double-check that all non-English publications include language
Done. The article Varia Tadmorea (1976) by Ingholt is in English despite the French title of the whole work
  • Kollwitz includes a location but most other sources don't
Fixed
  • What makes Michałowski a high-quality reliable source? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:00, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kazimierz Michałowski is a reputed scholar and head of the Polish excavation team in Palmyra (was). The work cited is the archaeological report of that year. Any academic work about Palmyra have to use what Michałowski wrote

Johnbod edit

  • Starting to read through. Looks good at first glance. I did a hyphen run but they seem to have been fixed. Johnbod (talk) 17:32, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • A stronger image at the top would be good.
Thanks for your comments Johnbod. Sadly, most portraits which we have a good image for here on Wikipedia do not represent Odaenathus but are popularly held to be representations of him, which the article clarify. The photos of portraits that most likely represent Odaenathus are of bad quality because they are mostly clay Palmyrene tesserae. The lead image is the best I found, unless Im gonna use the mosaic photo, which is tentatively identified as depicting Odaenathus but the figure in it has no royal attributes nor a name is mentioned nor a royal title. Actually, the most likely portrait of Odaenathus is available here, but I cant use it due to Wikipedia's rule of no "NonCommercial" photos.
  • The "Overview" is rather repetitious of the lead.
At first the lead was much shorter, but I had to expand during the review. This led to the overview section being similar to the first paragraph of the lead, but it is much more detailed
  • Pretty unclear: "The theory about Odaenathus I's existence was abandoned in 1985, when an inscription was published by the archaeologist Michael Gawlikowski which demonstrated that Odaenathus I was identical to King Odaenathus.[32]
Clarified

The archaeologist Klaus Parlasca rejected Ingholt's hypothesis, and considered the two heads fragments of a funeral kline (sarcophagus lid)." - Which bits of "Ingholt's hypothesis" - the dating or the subject?

the function- I calrified it
  • Read down to the marbles. More later. Johnbod (talk) 03:06, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you want to add anything else, Johnbod? We really need to wrap this on up. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:52, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, yes. You seem to have enough supports, and I was heading that way, so please don't wait for me, Johnbod (talk) 14:03, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie edit

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

Thanks for taking the time Mike
  • Several limestone head portraits from Palmyra were identified by several twentieth-century scholars as depicting Odaenathus, based on several criteria, such as the size of the portrait and the presence of a wreath. The latter element, however, was not special in Palmyrene portraits, as priests were also depicted with wreaths. Further research on the limestone portraits indicates that these pieces were funerary objects depicting private citizens. This is from the lead. I think it could be improved as a summary of the "Limestone sculptures" section of the article: it only summarizes the first two sections.
Im sorry but I could not figure out how to improve it as I tried to make it comprehensively covering the limestone section in total so I did not mention individual pieces. Can you maybe give me some clues on how it can be improved?
It says "these pieces were funerary objects", but that has not been asserted for 36361 or C1519, has it? That's the only point that bothered me. In fact, now I look again, you never say C1519 was considered by anyone to be a portrait of Odaenathus -- am I missing where you say it? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:51, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, C1519 is the Damascus portrait, so Kollwitz proposed its Odaenathus. It is the Palmyra piece (Inv. B 2186-CD 134,62) that was not identified by anyone, but Equini Schneider consider both portraits the result of the same workshop and modelled on the Gallinic model. I guess I can move the info about B 2186-CD 134,62 to a note? As for 36361, my answer is below
If Schneider thought that C1519 and B 2186-CD 134,62 were both products of the same workshop, did they also express an opinion as to whether they were individual portraits or just both taken from the same model? C1519 obviously has to be included, but I want to understand a little better how the sources get us to B 2186-CD 134,62 being considered a possible portrait of Odaenathus. I can see that if B 2186-CD 134,62 is considered to be of the same person that C1519 depicts, then Parlasca's opinion can be applied to both heads, but I don't yet see where B 2186-CD 134,62 gets into the picture. If Schneider thinks they just from the same standard model, why would we conclude they are the same person? And if we can use Schneider's opinion in this way, I'd mention it in the body of the article, not just in a note. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:03, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Schneider spoke of how similar C1519 and B 2186 are, and how they were apparently made by the same workshop based on the same artistic model. She did not conclude that they represent the same person. Maybe I should have left B 2186 out. The thing to do now is deciding whether to delete the sentences about B 2186 or put them in a note to clarify that C1519 have a sibling (kind of)
Based on what you've told me the sources say, I think B 2186 should be left out, though you could put in a note from C1519 saying that B 2186 is a similar head, thought by Schneider to be from the same workshop. Without an explicit opinion either that it is a portrait of Odaenathus or that it and C1519 are the same person, I think including it as a candidate portrait is a step too far. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:48, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. Moved to a note and the section adjusted to be about the Damascus portrait
  • A separate point about this paragraph: you present the refutation of the arguments that these portraits were of Odaenathus as definitive, but I know that academic arguments are not easily killed. Are the refutations cited considered by scholars to be definitive? Or are they merely the most recent published arguments? E.g. Kollwitz and Parlasca disagree on one of the sculpted heads; are we sure Parlasca's opinion is accepted? If not, I think we should be less definite in the language -- e.g. "More recent research" and "these pieces were probably..." and so on. And there's no counter-argument given for the image in the Benaki museum.
Re-worded. No other scholar I know about touched on Vlizos' hypothesis regarding the Benaki's portrait. However, since Vlizos himself referred to the Copenhagen portrait and concluded that it is very similar to the Benaki one, then the criticism of the Copenhagen piece goes for the Benaki one
OK on the rewording. So the argument against the Benaki portrait is that Vlizos, who suggests it's a portrait of Odaenathus or someone in his family, mentions the resemblance to the Copenhagen portrait, but that portrait is thought by scholars to be funerary and not of Odaenathus, hence nor is the Benaki portrait? I can see this is a plausible argument but I think we can't put this in the article without a source; it would be synthesis. But that leaves the Benaki portrait without an explicit refutation. Could we get around this by pointing out that Vlizos made the case for the Benaki portrait at a time when the Copenhagen portrait was still thought to be of Odaenathus (assuming that's the case, as it seems it must be)? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:59, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I dont think we have a synthesis for the Benaki piece. Vlizos made his argument in 2001 based solely on the similarity with the Copenhagen piece which was attributed to Odaenathus family by Ingholt in 1976. Parlasca already made the argument for a funerary function in 1985. Since then, Balty, Equini Schneider (1992), and Gawlikowski disagreed with identifying these limestone portraits with Odaenathus, and these are the "big names", i.e. experts in Palmyrene sculptures. So when Vlizos made his arguments, the doubts about the Copenhagen portrait were already there. Gawlikowski, knowing that many such oversized limestone heads with thick necks are around, wrote that they, including these at Istanbul and Copenhagen, were connected to funeral practices such as sarcophagus lids. Therefore, while no direct refutation was aimed at the Benaki portrait, it was subsumed under the category of sarcophagus lids' heads by Gawlikowski. I cant see a synthesis here because the Benaki portrait is not mentioned in the conclusion section, but the general judgement of Gawlikowski regarding this type of portraits is. So whether there is, or there isnt, a direct refutation of the Benaki portrait is irrelevant, because Gawlikowski made a general judgement based on certain features, applying to any portrait that bear those features, which is what is mentioned in the conclusion section
OK, that seems reasonable, but is the Benaki head thought to be part of a sarcophagus lid then? I don't see any reference to the characteristics Gawlikowski mentions, such as a thick neck. I agree if we make that connection we have enough. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:03, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I added a sentence about the neck and the back of the portrait. You can see a photo of the neck here, page 212
That does it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:43, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd retitle the "Overview" section "Background" -- it's not an overview of the article; it's background information for understanding the article.
Done
  • I think it's best to avoid "noted" or "noting" when giving archaeologists' opinions; to note something implies that it is unquestionably true, not an opinion. The article uses "note" in several places; some are clearly factual, but a few seem to be opinions:
    • Müller, noting the Copenhagen head's moving posture...
    • Frederik Poulsen noted that the wreath on the Copenhagen head is reminiscent of...
    • Gawlikowski suggested that the heads depicted three men from the same family, and noted that their excavation from a tomb, and their remarkable resemblance to the portraits in Copenhagen and Istanbul, confirm that the latter two were also funerary, and not honorary, objects
    • The authors of the RTP noted a beard -- the next sentence says Gawlikowski disputed that there was a beard, so this is definitely an opinion
    • Gawlikowski considered it likely that the portrait depicts Odaenathus, noting that the lack of a tiara (which made Balty hesitatant in his identification as Odaenathus) is offset by the royal diadem
    • Gawlikowski disagreed, noting that the face is youthful
Done for all above
  • The sculpture has a minimum of individuality with the lack of articulation in the modelling of the face, the expressive vacuity of the eyes, and the rigid, stylized treatment of the facial hair. What follows "with" uses "the" for the three characteristics listed, which sounds wrong because these characteristics have not been previously mentioned. Suggest "The sculpture has a minimum of individuality: the modelling of the face lacks articulation, the eyes are expressionless, and the facial hair is rigid and stylized".
Done
  • Both portraits are influenced by a standard artistic model, which (given the massive, square skull) may have been the Gallienic model for the Damascus portrait; the model was modified to incorporate features typical of Palmyrene portraiture I don't understand this. Why does a massive square skull imply that Gallienus was the model? And it took me a minute to work out what was meant by "Gallienic model"; it might be better to rephrase to say "Gallienus" specifically.
Gallienus always appeared with a massive square skull (and there was no unified model for Roman royal portraits as was the case in, for example, Egypt, so a single emperor can create a new model), so maybe Gallienus was the model for the Palmyrene piece- I rephrased the sentence
I think I follow you, but I think it could be a little clearer. How about "Both portraits are influenced by a standard artistic model. The massive square skull is similar to the model used for Emperor Gallienus' portraits, so Gallienus' model may have been modified to incorporate features typical of Palmyrene portraiture." Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:05, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
re-worded
  • The layout of the images on the right edge is quite confusing. B2726/9163 is positioned in the "In the Damascus and Palmyra museums" section, so it was a while till I noticed that it's actually from the hexagonal tomb. I amended the caption to make that unambiguous, but you could also move the "External image" templates to the left of each paragraph, which would make it easier to keep the images with the sections they relate to.
Im also unhappy with this, and it wasnt the case, but the photos had to be moved to the right during this FAC because sometimes Wikipedia is a backward bureaucracy that follows rules (in this case: no sandwiching of text between images) literally, on the account of good delivery of information and its clarity. Thats why I cant place the templates on the left
A pity there's no better layout, but striking since this does seem to be the best we can do. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:57, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I assume no pictures of C1519 or B 459/1662 are available? Or of the Panel of Bellerophon?
The Panel of Bellerophon exist online, but the link will not take you to the required page and you need to scroll down. Here is the Bellerophon- page 1298. As for C1519 and B 459/1662, I have scans of them from academic books, but I cant upload them because of copyrights. They are not available online
  • Acquired by the Xydi family in 1989, it was moved to the museum a decade later. The head was acquired commercially and no information about its exact excavation location in Syria is known: unless the Xydi family is notable in some way, I'd suggest "The head was acquired commercially in 1989, and no information about its exact excavation location in Syria is known; it was moved to the museum a decade later."
Changed
  • How was the tiara portrait lost? I think this article should give the fate of the piece if it can be sourced.
No one knows. Despite the excavations in the 1940s, the results were published only in 2005. I think the confusion of WW2 is to blame. For now, we only have those photos, but the piece might show up one day, no one knows
Struck, since it's accurate as it stands, but if any details are known (e.g. when it was realized that it was lost) that would be worth putting in a note. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:08, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • another headdress piece that slipped under the turban's rim: I don't know what "slipped under the turban's rim" means.
The rim surrounded the tiara and constituted an elevated border of it. This photo might help imagining how it would have looked (it depicts the portrait from above where the rim of the turban can be seen elevated from the surface of the head where the tiara originally rested
I think "another headdress piece that would have been framed by the turban's elevated rim" would be clearer, if I understand what you're saying. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:12, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
changed
  • The major reference for Palmyrene tesserae is the Recueil des Tessères de Palmyre (RTP): the source you give for this is fine, but I'd suggest also citing the RTP itself at this point, since a curious reader may want to look for that source.
    Did you miss this one? Just a suggestion but I think it would help the reader. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:12, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Missed it yes. I added a citation
  • similar in style to the portrait of Herodianus on the lead token: is Herodianus' token in the RTP? If so I'd give the RTP number here.
It is not considered a tessera and is not included in the RTP
  • Suggest saying "Caspian tiger", which seems to be an uncontroversial name, rather than Panthera tigris virgata; in addition to being easier for a reader to understand, it appears that the separation of the species is debatable so the scientific name may not last.
Done
  • Is there a transcription for the full inscription on the Tiger Hunt mosaic?
dydṭs ' bd // psps d'hw // wbnwhy MR- Transation: Diodotos made this floor, him and his sons MR. Source page 1300
How about putting this in a note? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:12, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note added
  • Several of the citations appear to be to chapters in books, but don't have page numbers for the chapters. I don't think it's compulsory but it's certainly a convenience for the reader, so you might consider adding them. The ones I see are:
    • al-As'ad, Khaled (2002).
    • al-As'ad, Khaled; Briquel-Chatonnet, Françoise; Yon, Jean-Baptiste (2005).
    • Balty, Jean Charles (2005).
    • Charles-Gaffiot, Jacques; Lavagne, Henri; Hofman, Jean-Marc, eds. (2001).
    • Ingholt, Harald (1976).
    • Parlasca, Klaus (1989).
    • Sartre, Maurice (2005).
Done for above

Most of the above are fairly minor points and I think can be easily addressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:35, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Struck several points above; will look at the rest in the morning. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:57, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Replied on the remaining points. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:13, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support. All points resolved. This is a fine article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:47, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mike for this thorough review. It helped improving the quality of the article greatly--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 23:52, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It was a pleasure to read! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:55, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 30 July 2020 [4].

1998 Football League First Division play-off Final edit

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 16:43, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so this one really is a good 'un. Outside of the ultimate classic (I may be biased), this play-off final is stuff of legend. It has been called possibly the most exciting match ever played at the old Wembley. Three apiece after regulation time, 4–4 after extra time and then penalties. I had the luxury of watching this all unfold in a pub near Loughborough (nothing better to do with myself at that time), and I remember it almost like it was yesterday. I will work tirelessly to address any constructive comments, and as always, thanks in advance for your time. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 16:43, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:08, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 07:53, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SUPPORT by Dweller edit

Please see comments below. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:17, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've finished my tweaking and am good with whatever you and Lee decide below. This is an admirable article, easily FA quality. Support. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:28, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Oldelpaso edit

This is very good, I only have nitpicks.

Cheers Oldelpaso, addressed the easy ones, got to find a way of looking into the other two, may be (much) more difficult. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 12:25, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oldelpaso I've added some season preview comments which Harrias kindly helped with, and some of the nuggets from Reid's autobio which you helped me with (thanks!) I've struggled on the "style"/"tactics" query, predominantly because although you're bang on about the lump it to Quinn while Phillips sniffed around for scraps, that isn't really covered in any of the contemporary reports. If you have anything pertinent and referencerable then I'd be happy to add it. Also, I'd be a touch reluctant to add that for just one of the two sides, i.e. what was Curbishley's 1998 Charlton team playing like?? The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 14:47, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Its a fair point. Curbishley was at Charlton for many years but beyond cliched stuff about being well organised I can't find much about their style in that period. I'd view it as a nice to have, not an essential. Like you say, doing it for one team not the other would be lopsided. Oldelpaso (talk) 16:21, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oldelpaso what do you reckon then, anything else, I think I've covered the above now? I liked the quote from The Times reporter saying Curbs wouldn't amount to 'owt... The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 16:42, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's everything covered, all good as far as I'm concerned. Oldelpaso (talk) 19:48, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Lee Vilenski edit

I may end up claiming points towards the wikicup. Hope you don't mind. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:55, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look at this article, and give some comments on how it meets the FA criteria in a little while. If you fancy doing some QPQ, I have a list of items that can be looked at here. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:45, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Vilenski thanks, I've addressed and/or responded to each of your comments above. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 10:53, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by WA8MTWAYC edit

Excellent article, TRM. I have a few points. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 18:32, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "with what the BBC described as" maybe link BBC?
    Done. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 11:04, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Nationwide League Player of the Year" I understand Nationwide sponsored the FL, but isn't it better/clearer to say "First Division Player of the Year" (or was he Football League POTY)?
    Yes, good point, we usually (correctly) drop these sponsorship terms in any case, so I've done that. It was for the "Nationwide League" so second to fourth tiers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 11:04, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Better to link 1996–97 FA Premier League in "a failure to score towards the end of the previous season" than in "first time of asking, having been relegated in the previous season".
    Indeed, the downside of writing the article in bits-and-bobs and forgetting which linkable item came first! The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 11:04, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allan Johnston is overlinked in "to convert Alan Johnston's cross to score Sunderland's fifth", plus Alan > Allan.
    Removed overlink and removed first name altogether as it's nugatory after his first full mention. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 11:04, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Sudden death (sport) in "and take the shootout to sudden death".
    Linked. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 11:04, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe mention that Les Reed left Charlton to rejoin the Football Association (FA) in "Curbishley's assistant Les Reed...".
    Nice point, added. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 11:04, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 2014, the English Football League listed it first" better to drop "English" as the competition was simply known as "Football League" in 2014.
    Interesting point. The website this is referenced by has "EFL" logo so that's why I used the phrase. What do you think?
    I would still put it as "FL" because the prose of the ref doesn't mention "EFL". It's certainly no biggie to me so it's up to you (of course). WA8MTWAYC (talk) 11:41, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WA8MTWAYC thanks so much for your comments, much appreciated. I've addressed them and/or responded to them above. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 11:04, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Good job, TRM. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 11:41, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Kosack edit

  • Link hat-trick in the lead.
  • "Charlton Athletic faced Ipswich Town in their play-off semi-finals", is there a need to reuse Athletic here? Both the mentions before and after this have dropped it.
  • "Dr Martens League", sponsored names should be avoided in favour of the competition's official name.
  • "went over the Charlton's crossbar", either the or Charlton's is wrong here
  • "In the 23rd Charlton", is minute missing here?
  • Quinn claimed that despite the loss, his team were the best footballing side in this division", there's an opening quotation mark missing from here somewhere.
  • "Miles Kent writing for the Bleacher Report in 2008 calling it", the double -ing here doesn't seem to work. Should it be called instead? The same with describing immediately after, should this be described?
Kosack thanks, I've addressed all your comments, without fail. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 14:07, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work TRM, a good read. The reviews above have ironed out much of any potential issues, a few minor things I noted are listed above. Kosack (talk) 13:57, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's all from me, happy to support this. Kosack (talk) 14:14, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – pass edit

In progress. Harrias talk 14:01, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting and consistency

Quality and coverage

  • All sources appear to be to high-quality, reliable sources.
    Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 14:58, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do wonder at the lack of inclusion of written histories of the clubs: Ramzan, David C. (2014). Charlton Athletic: A History. Amberley. ISBN 978-1445616575. and Collins, Mick (2002). The Rise & Rise Of Charlton Athletic: From Portakabins To Porto Captains. Mainstream. ISBN 978-1840186956. might be worth a look.
    If I was writing the history of the club, I'd agree, the coverage of this specific singular football match is extensive here already. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 14:58, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I've bought them both so I can also become a CAFC expert too. One is coming tomorrow, the other second hand from Amazon will take a week or so. Hopefully that won't hold up this source review, you can AGF that I'll include anything of relevance. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 15:20, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Harrias Ramzan arrived half an hour ago so all three pages (£4 per page!) which cover the final have now been included. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 16:44, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Might be useful for 1987 Football League Second Division play-off Final too, then it might only be £3 per page! In seriousness, it looks good at a glance, but I'll have a proper look through in a bit. Harrias talk 16:54, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I did check that before I bought it last night actually, so you're right, it might serve two for the price of one! Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 16:59, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Right, that's enough from me for the moment. I have to prepare myself to see if United can avoid losing to Leicester. I'd appreciate it if you could take a look at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2010 Twenty20 Cup Final/archive1 if you get a chance. I will claim WikiCup points for this review, etc. Harrias talk 14:42, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Harrias cheers, all addressed. That GAN is still waiting for you to return by the way! Enjoy the football. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 14:58, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All my concerns have been resolved, this passes the source review. Harrias talk 07:15, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@WP:FAC coordinators: I think this is "oven ready" now. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 10:30, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@WP:FAC coordinators: five supports, and image+source review passed? Time for the next one... The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 20:34, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, might not get to this today but feel free to start a new one. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:31, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Collins, Mick (2003) generates an ISBN error -- not holding up promotion because I have seen instances of false positives with this but perhaps you can check... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:45, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 30 July 2020 [5].

Orangutan edit

Nominator(s): LittleJerry (talk) 00:01, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has several articles on Strepsirrhini primates that are at featured status, but this would be the first simian one. I brought this article to GA status back in 2012 and in the past couple months have done more editing and cleaning and got a copyedit. I think its ready. LittleJerry (talk) 00:01, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Chipmunkdavis edit

First run comments
  • In the lead is it reasonable to say that older males "have" long calls, rather than that they do not "make" (or similar) long calls?
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 22:23, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indonesian is a form of Malay, and quite a recent one, and so should not be mentioned separately to Malay. The source used states Malay.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 22:23, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding Banjarese, I wonder if you can find any sources discussing the impact on that regarding orangutan sometimes being pronounced with an ou sound, rather than how it is pronounced in standard Malay. Interesting note on page 320, but there might be more out there.
I don't understand. LittleJerry (talk) 22:48, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are multiple ways to pronounce orangutan, and I suspect they may exist in part due to the differences between Banjarese and Standard Malay. I was wondering if there might be more information to be found on that point. CMD (talk) 02:41, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Can't find anything. LittleJerry (talk) 12:14, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't fully understand from the current wording how a name recorded by a prisoner in Angola came to apply to a Southeast Asian animal. Having trouble reading the sideways source at the moment, so if it's there please just clarify slightly.
It states that all apes were called orangutans at the time and pongo was given to the all apes. LittleJerry (talk) 22:23, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The part that is unclear is how it transitioned to the current usage. What does it mean that Lacépède followed Friedrich von Wurmb? Did von Wurmb suggest it when sending the skeleton? CMD (talk) 02:41, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 11:06, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Etymology section could also use some information on the species and subspecies names.
That's important for their specific articles not this one. Even articles on species don't give etymologies for subspecies names. LittleJerry (talk) 22:23, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • How can a single species of Khoratpithecus be the closest relative to Pongo? Was it paraphyletic?
I guess. Genera descend from other genera just like species from other species. LittleJerry (talk) 22:25, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's the wording throwing me off. Rather than "believed to have been" it should be "believed to be" or similar, unless the science has changed since the mid-2000s. CMD (talk) 02:41, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 11:11, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could the list of Pongo also be put into a phylogenetic tree format to show the relationships between the species and subspecies?
I can't find a source for a tree. LittleJerry (talk) 22:32, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
At least regarding the species the P. tapanuliensis paper provides one. CMD (talk) 02:41, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can't make cladograms. LittleJerry (talk) 11:11, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Taxonomy does not explain how Simia satyrus became replaced by P. pygmaeus.
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 22:46, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The text clearly implies there was a P. wurmbii in 1808, which should be mentioned, as should whenever it was folded into P. pygmaeus.
Source doesn't say. LittleJerry (talk) 22:55, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Similarly, when did the other subspecies names get assigned?
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 22:55, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Removed information on subspecies classifiction, that's more relevant to the Borneo species article. LittleJerry (talk) 23:05, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The paragraph on type locality probably could use some rewriting to make it more accessible.
Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:05, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The P. tapanuliensis source notes that P. abelii became a species in 2001, not 1996.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:05, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • P. weidenreichi is not mentioned in the infobox, or anywhere else. Perhaps more information on it could be included here?
P. weidenreichi is mentioned in body. Added to infobox. LittleJerry (talk) 23:55, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • More explanation on why there are multi-million year differences in species divergence estimates would be useful. Also, was the 2011 sequence not nuclear DNA?
Doesn't say why. DNA tests can be way off sometimes. LittleJerry (talk) 23:16, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, it seems odd to specify that the 2017 study was nuclear DNA, as it implies the 2011 study did not cover nuclear DNA. CMD (talk) 02:41, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 11:03, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It feels like the third paragraph of the genomics section was put on without adjusting previous sections. It should all be written in the appropriate tenses to reflect current consensus.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:24, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No current comments for the Characteristics section. Will look further at a later time. As a general comment, image placement seems all over the place. (Eg. The video on faux-speech is above the tool picture, the opposite order to the text sections.) CMD (talk) 17:33, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Faux speech is next to the paragraph on orangutans imitating sounds. It's not about language. LittleJerry (talk) 23:20, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On my screen the faux speech video is right next to the paragraphs on tool use. CMD (talk) 02:41, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There's something wrong with your screen. I don't know what to do about that. LittleJerry (talk) 11:03, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's a standard computer screen. If it appears like that on my screen, it will be a very common problem. What needs doing is sorting out the images. At the moment all the images in the page are clustering together and pushing each other way into places they don't belong. Reducing the number of images (eg. what does the image captioned "Orangutans are the least social of the great apes." add?) and making selective use of galleries are both reasonable options. CMD (talk) 16:24, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Better? LittleJerry (talk) 17:22, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use of plants as anti-inflamattory balms may fit better in the intelligence or tool use section than in the diet section.
Not really. Its like how animals may wallow themselves in mud to protect against skin irritation. LittleJerry (talk) 11:55, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean, but it's not diet. Perhaps just move to the main section above? CMD (talk) 16:24, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 17:22, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It feels odd that both the lead and one image caption emphasise the "even bird eggs", while the body text treats bird eggs simply as part of the list while specifically highlighting that they eat other primates.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 11:03, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In nest building, I suggest rewording "leave their mother for the first time", as leave might mean to disperse.
Clarified. LittleJerry (talk) 11:16, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps a mention could be made of the birth of twins.
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 12:07, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest placing the reproduction and development subsection ahead of the social life and nesting subsections, as it contains information that better contextualises those other subsections. (eg. the earlier phrase about leaving their mother for the first time is much more understandable given the "never without physical contact" information.)
Moved after nesting. LittleJerry (talk) 12:07, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The age at which children disperse away from their mothers should be included somewhere, probably in development, and perhaps dispersal should be explained since its only mention comes as "During dispersal" which reads as assuming knowledge from the reader. (May also be improved by the subsection reorganisation.)
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 12:47, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CMD (talk) 03:25, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Url for "Deaner, RO; van Schaik, CP; Johnson, V. (2006). "Do some taxa have better domain-general cognition than others? A meta-analysis of nonhuman primate studies" is dead.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 12:49, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "solve some invisible displacement problems with a representational strategy" is jargon-heavy, and should be explained like "calculated reciprocity" is below. "cooperative pulling paradigm" could also do with a similar quick explanation.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 11:28, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "first accurate description" should be reworded, as its specific meaning might not be conveyed to some readers.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 12:09, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would suggest saying "Indonesian Borneo" instead of "Kalimantan, Indonesia" for accessibility.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 12:14, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the population table why are Sabah and East Kalimantan split but Sarawak and West Kalimantan combined?
That's what it does in the source. LittleJerry (talk) 11:07, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah I see. That source (which has a more detailed table on page 7) appears to be using a preprint of what I think became this table. I would suggest using the final published source. CMD (talk) 16:24, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 17:47, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The authorities in "Since 2012, authorities" should be specified.
Why? Authorities is obvious: the government. And the source doesn't say. LittleJerry (talk) 11:03, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are 2 possible national governments and multiple possible local governments. From the source I suggest the article says for now that it's the Indonesian authorities. CMD (talk) 16:24, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 17:22, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The paragraph about Pony and the albino should be moved into the Conservation centres subsection, and integrated with the other BOSF info.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 11:03, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The current first and last paragraphs in Conservation should be merged. They both cover the same foundation (which I note lacks Foundation in its name in the specific article title, so perhaps this article should reflect that). CMD (talk) 16:24, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Moved. LittleJerry (talk) 17:22, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CMD (talk) 05:37, 19 June 2020 (UTC) Chipmunkdavis, everythings fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 11:47, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The images seem better now, and I think I'll leave it for others to further comment on them. The Borneo Orangutan Survival information is still split across two unconnected paragraphs. CMD (talk) 12:19, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 15:23, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsing the above. Will take another look soon with a more refreshed eye. CMD (talk) 17:07, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chipmunkdavis? LittleJerry (talk) 18:49, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about the delay. Looking at Primate, which is an older FA but still quite a decent article, there are several facts about orangutans mentioned there that are not included here. These include endocranial volume, an explicit note on climbing technique ("quadramanous climbing" although a less jargony explanation would be better), fishing and tool-assisted fishing (there are better sources than the one in the Primate article), a tad more on legal status, and a figure for extirpation rate in Sumatra. I believe all these would fit into the article, and they suggest further possible inclusions, such as historical population estimates (eg.). I would also suggest an explicit mention of only 3-4 births in a lifetime for each female.
Added more. I don't see the need for historical ranges and expiration rates. Those are more appropriate for the individual species and we already have the Endangerment of orangutans article. LittleJerry (talk)
The current "Interactions with humans" section is more about cultural significance than an overview of current interactions. Papers like this one are interesting in that regard. There also seems to be a minimal amount of information about cultural significance and opinions in the local area as opposed to globally. I'd also advocate the inclusion of some contextualisation about the local pressure for development, which is crucial to understanding orangutan conservation, rather than attributing it all to international demand. The only mention of local attitudes is a short brush into folklore, whereas they're often seen as obstacles to the economic advancement of those in poverty. These attitudes feed into the hunting, pet trade, and sometimes even indifference or distrust towards conservation.
Added more on local killing of orangutans. LittleJerry (talk) 19:19, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article should include information about domestic legal protection. (In Malaysia I know orangutans were supposedly covered under a 1972 wildlife protection act but looking now I can't find them in the actual law. They are however included in the replacement 2010 law (pg 101) as a totally protected species, as well as under the separate laws of Sarawak and Sabah.) CMD (talk) 16:30, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That again seems more important for the article on the Bornean orangutan. There are three species, and looking at the different laws that protect each of them is too much for this article. LittleJerry (talk) 19:44, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the species/sub-species argument with regards to the scientific name etymology information, but disagree it applies to much of the information here. The species split is for many purposes a technicality, and a recent technicality at that. Most of the laws I mentioned are older than the split between the species. Local communities are not distinguishing between species, conservation material doesn't distinguish between species, and I doubt many people in the wider world will either. Are there any examples of protections/treatment/etc. differing by species? Outside of scientific fields such as taxonomy and evolutionary implications, I can't see how what makes this article comprehensive will have shifted significantly since pre-2001. Taking your work on Wolf for example, that's an article that exceeds wp:size guidelines, yet it wouldn't greatly benefit from being stripped of most of its Status and Conservation section if at some point various subspecies became reclassified as species. CMD (talk) 02:13, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 12:01, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chipmunkdavis, all done. LittleJerry (talk) 19:11, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While I am not an experienced FAC source reviewer, the general quality here is high (aside from perhaps dictionaries in etymology but they seem quite relevant to the section). The Pikiran Rakyat source should be reformatted to show it is a news source, with the name of the paper rather than the url. Nomoremonkeybusiness.com is a campaign source, appropriate for the information but could probably be buttressed by another source. Riskanalys av glas is dead and lacks an access date. It is citing something which could very easily be replaced by a higher quality source. Gill, Victoria needs an accessdate. The Nyaru Menteng source may one as well. National Geographic is formatted in a variety of ways. I can see some causes for differences (eg. magazine vs website), but not to the degree shown in the article. Similarly Mongabay and Eco-Business should use the names not the urls.

While here Bornean Orangutan in nest, Orangutanspeech.webm, and Orangutan using precision grip need alttext. CMD (talk) 12:34, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the need to add an accessdate to the Nyaru Menteng source. Otherwise, fixed all the others. LittleJerry (talk) 14:55, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Chipmunkdavis anymore? LittleJerry (talk) 14:11, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"National Geographic Society" should be consistently (un)linked and consistently (un)italicised. The Oxford Dictionaries link is a redirect and the source needs reformatting. The etymonline.com source should also have its publisher fixed. CMD (talk) 09:10, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Chipmunkdavis Done. LittleJerry (talk) 14:19, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Range map should be scaled up and should include sourcing
  • File:Daniel_Urrabieta_y_Vierge_-_The_Murders_in_the_Rue_Morgue.jpg: source link is dead, needs a US PD tag
Added.LittleJerry (talk) 18:36, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:The_Female_Orang_-_Utan.png needs a US PD tag. Same with File:Primatenskelett-drawing-transparent.png. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:53, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • When and where were these first published? And the last is still missing a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:43, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what you're talking about. File:Primatenskelett-drawing-transparent.png isn't used in this article. LittleJerry (talk) 20:14, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's in the navbox. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:25, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ping. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:28, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I already added a tag to the last image. LittleJerry (talk) 14:07, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You've added a tag stating the image was published before 1925. You haven't indicated when and where this was first published to qualify for that tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:24, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 22:06, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done where? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:27, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, someone changed the template image back. LittleJerry (talk) 01:40, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 11:24, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Jens Lallensack edit

  • From the lead: Flanged (the distinctive cheek pads) adult males make long calls that attract females and intimidate rivals: the gloss disrupts reading quite a bit (the "the" is without reference) and not really comprehensible. In the "Characteristics" section "cheek pads" are not mentioned but "cheek flaps", is this the same (if so, please clarify or better use a single term consequently). But for this sentence, would "Flanged (with distinctive cheek pads) adult males …" work? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:55, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:39, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • that Bontius' account referred not to apes (which were not known from Java) – Java wasn't mentioned before, so is here something missing or what does it mean?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:39, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The was renamed Simia pygmaeus in 1760 by his student Christian Emmanuel Hopp and given the name Pongo was by Lacépède in 1799 – Here are at least two grammatical issues.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:39, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Israfil et al – dot missing (et al.), but why not "and colleagues" to avoid the term altogether?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:39, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • However a 2017 found – "study"?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:39, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image caption: Adult male (left) and female – Since the differences between species were just discussed: Which species is this?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:39, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • a male orangutan having arm span – "an" arm span?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:39, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • endocranial – link?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:39, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image caption: The orangutan's skeleton is well adapted for its arboreal lifestyle – Male or female? Important to mention since some sexual dimorphic characters just discussed can be seen here (sagittal crest; canines)
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:39, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The joint and tendon arrangement in the orangutans' hands produces two adaptations significant for arboreal locomotion. – Is this the introduction for the following sentences? That is not totally clear. Also, the reference to the arboreal locomotion is already there in the previous sentence. The sentence does not really tell us anything? I would suggest to just remove it, it only leads to confusion.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:39, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • not true knuckle-walkers; which involves – the ";" feels incorrect here; maybe insert "a form of locomotion"?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:39, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Life history – this section title does not work because "life history" has a much more narrow meaning in biology: The set of stages that an organism, or a species, experiences over its lifetime, from conception to death (from Wiktionary); it is therefore identical with "Reproduction and growth".
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:39, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • more later. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:55, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • During reading I felt that the first two paragraphs of the "Social life" section are a bit hard to follow as a common thread is sometimes not evident; there are different pieces of information somehow attached to each other and the logical succession of information could be improved. Particularly, I suggest to move the sentence Bornean orangutans are generally more solitary, moving and foraging alone while Sumatran orangutans travel in groups more often down to the place where travelling in groups is actually discussed.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 18:34, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • interberth interval – birth?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 18:34, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Scientists hope the data they collect will help researchers – this sounds as if "scientists" and "researchers" would be two different instances (I would remove both to be honest). This whole sentence does not tell us anything new about the apes themselves; hard to believe that there are not at least some opinions on their socialising patterns?
Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 18:34, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • and preference was given to oral tool use – does this mean they put the sticks into their mouth to probe for insects rather than with their hands? Hard to believe.
That's what the research has shown. LittleJerry (talk) 18:34, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • evidence of sophisticated tool manufacture – this is not explained and the reader if left wondering: How do they manufacture tools? For the reader this is difficult to guess. The material is wood I assume? They do not use tools to make tools or do they? Why is it "sophisticated"? Needs more explanation.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 18:34, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possible linguistic capabilities – This whole section is solely about history of research: who did what and when. There is nothing about the actual scientific findings on this topic. If it is unclear if they have linguistic capabilities we at least need to hear the scientific opinions on this question. I think this section is the weakest of the article.
Removed. This is controversial and disputed anyway. LittleJerry (talk) 18:34, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • simians – not explained or linked.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 18:34, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Orangutans that have loss their homes – lost?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 18:34, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It works to bring different stakeholders together to achieve conservation of the species and its habitat. – a bit awkward to speak in presence here, since this is subjective and predictive; uncontroversial statements can only be made about the past. What about "It proved to be efficient to bring …"? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:47, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 18:34, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chipmunkdavis and Jens Lallensack, any more? LittleJerry (talk) 12:44, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk edit

  • I'll have a look soonish. FunkMonk (talk) 08:50, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the intro, main ape line is a duplink of great apes.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 11:46, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You use the same photo of a male Tapanuli orangutan twice in succssion, a bit repetitive, nothing else that could be used for variation at one occurence?
Its easier to use this one. LittleJerry (talk) 11:46, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Under etymology, it could probably be more interesting to show a realy early illustration, do we know which is the first published?
Replacing old illustrations is too much of a headache. Especially since many don't come with dates. LittleJerry (talk) 11:46, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We have this one published by Linnaeus himself in 1763, which was not categorised properly (the last one is the organgutan):[6] FunkMonk (talk) 13:00, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Based on this image[7] published by George Edwards in 1758.[8] That also seems to be an early English use of the name "man of the woods", which would fit neatly with the text under etymology. FunkMonk (talk) 13:10, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added "Man of the Woods" LittleJerry (talk) 18:03, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder if the image with the books[9] is problematic due to copyright of the book covers. But since Nikkimaria didn't bring it up, maybe it falls under de minimis.
  • The taxobox image is very unsharp, and the individual's head is in an angle that makes it hard to see the face. Any better photos to use?
No. LittleJerry (talk) 11:46, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Researching the man of the woods image, I also found this book[10], which states early scientists thought the sexes and growth stages were different species, which should definitely be looked into for the taxonomy section.
Added elsewhere. LittleJerry (talk) 18:53, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now that the many other reviews seem to be done, the text appears to b stable, so I'll continue. FunkMonk (talk) 22:45, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "that his use of the word was misunderstood by Nicolaes Tulp, who was the first to use the term in a publication" When?
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 23:43, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "British naturalist Alfred Russel Wallace published his account The Malay Archipelago: The Land of the Orang-Utan and the Bird of Paradise, in 1869" I'm not sure what this sentence is supposed to convey in its context? If it is not the first mention in English, it seems kind of arbitrary and unnecessarily long.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 23:43, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Lacépède used the term" You could give a longer version of his name (such as comte de Lacépède) as you do with other authors.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 23:43, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "of Linnaeus as Simia satyrus" Likewise, full name for Linnaeus.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 23:43, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • " in the Systema Natura" Link it, and perhaps add "the work" or similar, now you just assume the reader knows what it is.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 23:43, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are inconsistent in whether you give nationality and occupation for the people mentioned throughout.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 23:43, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Pongo borneo" This name is not mentioned in the article body, and you don't explain how it arrived at Pongo pygmaeus.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 23:43, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The genetics info seems arbitrarily divided between taxonomy and genetics. Why is it not in the same section, or in succession? Now it is divided by the fossil section.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 23:43, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The white space created by the long image under fossil record looks very intrusive. Maybe use another image, or is an image even needed there?
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 23:43, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link the names of the different orangutan species at first mention in the article body and captions.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 23:43, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Sumatran orangutan genome was sequenced in January 2011" and "Israfil and colleagues (2011)" Why do some studies get authorship and others don't?
This insist unusual in FAs.
Hmmm, in my experience it is mainly because it has been overlooked (nominators usually fix it when notified), it looks more professional when it is consistent.
Well they are both 2011 studies so I had to distinguish them. LittleJerry (talk) 15:02, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The cladogram could contain links.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 23:43, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The taxonomy section looks better merged, I wonder if the skull photo should be right aligned so it doesn't clash with the header and image below it?
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 13:37, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Orangutans' potential predators" A bit awkward, how about "potential predators of orangutans"?
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 13:37, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Their hair seems unusually long compared to other apes (you only say coarse), mention?
I haven't read that. LittleJerry (talk) 13:37, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ficus fruits fit both preferences" Maybe just say figs?
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 13:37, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which contains the toxic alkaloid strychnine" So does this mean it does not harm them?
I guess. LittleJerry (talk) 13:37, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which involves consuming soil and other earth substances." Why?
It don't say but it usually helps with digestion. LittleJerry (talk) 13:37, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have three very similar close ups of flanged males, but none show the throat pouch, which is notably absent from any photos. How about showing that structure too under Reproduction and development instead of the current male photo (which even crops the cheeks)? Here are some other photos:[11][12]
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 13:37, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "climax with pulses and end with bubbles" I have no idea how to imagine these, any descriptions of the sounds?
Not given in source. LittleJerry (talk) 13:37, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "An orangutan at the San Diego Zoo using a tool" Add "to extract juice"? I thought it was insects from just looking at the photo.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 18:02, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which was founded by Birutė Galdikas" Since she was already introduced, only needs last name.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 18:02, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In November 2017" Month unnecessary. Only stated in intro anyway.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 18:02, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "younger males do not and resemble adult females" Only stated in intro.
They resemble them because they don't have the flanges. LittleJerry (talk) 18:02, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "instead of the brown or black hair typical of chimpanzees and gorillas" Only stated in into, not sure it is necessary.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 18:02, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Instead, the intro could devote more words to physical features, not only their red hair and flanges is mentioned, but their long arms etc. are also notable.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 18:02, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "including the largest known primate, Gigantopithecus blacki." Not sure if this is necessary for the intro here, the subject is the genus, not the subfamily. It would be more relevant to devote the space to something about their own discovery, etymology, etc.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 18:02, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "considered to be critically endangered" To be is unnecessary.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 18:02, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - nice article and quick responses, which is lucky since I'm going away on vacation tomorrow. FunkMonk (talk) 18:07, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

HaEr48 (support) edit

The article is in a good shape, thank you for your work. Some comments and suggestions:

  • The locals originally used the name to refer to actual forest-dwelling people, while the ape was called mawas. The locals of where? The Malay-speaking world is quite large, and Sumatra and Borneo—where the orangutans live—are two different islands
It doesn't say, but it should be obvious that "local" means near the orangutans. LittleJerry (talk) 12:37, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but is it in Sumatra or Borneo? HaEr48 (talk) 00:31, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't say. LittleJerry (talk) 01:10, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The source is called "Malay words and Malay things" so I would say it's safe to assume it's in Malay, and glosbe.com and google translate confirm this   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:13, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Dunkleosteus77 that is not a safe assumption, Malay served as a lingua franca over a vast area for a significant amount of time, and there was significant local variation. A word from 1700 could come from anywhere. Even today both countries have a form of Malay as their official language. CMD (talk) 11:56, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This recent paper indicates mawas (sometimes maias) is used throughout their range. This source clearly evidences the term was in use in Sumatra in the 1960s. CMD (talk) 12:04, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your first source says that Malay-speaking people only used mawas or maias before the mid 19th century, and I don't get how the 2nd source is relevant to anything   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  12:50, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The issue in question is which locals originally used to refer to orangutans as mawas. Does the first source not provide a potential answer to this? The second source I mostly included as an instance where mawas was used in English in a reflection of local use. CMD (talk) 13:00, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I got confused, I thought you were talking about the word mawas instead of orangutan   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  13:38, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think Chipmunkdavis's first link above is a really good find. Especially, the discussion in page 2 about how "orang utan" was first attested in Malay nnly to refer to a western word, and not as an indigenous name. I've always assumed that it was an indigenous name (after all, it is the current name in Malaysia and Indonesia, and "orang" and "hutan" clearly have Malay etymologies). Because we're discussing etymologies anyway, I think it is important that this is included in the article. HaEr48 (talk) 15:21, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I will get to this. I requested a copy. LittleJerry (talk) 16:17, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
HaEr48 done. LittleJerry (talk) 17:39, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I added this, which was what I was trying to suggest, would appreciate your opinion LittleJerry and Chipmunkdavis on whether this is significant and appropriate. HaEr48 (talk) 01:19, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think may may have to avoid this since other sources state that "orangutan" was used by the people to refer to actual forest-dwelling humans. LittleJerry (talk) 01:41, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@LittleJerry: I don't think that's contrary to the fact that the word (referring to the animal) is borrowed from Western languages? HaEr48 (talk) 01:51, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is not contrary. "Orang" is still part of current terms for indigenous people. CMD (talk) 03:04, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I guess its fine then. HaEr48 can you finish the review? LittleJerry (talk) 12:01, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • published his account of Malaysia's wildlife: the Malay Archipelago's wildlife? The subject of the study appears to be the archipelago, which is much bigger than Malaysia; also, only a tiny part of the orangutan's range is in Malaysia.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 12:37, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • consisting of teeth ascribed to P. weidenreichi: P. weidenreichi has not been introduced.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 12:37, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Israfil and colleagues (2011) estimated that the Sumatran and Borean species diverged 2.9 to 4.9 mya: can we say what type of studies/evidence is used in this study? As opposed to the genome study mentioned in the next sentence. Same with the 2017 study.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 12:37, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • males develop a large sagittal crest and large cheek flaps: mentioned that the flaps are the same as the "flanges"? This is the first mention in the body
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 12:38, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it possible to add an arrow/circle to an image showing in order to show precisely which is the flange? Even with the flanged : unflanged comparison it is not obvious to me.
No. LittleJerry (talk) 12:38, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? Seems it will be useful for illustration, and needs only minimal effort. HaEr48 (talk) 00:31, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what you mean by adding in an arrow. I can't just upload an image with an arrow on it. I don't see how one can't notice the cheek flaps. LittleJerry (talk) 01:10, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The flange is just the oversized cheeks which make the face look like a giant circle, as opposed to unflanged individual whose faces aren't that wide   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:17, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • and secondary old growth forest: The article on old-growth forest says it is also called "primary forest", while there is also a secondary forest article which seems opposed to it – can you clarify or link which one is meant by "secondary old growth forest"?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 12:52, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • the climber species: Link "climber"?
Done. LittleJerry (talk)
  • Adult males dominate sub-adult males: In what sense do they get dominated? Is there a good link?
Done. LittleJerry (talk)
  • Females do most of the caring and socialising of the young: Is it possible to explain how the young gets "socialised"?
It already talks about "buddy travel". LittleJerry (talk) 12:58, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nesting: Does the nest get constructed each day/night, or does it last for a long time?
Each day/night. LittleJerry (talk) 12:58, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bonnie, an orangutan at the National Zoo: Maybe mention which country's National Zoo this is?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 12:58, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Argentina ruled that an orangutan: a court in Argentina? Or, could the court be named?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 13:02, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Status and threats. In the table, suggest adding "Malaysia" next to Sabah and Sarawak, and Indonesia next to East, Central, and West Kalimantan, so that readers know the relative distribution between these two countries.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 13:02, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
HaEr48, all done. LittleJerry (talk) 11:30, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice work, and my feedback has been addressed. HaEr48 (talk) 20:33, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Dunkleosteus77 edit

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:11, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:11, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to this review of Gigantopithecus literature, it is not reported from India and dates back to only 2 mya extending to 300 kya. I think the source is referring to Indopithecus which was split off. Gigantopithecus is also only confidently known from China, with potential occurrences in Vietnam, Thailand, and Indonesia (the Indonesian one doesn't seem to have gotten much attention) but these could possibly belong to Pongo. So if you're gonna include Vietnam, you might as say the other 2   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:06, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:11, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:24, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:24, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That complicates things since the 2011 study also finds the split between GAs and gibbons at 24.1 and 19.7 mya. The two different splits overlap some anyway.LittleJerry (talk) 00:21, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You may wanna check if "As in all Old World Primates, orangutan hands are similar to those of humans" should actually exclude New World Primates or if it should be switched to just "primates"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:06, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:24, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The way you juxtaposed it, you seem to suggest that humans have a drastically short thumb and have equally curved phalanges as orangutans   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:06, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:24, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can't just keep adding everything. This page is not a dumping ground. LittleJerry (talk) 23:24, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You can't just arbitrarily mention 1 plant and on top of that present it as if it's the only plant orangutans are documented to use, especially if the total number of plants is 2, and all you have to do is change "plants of the genus Commelina" → "plants of the genus Commelina as well as Dracaena cantleyi"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:41, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:49, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to this, "Orangutans have the most prolonged nursing period of any mammal, with the cessation of suckling (weaning) estimated to occur at 6 to 8 years of age in the wild."   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:06, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weaning is already mentioned. LittleJerry (talk) 23:32, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
the article says they're weaned at 4   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:36, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:05, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Trivial. That has been recorded in a ton of species and has its own article. Someone else can add it if they wish but I don't see why it would be important for FA. LittleJerry (talk) 23:24, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think you severely underestimate how well known homesexual activity in animals is among the general population   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:39, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not. I don't see the need to mention it. There's already an article on the subject. LittleJerry (talk) 23:46, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 22:09, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They are active at day and sleep at night. Its not that complicated. LittleJerry (talk) 00:07, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Experiments have also suggested that orangutans can communicate about things that are not present, mother orangutans remain silent in the presence of a perceived threat but produce an alarm call to their offspring when the threat is out of sight." I'm not really getting the significance to intelligence. Don't a lot of animals have an all clear signal when the predator leaves? Also, why would the mother make an all clear signal to the offspring? Is the offspring hiding somewhere?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:06, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The offspring is with them. LittleJerry (talk) 23:32, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If the offspring is with her, why would she be producing an alarm call? Why is she signaling danger after the danger is already gone?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:09, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So it will associate what they saw with danger. And it isn't a all-clear call. Its a delayed alarm call. LittleJerry (talk) 11:25, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's some good clarifying information to put down that it's for teaching purposes   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:01, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 16:23, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the image caption in Tool use and culture, instead of drawing attention to the precision grip, you should draw attention to tool use   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:06, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:32, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
yes. LittleJerry (talk) 23:51, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
you should specifically state that   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:59, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well they're any natural material they could find. LittleJerry (talk) 00:04, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
leaves? bones? sticky sap? roots? pits?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:13, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 11:20, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tools use with the mouth. LittleJerry (talk) 23:32, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:51, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No. LittleJerry (talk) 23:51, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Then what specifically were the cultural differences?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:58, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Material. LittleJerry (talk) 00:07, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:04, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:44, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:44, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You should say that Galdikas was funded by Leakey so Camp Leakey isn't just hanging there   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:23, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "or (in the case of P. tapanuliensis) a more recent, report" recent is a relative term. You should use specific years if you're really trying to emphasize the difference in publication times   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:06, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:44, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know of it, but I don't see the need to keep mentioning different genera.
You mention every other pongine except Indopithecus so I don't really see the reason to exclude this in particular when you've included all the others   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:46, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well I have mentioned the ones mentioned in my book. So its not arbitrary. Ankarapithecus is another member of Pongine. LittleJerry (talk) 00:21, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ankarapithecus is problematic and is also argued to be a dryopithecine here. Since your book gave Gigantopithecus evolving 5 mya instead of 2 mya, I'm guessing your book including Indopithecus with Gigantopithecus   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:07, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
When you present something in a listing format as you did here, what you're telling the reader (whether you like it or not) is that this is a complete list and there are no other pongines, and considering this is such an easy fix I don't understand why you're blocking   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:16, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Because having to dig up a source that mentions its date range and location is an unneeded effort. Especially if you have no access. I don't see the need to have to dig up a source on Indopithecus when it is not the subject of the article. You can add it if you wish. LittleJerry (talk) 20:05, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get why you vehemently refuse simple and unobtrusive comments that take 5 minutes of googling. I wasn't asking you to add an entire section, just a single part of a sentence. Anyways, I've added it   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:27, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have different ideas on what's unnecessary and what's not. Other reviewers, what do you think about the inclusion of zoopharmacognosy, Indopithecus, and homosexual behavior?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:07, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tag them; FunkMonk, HaEr48. LittleJerry (talk) 11:37, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know enough about the subject matter to have a strong opinion on any of these, but if as Dunkleosteus77 said there are only two plants with that purpose, I think it makes sense to include both rather than arbitrarily including one. HaEr48 (talk) 15:26, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Now that I'm actually reading the source, it specifically says "This plant [Dracaena cantleyi] was previously misidentified as Commelina sp. in 2008" and the 2008 source is the one used in this article   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:07, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added then. The other two to me are tedious demands. You can add them yourself if you wish but can we please move on from them? LittleJerry (talk) 16:14, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that if we present a list of something (extinct relatives or plants), we should either make them very short and general, or make them complete, instead of arbitrarily missing the mark by one taxon or so. As for homosexuality, since it is a very notable subject when it comes to for example bonobos, I wonder why it shouldn't be included here too. FunkMonk (talk) 20:30, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I included the ones listed in my book. And not all apes display homosexual behavior as extensively as bonobos. LittleJerry (talk) 20:36, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still think there's a little bit more to add on sexual behavior. You've underscored how high forced copulation rates in orangutans are compared to most other mammals, and you don't have much of anything on female sexual behavior (this article talks a lot about female choice)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:57, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I already mentioned female choice "While both strategies can be successful, females prefer to mate with flanged males and seek their company for protection. However, in some areas females prefer unflanged males during times of instability and do not resist copulations.". LittleJerry (talk) 17:44, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You should specify that "While both strategies can be successful" this is for males, and that not resisting during times of instability (as well as after conception) is a paternity confusion behavior as an infanticide avoidance strategy, that it's suggested that females use facultative association to reduce the risk of contraception with an unflanged male, and that females can attempt to resist forced copulation   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:09, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 18:22, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Females will mate with unflanged males outside of ovulation" it's probably more accurate to say "will not resist copulation"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:13, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 19:47, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dunkleosteus77 everything else has been added. LittleJerry (talk) 22:10, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dunkleosteus77? HaEr48? Chipmunkdavis? LittleJerry (talk) 00:25, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note edit

Has there been a source review? If not, please add it to Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Image and source check requests. --Ealdgyth (talk) 14:07, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ealdgyth what kind of review? Chipmunkdavis looked at source formating. LittleJerry (talk) 17:06, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I took a look, but I think a full confirmation is best left to an experienced FA hand. CMD (talk) 12:22, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have to look at every source, just some random ones that you can access. Like two or three. LittleJerry (talk) 12:37, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, no, a good source review looks at the reliability of all the sources, not just "some random ones" or "two or three". --Ealdgyth (talk) 12:40, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think it got confused with a spot-check, maybe. FunkMonk (talk) 12:53, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ealdgyth if its not a spotcheck then CMD already did a review of both formatting and source quality. LittleJerry (talk) 12:55, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think given Chipmunkdavis' statement above that it might be best if there was a second look at the quality of sources and an evaluation of them against the FA criteria. --Ealdgyth (talk) 13:14, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria could you do a source reliability check? LittleJerry (talk) 18:35, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • FN1 is misformatted. Ditto FN2, FN6. FNs 11 through 13 can be models for what these should look like.
  • Dictionaries are works and should be italicized. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:39, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can't italicize them. LittleJerry (talk) 11:00, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You can, you'd just need to use a different parameter for them other than |publisher=. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:10, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 12:42, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in whether you include publication locations
  • Fn20: date doesn't match source
  • How does FN42 meet WP:SCHOLARSHIP?
  • FN46: why not cite the original study?
Fine removed. LittleJerry (talk) 10:56, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent whether you format PLOS vs PLoS
  • FN70 should use work title USA Today and not the current |publisher=
What does this mean? LittleJerry (talk) 10:56, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A work title is a title of a larger publication like a newspaper or magazine. It's coded in the template using one of several available parameters, such as |website= or |newspaper=, which result in it being displayed italicized. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:10, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 12:42, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN95 should use publisher CNN.
  • Be consistent in whether authors are listed first or last name first
  • FN99 is missing website
  • Be consistent in whether book titles use sentence or title case
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 12:41, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN103 should use publisher PETA
  • FN104: The Telegraph is a work title. Ditto The Week, check for others
I don't know what you mean with these. What is "work title". LittleJerry (talk) 10:56, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 13:37, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN118 appears to be a children's book - why is this a high-quality reliable source? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:13, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed all LittleJerry (talk) 19:25, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ealdgyth? LittleJerry (talk) 15:00, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You need to get Nikkimaria to agree that the changes resolve their concerns. I can't know if they are or not until they weigh in. --Ealdgyth (talk) 16:51, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ealdgyth, Nikkimaria only responds when something isn't fixed. That they haven't replied means that everything's fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:22, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Replying: FN77 has an error in the author list, FN124 and 132 are still missing italics on website. Otherwise fixed. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:46, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed rest. LittleJerry (talk) 20:55, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 27 July 2020 [15].

Meghan Trainor edit

Nominator(s): NØ 05:44, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about American singer-songwriter Meghan Trainor, who is often erroneously thought of as an "overnight success" or "one-hit wonder". This article dispels these myths and depicts the long journey Trainor had to fame, including three independently released albums, a family band and writing for countless other artists. Special thanks to Ian Rose who waived off the usual two-week wait time for renomination, Buidhe who provided source and image reviews, and finally to Gerda Arendt and Calidum who have indicated their willingness to potentially comment on this FAC. This will be the last FAC for this article, regardless of the outcome. Once again, thank you to everyone mentioned. I will be happy to review other FACs should their nominators do the same here and ask for it.--NØ 05:44, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass

Per my previous image review. I do have a FAC open at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Partisan Congress riots/archive1 and would always appreciate feedback. (t · c) buidhe 05:53, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by buidhe edit

  • It's always best to attribute an opinion to who said it. For example, "were accused of anti-feminism" (by whom)?, "a critic (who?) stated", "drew criticism and was labeled as "sexist" and "anti-feminist"" (by whom?) etc.
  • Done for the first two. Though the criticism for the "Dear Future Husband" video was widespread, and as such cannot be attributed to one or two critics, so I've opted for "online critics". Both the refs used say something to that effect.
  • "Trainor has also been criticized for using a "blaccent" and African-American English." Again, attribute this to who made the criticism. Also, what is a "blaccent"? Neologisms should either not be used, or if necessary, explain briefly what they mean. In this case, it seems to be that she uses an African-American accent without being African American, which could be explained more clearly.
  • Done! Perhaps just saying African-American followed by the word "accent" will get the point across.
  • I'll have more to say later... (t · c) buidhe 05:53, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I eagerly await any more comments, and will make sure to drop something at your FAC within the next two days. Cheers.--NØ 06:51, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Trainor's family encouraged her to pursue her musical interests since she was 11"—is an odd thing to say, it begs the question of whether they were discoraging her earlier. It is verifiable in the source but I would just exclude the date, just saying that her family encouraged her.
  • "Following the release of Title, media outlets[which?] referred to her"
  • "The author has described Trainor's use of social media as "upbeat to goofy, with little soul baring or soapbox lecturing"" —I'm confused, who is the author?
  • Jada Yuan, from the previous sentence.
  • "Some critics[who?] have described Trainor as anti-feminist and said she seeks self-worth based on the opinions of men"
  • "As of October 2015, "All About That Bass" was the only debut single by any artist to accumulate a billion views on YouTube." Is there any way to verify if this is still true?
  • I can't think of any other debut single to do it, but can't find a more recent source confirming this either.

More to come... (t · c) buidhe 04:39, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for all your help with this article! All of the above is done.--NØ 07:54, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At a music conference in Nashville" when was this?
  • There's no date for the conference, but she signed with Big Yellow Dog in 2012 so it was probably the same year or a while before?
  • "She began her career as a songwriter-for-hire" more specifics on this would be beneficial. For instance, is it known what was the first song she sold, to whom, when?
  • Her first song released by another artist seems to be "In the Sun" by Aya, but there are no sources exactly confirming if this was the first. This bit was initially there in the article but was removed through a source review during its first FAC.
  • For comprehensiveness, I would add mention of the song, which is covered in the n-magazine source. Ideally the article should have at least one example of her songwriting for others. (t · c) buidhe 12:58, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done.
  • The criticism/reception is definitely better mixed in, I applaud this change.
  • "Trainor competed against singer Shania Twain in an episode of TBS's show Drop the Mic, which aired in January 2018" It's a competition show, is there any info on the result of the contest?
  • As Billboard states: "They decided both songstresses won the battle, and handed out two microphone shaped trophies.", so I'm not sure if this is noteworthy enough to add to the article.
  • I would add something just so readers aren't left wondering what the result was. (t · c) buidhe 12:58, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added!--NØ 13:10, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Source review
  • I checked several of the sources and did not find anything that was not supported.
  • Sources all look reliable for what they are cited for.
  • Note: There are some of the biographical details which in the cited sources are attributed as things that Trainor said about herself. However, this is probably allowable under WP:aboutself.
  • "Between the ages of 15 and 17, Trainor independently released three albums of material she had written, recorded, and performed." -> Source actually says "Between fifteen and seventeen, Meghan wrote, recorded, performed and self-produced three albums"—self-produced seems like an important detail here, I don't know enough industry jargon to say if it's synonymous with "independently released".
  • "and was released on January 9, 2015, garnering mixed critical reviews"— Metacritic is cited for the reception. It should be attributed (something like "At Metacritic, which assigns a weighted average score out of 100 to reviews from mainstream critics, the film received an average score of 59 based on 13 reviews, indicating "mixed or average reviews"." ripped from this essay)
  • Sentence ending with "... sold 11 million units worldwide" is overcited, I would suggest moving the citations closer to content per WP:Integrity or removing one of them. (t · c) buidhe 04:39, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Discography and Tours section: Per WP:LISTVERIFY, should be cited inline (t · c) buidhe 11:26, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • When such citations are already provided for mentions of albums/tours within article prose, they don't need to be cited again in separate "discography" or "tours" sections as those are just repeating prior text. Past experience tells me that one would only have to provide in-text citations in such sections for things not previously mentioned. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:18, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support — excellent use of summary style. Also, I applaud your motivation to persevere through two unsuccessful FACs. Third time's the charm! (t · c) buidhe 13:21, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by SNUGGUMS edit

Resolved comments
  • Is the "Unlikely Pop Star" bit really lead-worthy?
  • Removed.
  • When first mentioning Billboard Hot 100 in the lead and article body, specify that it's for the US as not all readers are familiar with chart names or where they represent (even though I personally am and know you are as well)
  • Done.
  • The phrasing of "reached number one on the Billboard Hot 100 chart and sold 11 million units worldwide, but drew criticism" gives a false impression that chart peaks are in any with what critics think about a song
  • Swapped "but" with "and".
  • In the lead, "debut major label" reads poorly, and it looks like this is trying to downplay how it overall is her fourth album. The type of label something is released under or whether its content is mainstream-oreinted is irrelevant when it comes to count, contrary to what certain people appear to think, and it unfortunately is also a common habit within the press to unfairly exclude albums on such a basis. That comes off as giving those records a middle finger by seemingly suggesting they aren't worthy of inclusion because of their nature/type of release.
  • I'm afraid referring to it as her "debut major-label studio album" was a decision taken after several controversial discussions and isn't something in my control. And after all these years, I'm still yet to find any reputed source referring to Title as her fourth album.
  • No genres for Thank You in the lead or the three pre-fame ones when they are for Title and Treat Myself?
  • Mentioned that they are acoustic. They weren't reviewed at all so genres aren't available.
  • "several" from "has received several awards and nominations" is an understatement
  • Agreed. Changed to "various" :D
  • "has taken up voice-acting roles" → "has had voice roles", and perhaps you could include film titles in the lead
  • Done.
  • Try not to have super-short paragraphs with only a sentence or two; it gives the text a choppy flow
  • Done.
  • Done.
  • Don't italicize tour names
  • Thanks for pointing that out. It must have been done during the GOCE c/e and I just missed it!
  • "early millennium-pop vibe" is also better for the page on No (Meghan Trainor song), and your use of a semi-colon to lead into a chart position incorrectly implies that genre is connected to it.
  • Done.
  • Only the earliest known release date of Thank You needs to be included, save the others for the album page
  • "The album garnered mixed critical reviews; it debuted at number three"..... again, charts are an entirely separate matter from reviews
  • Substituted with "and".
  • Lumping criticism of a subject into a separate section or subsection in their bio is frowned upon as that creates undue negative weight.
  • Having a bit of a hard time imagining how I'll work that into other sections, I'll look at some other FAs and get on it.
  • "In 2016, Trainor said she had never voted in a United States presidential election and did not intend to do so in the future; however, she said she preferred Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump in the 2016 election" is quite a mouthful! That should be divided into two sentences by turning the semi-colon into a period.
  • Done.
  • No need to include "Jewelers of America" in ref#2
  • Done.
  • Digital Spy shouldn't have italics, and while this is far from the weakest publication I've ever come across, I'd opt for something stronger if possible when trying to make this article top-notch
  • Will look for alternatives.
  • "Australiancharts" → "Australian Charts"
  • Done.
  • "charts.nz" should be "New Zealand Charts"
  • Done.
  • Done.
  • For the bundles in ref#46 and ref#124, I'd try to give a collective description for it like you do with the bundle in ref#170 (the "ASCAP Pop Music Awards" bit before each of its links)
  • Done.
  • "The Official UK Charts Company" → Official Charts Company
  • Done.
  • Spell out "ET Canada" as "Entertainment Tonight Canada"
  • Done.
  • I was aware of that while writing the article so hopefully there aren't any violations of that. I'll check again.

Overall, this article has improved quite a lot over time, and I do give props for that. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:16, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much, SNUGGUMS! How do you think it looks now?--NØ 07:54, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's getting closer to FA material. As for the above, this makes it pretty clear that Meghan released three albums prior to Title, so one could reasonably infer fourth from that as the routine math calculation of 3 + 1 = 4 per WP:CALC. Don't listen to how Epic Records pretty much said "fuck you" to the material made prior to her joining the label by removing those from circulation and trying to mislead people into thinking that Title is her first album. She isn't the first person to have albums wrongfully downplayed, with previous examples including Michael Jackson (his four albums with Motown before signing with Epic and releasing Off the Wall are often overlooked), Christina Aguilera (many unfairly exclude her Spanish-language album Mi Reflejo and Christmas album My Kind of Christmas, even when under RCA Records like all her other records), and Hilary Duff (many don't seem to factor in her Santa Claus Lane Christmas record, perhaps in part because of it being with Walt Disney Records instead of Hollywood Records like her next three albums or RCA like Breathe In. Breathe Out.) All of them coincidentally also signed with a Sony Music label at some point. For this article's lead, while I would prefer simply using "fourth" for Title, the least you could do is rearrange the phrasing so it reads as "major-label debut" instead of "debut major-label". The acoustic albums either way should be mentioned by name. On another note, it might be worth including how she initially met Daryl Sabara before they first started dating. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:18, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that sentiment. I personally really enjoy her independently released albums, especially Only 17. However, the first three albums were pulled from circulation, and then basically every source has referred to Title as her first (major-label?) album, Thank You her second and Treat Myself her third. There's also this Billboard article crediting Trainor as the "13th female artist with a debut No.1 song and album". So to call Title her "fourth studio album" would have to constitute original research on our part. Previous (very tedious) discussions also concluded against doing that, and it's a can of worms probably best left unopened. I have mentioned them in the lead and added information about Sabara as you asked, though.--NØ 13:59, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Though WP:CALC says that basic calculations don't count as original research, I do see what you mean with not wanting to open a can of worms given past debates. For now I guess we can settle by turning "debut major-label" into "major-label debut" (which reads somewhat better and conveys the same meaning). Epic Records is at least partially to blame for the discrepancy in album counts. In the meantime, I'll look through the article later for anything else that could be changed, and then either support or point out what else I would adjust. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:14, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • UPDATE here are more comments:
  • I think it's fair to add "television judge" to infobox and opening sentence given her work on The Four: Battle for Stardom along with The Voice UK
  • This only says "Marvin Gaye" premiered on radio "not too along ago" and doesn't give a specific release date (which actually was February 10, 2015)
  • Album pre-order details (as well as any exclusivity to music services) are better for their own articles
  • "released as the album's third single in August 2016; its music video" misuses the semi-colon when song and music video release dates are separate points
  • For "other artists' songs in 2016"..... "several" is an ambiguous term that's best avoided when specifics are known
  • There's a stray period after ref#17 in for the bit under "Public image and personal life" where one writer says Meghan "become a model of self-acceptance for kids across the globe". Under that section, it also feels repetitive to start two consecutive senteces with "In a _____ interview", and I'd add "initially" or "previously" right before "identify" within "did not identify as a feminist due to her mother's advice".
  • For the "discography" section, just spell out List of songs recorded by Meghan Trainor in full without trying to conceal parts of is title.
  • Unlink Entertainment Tonight Canada from ref#122 and Rolling Stone within ref#123. Billboard should be linked in ref#10 instead of ref#17. You've mistitled ref#141, which is actually "Why Is Meghan Trainor's 'All About That Bass' No. 1?"
  • I now can offer my support for this nomination. It's come a long way and now looks worthy of the gold star. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:50, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Calidum edit

  • In the early life section, I would suggest rephrasing Meghan Elizabeth Trainor was born...to Kelli and Gary Trainor, both of whom were jewelers. I find the phrase "were jewelers" to be ambiguous because it is unclear if her parents are deceased or if they no longer are jewelers, which is the case here.
  • Addressed.--NØ 02:41, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would suggest leaving "talent show" judge out of the first sentence all together, because it is not what she is mostly known for. I don't believe any of the musicians who judge The Voice, for example, reference it in their first sentence. Calidum 19:40, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • A question she was asked during the Zach Sang show just sprang to my mind; where Sang asks her about her role on The Voice UK and she exclaims "I got a sick job!". Other than that, I also see the opening sentence of Katy Perry using "television judge" and Christina Aguilera using "television personality". I will remove it if you feel strongly about it, though.
  • Added the year right after it. Could also mention that it was written by Frank Loesser but that may be too much detail?
  • "Her father stimulated her to explore every musical genre." Stimulate seems like a strange choice to use in this context. Encouraged would seem better. Calidum 19:52, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed to "wanted her to", Gerda pointed out "encouraged" was overused in this section.
  • My minor comments aside, I do believe this is ready for promotion. I'm really impressed put into this article to improve it. Calidum 19:52, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you so much, and I've replied to all the comments.--NØ 04:56, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Lee Vilenski edit

WikiCup participation notice Comments incoming. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:45, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Vilenski, still up for this? ;) NØ 11:04, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies:
  • I understand the confusion and changed it to talent show judge.
  • The Lady Gaga article uses "prominence", is that better in your opinion?
  • one on the US Billboard Hot 100 chart and sold 11 million units worldwide, and drew criticism for its lyrical content - Could we say "million copies" rather than units. This is quite a rolling sentence, could we reorder this to have a bit more of a pause before commenting on criticism. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:05, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done.
  • I'll Sing with You (2010), and Only 17 (2010) - could we merge that both were in that year? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:05, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done.
  • three studio albums with the label: Title (2015), Thank You (2016), and Treat Myself (2020), - considering you mention them by name later, could you maybe not mention them here, and instead link where is more suitable? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:05, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done.
  • I don't see how that's necessary so I changed it.
  • The 2014-15 section begins in 2013? Is it fair to call it "breakthrough" for the title album, when it's more to do with her first single? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:17, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is common practice in music articles, technically most artists break through with their debut single, but when the debut album yields several top 10 hits (4 in Trainor's case), the album title is better reflective of the section.
  • There's a number of OL in the article, but almost all are in the Influences section. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:17, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fixed this.
  • Done.
    • I'll do a bit more of a pass a bit later, but that's it for the first pass. If this is helpful, and you fancy a QPQ, I have a list now. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:17, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • No worries, and I replied to all of your comments. Best wishes.--NØ 03:34, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and support from Gerda edit

Thank you for the invitation. I have a bit of time, and will be back for more.

Lead

  • I'd structure the lead to have one paragraph mentioning her most notable works and then the awards. In a second paragraph, I'd begin with early age.
  • Also: I'd not end on jury work, but with the most notable awards.
    • Not sure if I did this right. Please have a look.
      • Well, the end is fine with me, the beginning now too detailed, and the details missing in the chronological order. Perhaps try just the albums, without songs (unless the song titles are better known than the albums), and without billboard, and put these details back in order. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:02, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Just want to make sure I've understood clearly, you mean I should remove all the songs from the lead except "All About That Bass", remove "and was ranked among the top 40 most successful artists of the 2010s by Billboard" and move the part about her independent albums back up again? I definitely disagree about removing the songs, as "No", "Like I'm Gonna Lose You" and "Lips Are Movin" are some of Trainor's biggest hits (top 10) and removing them will give a very incorrect impression of Trainor as a one-hit wonder. Honestly, I still kind of prefer how the lead looked here.
Nevermind, I think I got it. Were you asking for the lead to be structured like this?--NØ 09:10, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I like this, - actually the first section might mention also the two albums (just titles and years), to avoid one-hit-wonder-impressions, and a summary of awards, or one key award. Imagine a reader who has only 30 seconds, - what should they know about her? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:10, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1993

  • "both of whom are jewelers", - are her parents still jewelers? ... does it matter?
    • Probably not. Rephrased
  • Perhaps split the run-on from family encouragement to recording.
    • Done.
  • "and picked up music without formal training" - what does it mean, "picked up" in this context? ... or is it just me?
    • "Played" probably works better?
  • In three short paras, she's encouraged three times ;)
    • Substituted second and third usage of the word, will welcome any alternatives if these aren't good enough.

2009

  • First she enrolled, then released the album in 2009, no?
  • Changed order. But I think the sentence beginning with "Between the ages of 15 and 17" serves as a summary statement for the section and looks better as the first sentence. That phrase doesn't work as well after mentioning her Berklee enrollment.
  • Can we have some date for the Nashville conference?
    • Fan videos reveal it was sometime in March 2012, but they're obviously inadmissible as sources. No reporting on this from reputed sources.

I'll be back. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:47, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for replies so far, looking good. I hope to have some more time tomorrow. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:57, 14 July 2020 (UTC) ... or now:[reply]

2014

  • "her 12th on their own 21 Under 21 2014 list" - means nothing to something not familiar with these things.
  • Rephrased.
  • I'm used to subjects referred to by surname alone, so am surprised about Charlie Puth twice.
    • Done.
  • What happened to the announced surgery? ... and why August before July?
    • Added.

Will tackle Artistry tomorrow, I hope. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:26, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Influences

  • Impressive list of named people who influenced her, but imagine a reader who never heard of half of them. I also can't detect an order in the list. Actually I'd recommend to link here again, because we can't expect readers to read it all consecutively, and some may just want this section. I can imagine two ways of order, - simply alphabetical, - or grouped by kind of music, mentioning that kind. Ideal what be to say what exactly of Aretha Franklin influenced what in Traitor, at least for a few. Well, I haven't read further, and that may come. Also consider to trim the list a bit, - why have names without a link at all, which would mean nothing to me? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:38, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Trainor has a habit of saying random things like "The album is influenced by everything from my love for hip-hop to my love for Christina Aguilera", given that, we can't deduce what specifically about these artists influences her. I have, however, linked them all and arranged them alphabetically.

Style

  • "Trainor is a singer-songwriter." with four refs, - no surprise at this point, - let's assume that every reader read the first para of the lead. Looking forward to both aspects, singer, and songwriter.
    • Funnily this has been a huge controversy regarding this article, and has been discussed in depth over the years, resulting in two RfCs ([16], [17]). Given the circumstances, it's probably best to retain sources for this; and it won't look good to have three references after the first sentence of the article. What's your take?
      • My take is to stay away from controversies ;) ---GA
  • "hook-laden songwriting style" - what is that?
    • Would it suffice to link Hook (music)? No other way for me to elaborate this in the article without using original research.
      • yes, that helps ---GA
  • more names, and names only, which would make sense to people already knowing these people and their music, but too many to look up and and perhaps listen if you don't
    • Looking at some of the sources, the comparisons were based on their genres so I added them. Again it seems a bit impossible to elaborate beyond what the sources have said.
      • accepted ---GA
  • am I expected to know EDM?
    • No ;)
  • "She composes in a variety of genres", - even I remember that we heard that already, beginning of the same para ;)
    • Changed.
  • Half a sentence about her lyrics seems too little for the scope of this article. Sure, that's all copyrighted, but how about one line of example for each of the three topics, same for (later) dialect. Actually I could imagine voice and singing style first, then lyrics, then composition. Be inventive! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:38, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • No ready-made think-pieces were available about Trainor's lyrics, so I combined stuff from album reviews to create the section. Feel free to copy-edit it or change the order of sub-sections. Trainor's dialect has only really been covered by websites that have a liberal political bend, and are probably not FA-quality sources.--NØ 13:18, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • accepted, I guess I'll have to listen to find out more. - When I write about a song under copyright, I usually take some pieces and say something, translating, - that's not original research but similar to saying a flower is red on a painting. It would only become research if I assumed and showed as if fact that the red flower is a symbol of love. - but again, accepted. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:04, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Public image

  • "identify herself as a feminist" - wouldn't "identify as a feminist" suffice?
  • I'm a bit uneasy about the quotes in "did not identify as a feminist due to her mother's advice that she should not claim to be something if she "[does not] know what the word is". To my (limited) understanding of English, what is added in [] should rather be [did not], - or - perhaps even better - you could rephrase by saying "if she did not understand a phrase/term/word".

At this point, I am ready to support the article for FA, - take on board what you like. The sources look decent. I prefer them away from the prose, but that's a matter of style. Would you find a way to include her list of recordings in the infobox, like the awards? I'm not familiar with this infobox, only infobox person, where it would be |works=. A link high up in the lead might also be a good idea. - Thankyou for all you put into this, - would be the perfect TFA for 22 December 2023! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:34, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! This was truly a comprehensive review. I may have acted desperately to get you here, but you patently proved that it was worth it ;) —NØ 14:43, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Drive by comments from Aoba47 edit

I will unfortunately not have the time to do a full review on this article, but wonderful job as it has improved immensely since the last FAC. I would add a sentence about the recent Treat Myself deluxe edition and the "Make You Dance" single. I am also uncertain of splitting up the "Other ventures" section into two one-paragraph subsections. I have generally seen one-paragraph section discouraged so that is my reason for bringing it up. Aoba47 (talk) 01:22, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to comment, and thanks for the compliments. I added the sentence about the deluxe version. When it comes to merging the sub-sections in "Other ventures", I just can't picture that being helpful from a reader's perspective. Those are are quite different in meaning and nature, so hopefully that's understandable.--NØ 03:28, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the response. I still disagree about the "Other ventures" part, but that more or less boils down to a personal preference and is not a major issue. For clarification though, I was not proposing that the sub-sections be merged or the prose itself changed. I just did not find the sub-section headings necessary, but again, that is not really an issue and should not hold this nomination up from promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 03:45, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your support with this nomination.--NØ 15:25, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Aza24 edit

I had seen your past FAC nominations but failed to leave any comments. I must say I admire your persistence and am happy to give comments shortly! (Note I am not the best prose editor so my contents will mostly be on clarity, consistency, linking and things like that) Aza24 (talk) 21:01, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • The line "She rose to fame after signing with Epic Records in 2014 and releasing her debut single "All About That Bass", which reached number one on the US Billboard Hot 100 chart and sold 11 million units worldwide, and drew criticism for its lyrical content." Doesn't really make sense to me, would perhaps "but drew criticism..." work better?
  • No; such phrasing would incorrectly imply the song defied some non-existent connection between chart performance and what critics thought about something. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:27, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm honestly fine with either wording, going to let you two decide.
  • @SNUGGUMS: I was under the impression that it would be like saying "the song did really well evidence by this and this but was criticized because of this", but I see what you're saying. To my ears when I say that line out loud, having "and" twice doesn't flow well. Maybe it's just best to take out the criticism part, which is well addressed later in the article and makes more in sense in the lead of the article for the song itself (which it is of course already mentioned in). But of course this isn't a pressing enough issue to make me oppose or anything. 02:30, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "lyrical content" imo is also an odd choice of words; if I understand it correctly (which I may not) you mean to say that the meaning of the words drew criticism, but I feel like that' too general of a statement. Perhaps saying something such as "criticism for its portrayal of body image" (or something like that – I'm sure you would be better able to explain/word it than I) is more informative since otherwise the reader is left thinking "well what about the words?"
  • It was criticized for its lyric "go ahead and tell them skinny bitches that" as well as for themes of anti-feminism and skinny shaming. Mentioning any of those things in the lead would probably be too much detail.
  • Looking at other FA singers and performers infoboxes it looks like that for consistency:
    • "complete list" should be changed to "Full list" (make sure it's capitalized)
    • "vocals" (in the instruments section) should be capitalized as the first of the list of instruments
      • Both done.
  • The link to List of songs recorded by Meghan Trainor might make more sense under the "Trainor has released three studio albums with" rather than "she wrote, recorded, and produced"
  • Done.
  • Done.
  • Done.
  • Done. Although I've retained the commas since they make sense, imo.
  • Good catch, not sure why I took them out (the commas) in the above but they should definitely stay in
  • Fully agreed.
  • the line " "my future husband out there, wherever he is." " ends with the quote outside the period (every other time the quote is inside – as you can see, I am struggling to find things to comment on, good work!)
  • Fixed ;)
  • Take out "which is titled"
  • Done.
  • Likewise the other "entitled"/"titled" uses are kind of awkwardly phrased:
    • which replaced her identically titled EP --> which replaced her EP of the same name
    • writing a song entitled "Better When I'm Dancin'" --> writing the song "Better When I'm Dancin'"
    • released an EP titled The Love Train, which was promoted --> released an EP, The Love Train, which was promoted
      • All done.
  • James Brown is linked twice
  • Fixed.

Everything else looks good to me. Obviously these are super nitpicky comments so when they're resolved/addressed I'll be happy to support. Aza24 (talk) 22:20, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your comprehensive comments, Aza24. All addressed.--NØ 02:18, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good work here and best of luck with the nomination. Happy to support this article. Aza24 (talk) 02:30, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quite pleased with how this nomination went. Since this is quite far down the FAC queue now; @Ian Rose:, is there consensus for promotion?--NØ 14:25, 25 July 2020 (UTC) @WP:FAC coordinators: , may I know if there's anything else needed? This discussion seems to have accumulated unanimous support, more than most recently promoted articles got. Regards.--NØ 11:40, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 23 July 2020 [18].

Partisan Congress riots edit

Nominator(s): buidhe 00:42, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about anti-Jewish rioting in postwar Slovakia, primarily caused by former Slovak partisans at an official congress of the Union of Slovak Partisans, an anti-Nazi veterans' association. I would like to thank @Gog the Mild, Peacemaker67, and Vanamonde93: for their feedback and copyediting of the article. buidhe 00:42, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass edit

Nb, I intend to use these reviews to claim points in the WikiCup.

The sources used all appear to me to be reliable. The sources referred to seem to support the text cited, insofar as I have checked them. I found no unattributed close paraphrasing. I consider the sources to be current, as these things go. A reasonable mix of perspectives are represented. Everything that I would expect to be cited, is. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:46, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild edit

I copy edited this for GoCE and reviewed it at ACR. It looked pretty good both times. Let's see if I can find anything new to say.

  • "and political prisoners". Possibly you mean 'ex-political prisoners'?
    • Done
  • Is it worth mentioning whether "Colonel Rudolf Viktorín" was from the army, the police, or whatever?
    • Done
  • "the security agency erred in". Has this agency been previously mentioned?
    • Fixed
  • "The Czechoslovak police". Is "Czechoslovak" not redundant? If not, perhaps this could be explained? Elsewhere police are described as "police"; is there a distinction?
    • I was trying to link Czechoslovak police at first mention to avoid easter egging. Now moved up.
  • "According to the intelligence reports" I am not sure what the word "intelligence" is communicating here. Reports from security agencies?
    • Changed to "police report".
  • Caption: "17 Židovská Street, now Museum of Jewish Culture". Should that be '17 Židovská Street, now the Museum of Jewish Culture'?
    • Done
  • "a crowd described as mostly partisans". Is it known by whom?
    • Fixed
  • "a crowd reported to be 300 strong". Similarly.
    • Done
  • "people pretending to be partisans" → 'people pretending to be ex-partisans. or similar?
    • Done
  • "the difficulty of arresting armed persons". I think that the fact that the partisans were armed should be mentioned earier.
    • Done
  • "although this was soon called off". Which was called off: the suspension, or the idea of an executive order?
    • Clarified (the former)

Superb work. It reads even better than it did at ACR; you've been tweaking it. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:46, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for your review! I believe I've addressed everything. buidhe 18:55, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have indeed. Supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:29, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM edit

Following on from my Milhist ACR comments:

Lead
  • suggest "and other cities and towns in the autonomous Slovak region of Czechoslovakia between 1 and 6 August 1946"
    • Done
  • suggest "of businesses that had been Aryanized, or confiscated, from Jews by the wartime Axis client state known as the Slovak State,..." with links
    • Done
  • suggest "Rioting began on 1 August with the robbery of František Hoffmann's apartment. A national congress of former Slovak partisans was held in Bratislava on 2–4 August 1946, and many of the rioters were identified as former partisans. Rioting continued until 6 August."
    • Done
Body
  • suggest "by economic antisemitism, the stereotypical view of Jews as exploiters of poor Slovaks. National antisemitism strongly associated Jews with the Hungarian state and accused them of sympathizing with Hungarian national aims at the expense of Slovak ambitions."
    • Done
  • suggest "The Slovak State, a one-party state of the far-right clerofascist Hlinka's Slovak People's Party (HSĽS)" with links
    • Partly done, the clerical fascist label is rejected by the majority of historians
      • Really, could you detail this rejection? I easily found plenty of quality reliable sources that call it that. Examples include [19][20][21]. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:45, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ward says, "“Clerical fascist” became the preferred category for understanding him [Tiso]. Often describing a fusion between fascism and religious politics, it has been used by scholars for decades. 157 In Stalinist Czechoslovakia, however, it justified the persecution of Catholics and Ľudáks. The term “clerofascism,” a variant, became pejorative. The postwar dean of Slovak historians, Ľubomír Lipták, likened it to “Judeo-bolshevism,” which also aimed “to compromise one [component] with the other and both mutually.” (Priest, Politician, Collaborator p. 267) Elsewhere Ward writes that "clerical fascist" is a "Communist reduction" and that "I take issue in my conclusion with the concepts of “clerical fascist” and “conservative-authoritarian,” proposing instead a novel category that highlights the conflicted attitude toward revolution that typified politicians such as Tiso."
          • Why should their view take precedence over other academics? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:31, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • Ward wrote the #1 book in English about the Slovak State, linked above, whose reviews were almost unanimously positive. The idea that Slovak state was clerical fascist is rejected by most Slovak historians post-1990. The books you cited only mention the ideology of the Slovak State in passing, and their authors are not experts on the history of the Slovak State. The entire concept of clerical fascism is also very fuzzy as pointed out here. I just don't see how one could classify the Slovak State as clerical fascist in Wikipedia voice when it's a minority position among recent historians. (t · c) buidhe 04:33, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
              • It hasn't been shown that it is "a minority position among recent historians". Recently published books discussing Slovakian history, politics and religion use the term. I've already linked three, one from Cambridge UP (2016), one from SUNY Press (albeit 1998), and one from Routledge (2018). There are also others, like this one (2018), this one (already used in the article, 2013). In reviewing your articles on Slovakia I'm becoming concerned that you are giving undue weight to sources that take a particular stance on the status of the Slovak State and that you are failing to represent the academic consensus and compare and contrast when the academic sources differ on a topic. It is one reason I am not supporting the Holocaust in Slovakia article's promotion to FA, and I am thinking of opposing the promotion of this article for the same reason. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:52, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                • The books cited above include one which is philosophy/memoir and another which refers to "German, Hungarian and Slovak clero-fascist regimes" (I am not aware of many historians who consider Nazi Germany clerical fascist). More importantly, I just don't see how characterizing the Slovak State as clerical fascist helps the reader's understanding of this article subject, which is not about the Slovak State. Any discussion of this issue which adequately represenents the nuances and different perspectives, without overbroad characterizations in Wikipedia voice, would be undue in this article, so I think it should be dealt with elsewhere. (t · c) buidhe 05:09, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                • I have changed it to "far-right fascist", as I think that is adequately supported to say in Wikipedia voice. (t · c) buidhe 06:32, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • for "German-occupied Poland" link Occupation of Poland (1939–1945)
    • Done
  • suggest "and at least another 10,000 Jews were deported" as this was the second lot of deportations
    • Done
  • is there any info in sources as to why there were so many non-Bratislavan Jews in the city after the war?
    • Added a note, since Cichopek does not discuss this specifically with relation to Bratislava.
  • could "veterans of the Czechoslovak armies abroad" be linked to Czechoslovak government-in-exile?
    • Done
  • was there any particular strain of antisemitism amongst the partisans, or was it just general Slovak antisemitism?
    • Sources don't elucidate this question any more than I put in the third paragraph of the background section.
  • what does ÚSŽNO stand for?
    • Added
  • explain that the SRP represented non-religious Jews not covered by ÚSŽNO
    • Done
  • Topoľčany pogrom is duplinked
    • Fixed
  • suggest "The restitution law triggered a resurgence of popular anti-Jewish sentiment which led to the riots at the Partisan Congress." as the latter part of the sentence belongs in a later section
    • Not done, this section specifically discusses the events that precipitated the riots.
  • link Kapucínska Street, and I am just wondering, are these streets and squares named because they are in the former Jewish quarter, or what?
    • Yes, I will look for a source for that later.
      • Now done—note added to the map. (t · c) buidhe 21:49, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • place 2–4 August 1946→place between 2 and 4 August 1946
    • Done
  • Masariak? first name?
    • Not stated in either source
  • was František Hoffmann a Jew?
    • Not stated explicitly in the source
  • "a group including former partisans stopped passersby" where?
    • Source doesn't say, Cichopek gives the locations for the riots overall but not this particular incident.
  • link rabbi
    • Done
  • was Pavol Rybár a Jew and Ružena Dobrická a Slovak?
    • Strongly implied by the source, but would be WP:OR as it's not stated explicitly
  • 5,000 Kčs
    • done
  • supporters of the former Slovak People's PartyHSĽS regime
    • Done
  • "Winterstein criticized the police response, arguing that law enforcement tended to arrive late and release detained persons quickly, who then went on to make additional attacks.[k]" really needs to be properly footnoted, not rely on a footnote in a note
    • done
  • move link to Topoľčany to first mention
    • Done
  • Eeastern Slovakia

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:49, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks so much for your comments. (t · c) buidhe 21:49, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the link to News Agency of the Slovak Republic appropriate given the target org was only created in 1992? Also, was this state-controlled? If so, add.
  • is Interior Ministry Commissioner Michal Ferjencik the same as the commissioner of internal affairs of the autonomous Slovak government?
    • No, Ferjencik is a federal official—clarified.

That's me done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:57, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm supporting now. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:21, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from MaranoFan edit

I will be adding my comments here shortly. Though this isn't the type of topic I specialize in, the article looks great off a few glances. Which is a good sign that people who see it on the home page will like it too!---NØ 08:00, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The Jewish community numbered 4,500 in 1869 and expanded to its peak of 18,000 in 1940, 13 percent of the population" - There are a bunch of territories mentioned in the sentences right before, might be helpful to re-mention which country's population is being referred to.
    • Clarified that this refers to Pressburg/Bratislava
  • "There were no major incidents in Bratislava prior to the summer of 1946." - Here too, it might help to clarify what type of major incidents are being referred to, maybe "no major anti-Jewish incidents"?
    • Done
  • I'm not sure if the red link on Ján Beharka is necessary, a direct link to the CS article like Ján Beharka might work better.
    • I prefer not to do that because it could be a bit easter eggy to send readers to a page in a different article when they're expecting an enwiki article.
  • "In postwar Slovakia, anti-Jewish leaflets appeared regularly" - Where did they appear from? Might be better to write this in active voice if possible, like "In postwar Slovakia, [Insert creator's name] distributed anti-Jewish leaflets regularly".
    • The anti-Jewish leaflets were anonymous—their creators, if known, would have been prosecuted for disrupting public order. The sources don't try to speculate who the creators might have been.
  • If information is available on František Hoffmann's profession or religion, it may be helpful to use that to introduce him in the Riot section's opening sentence. Even just mentioning if he's Jewish will probably help readers understand the context better.
    • I would love to give more context, but it's just not there in the source, which expects you to just know that he is Jewish. There's not much I can do without breaching WP:NOR.
  • Apologies but there are several more red links in this section, is this common? I just usually see people trying to avoid red-linked terms in articles I work on.
    • I personally believe, per WP:REDLINK, redlinks can be helpful in stimulating article creation. There are many highly notable topics in Central European history that don't have articles in enwiki; I imagine this is much less true of the topics that you work on.
  • "Throughout the evening, small groups of rioters robbed apartments where Jews lived, on Kupeckého, Laurinská, Svoradova, and Židovská Streets" - I would perhaps reframe this as "Throughout the evening, small groups of rioters robbed Jewish residences, on Kupeckého, Laurinská, Svoradova, and Židovská Streets". In general, I prefer the term residence to "where [X] lived", but that's purely a matter of personal choice.
    • Done — thanks for the suggestion
  • "other anti-Jewish incidents occurred the same month" - This is the first sentence of a new paragraph so perhaps the month (August) should be re-introduced.
    • Done
  • "a band of ten to twenty partisans" - Two-digit numbers should preferably be expressed as numerals. Only spell out nine or lower.
    • According to MOS:NUMERAL, "integers greater than nine expressible in one or two words may be expressed either in numerals or in words". I personally prefer words in this case, numerals make it look more precise than it really is.
  • "Yelling "Hang the Jews!" and "Jews out!" they sacked the same Jewish kitchen that had been attacked two years previously" - Comma after the second quote.
    • Done

All in all, it is definitely a great, well-researched article, with alt texts, great pictures and vocabulary throughout. No major concerns other than the red links.--NØ 12:07, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks very much for your comments! (t · c) buidhe 12:29, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Happy to support - Learnt a lot from this article, with its accessibility and high quality prose it definitely represents some of Wikipedia's best work. Good luck!--NØ 12:46, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note edit

Have added this to the image review requests list. --Ealdgyth (talk) 14:18, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Ealdgyth: Thanks. Since this nom appears to be just waiting for image review, would it be possible to nominate another article? (t · c) buidhe 14:19, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, you're fine for another. Very odd to be waiting on the image and not the source review.. heh. --Ealdgyth (talk) 14:22, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image Review - pass edit

All images are appropriately licenced, positioned, captioned and alt texted. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:52, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 23 July 2020 [22].

2020 Masters (snooker) edit

Nominator(s): Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:01, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 2020 edition of the Masters, an invitational event for the 16 best snooker players in the world. Seven-time winner Ronnie O'Sullivan decided not to play, and was replaced by Ali Carter, who reached the final where he played Stuart Bingham. Bingham won the event 10-8, winning his second Triple Crown event, having won the world championship in 2015. He was the oldest winner of the event. The event was one of the best Masters event in recent history, with world champion Judd Trump scoring a century break in every frame he won. The tournament was one of the final ones before the break due to COVID-19. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:01, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Eddie891 edit

  • "; the remaining places were allocated according to the world rankings after the UK Championship in December 2019" based upon our rankings, wasn't Trump also ranked first according to the world rankings? So they would all have been allocated according to those rankings?
    • Yes - they were, however that's not how the seedings are chosen. It is defending champion 1, then the next 15 in the rankings. This has previously been players not ranked one in the world, and theoretically could be players not in the worlds top 16. I think it would be wrong to comment against this. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:59, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You say the O'Sullivan "ranked third, chose not to enter", but later say that he "pulled out of the event", implying (to me at least) that he was entered and then pulled out. What could be the reason for this?
    • So, the event is invitational, but there is some confusion as to if he RSVPed, or if WST thought he would just play. If he simply refused to enter, or if he was in the event and withdrew is up for debate, and is commented on later. Realistically the result is the same. Happy to change either way. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:59, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Perhaps you could add a mention about the confusion as a note to avoid confusing any readers such as myself? Eddie891 Talk Work 23:18, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The draw for the tournament" anywhere you could link for 'draw'?
    • draw doesn't really give a decent target. "Draw, the schedule of fixtures in a sports league" is the closest, but no article. There may be something in a glossary somewhere, but nothing at cuegloss. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:59, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Shortly before the 2020 Masters, organisers World Snooker were re-branded as the "World Snooker Tour"." reads oddly to me, probably my lack of common sense. Anyways, can you be more specific as to when the re-branding occurred?
    • Like the week before?
  • " the change in branding" which change? Both?
  • "The 2012 Masters champion Neil Robertson played UK Championship runner-up Stephen Maguire" do they have seeds? You also seem to largely omit seeds after this paragraph-- am I missing something?
    • Sure, I can add them throughout if you'd like, but I usually like to have one distingisher, such as X year champion, or X seed rather than both. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:59, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well I'd just want consistency. You say "Three-time Masters champion and fourth seed Mark Selby" and ". The 2019 UK champion and eighth seed Ding Junhui". I'd personally prefer champion and seed so people know both, but it's pretty much a matter of personal preference. Eddie891 Talk Work 23:18, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "During frame five of the match, referee Ben Williams was stung by a wasp when attempting to remove it from the table" this seems really trivial to me-- is it even worth mentioning?
    • it was a DYKhook. Can take or leave, but I usually leave these things in to be a bit topical. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:59, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "played world number 17 Ali Carter." you've mentioned Carter pretty often already, I doubt it's necessary to mention his rank (again)
  • "receive the Paul Hunter Trophy" why the italicization?
  • Are there viewership statistics?
    • I'd love to know if the BBC or Eurosport do indeed publish this - I would love to add it. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:59, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, a very nice article imo. Snooker will never make sense to me, but this article does! My comments are pretty subjective, please feel happy to discuss any/all further. I might comment again later... Best wishes, Eddie891 Talk Work 17:00, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Epicgenius edit

Also a placeholder. epicgenius (talk) 15:52, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • O'Sullivan was eligible to compete in the event, but chose not to participate; his entry was given to Ali Carter, who reached the final where he played Stuart Bingham. - saying "who... where..." is a bit strange as it's two clarifying phrases attached onto each other. I suggest "who reached the final and played Stuart Bingham there" or something similar.
  • with players who had won all three events wearing a crown on their playing waistcoats - also a bit strange in light of the previous phrase. I'd get rid of "with" and change "wearing" to "wore", e.g. "players who had won all three events wore a crown on their playing waistcoats". But this is optional. I think "playing waistcoats" is weird but I assume that's the proper phrase.
  • During this frame, he played a shot that BBC commentator Steve Davis described as "the most amazing shot in the history of snooker." - Not really a critique, but that Steve Davis?
  • In attempting to pot a red ball into the top right pocket, Maguire struck the cue ball with such force that the red leapt into the air after hitting the back of the pocket and landed on the table, but had so much backspin that it rolled back into the pocket; the cue ball jumped the pack of reds, hit the knuckle of the right middle pocket and went in-off in the bottom right pocket. - This is a pretty long sentence, and I suggest splitting it.
  • highest number of career century breaks - why not say "most century breaks"?
  • Perry missed a red allowing Murphy to clear the table for a 5–2 lead, winning the match in frame eight - first, should there be a comma after "missed a red", and second, should we put a conjunction before "winning the match in frame eight"? E.g. "Perry missed a red, allowing Murphy to clear the table for a 5–2 lead, thus winning the match in frame eight".
  • The winner of the match would receive the Paul Hunter Trophy - who is Hunter?
  • due to the 2019–20 Australian bushfires. - to help out with recovery from said bushfires?

That's it from me on prose; it seems to be a very well written article. I intend to claim this review for points in the WikiCup. You know why :P epicgenius (talk) 23:06, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from MaranoFan edit

  • In the first sentence of the Overview section, I would suggest adding snooker between "invitational tournament".
  • "Ali Carter, who was ranked 17th prior to the tournament" - Was 17th a global rank, a rank from a prior tournament? Might help to clarify this.
    • From the world rankings - it does say " the top-16 players from the snooker world rankings invited". Happy to change to "17th in the world rankings prior to the tournament" if you'd like. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:06, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "O'Sullivan had pulled out of the event for 'personal reasons', but O'Sullivan later commented" - Would substitute the second O'Sullivan with "he" to avoid repetition.
  • "Selby then won three consecutive frames to go into the lead for the first time" - Maybe "Selby then won three consecutive frames and took the lead for the first time" sounds a bit better, might just be me though.
  • "but O'Sullivan commentating for Eurosport said of Lisowski: "to lose six frames on the bounce, you can't do that. There's something seriously wrong in your game" - The fact that he was "commentating for Eurosport" might be unnecessary to mention in this sentence and disrupts the flow a bit.
    • The thing is - why is he making this comment? He's a player (and one that was supposed to play in the event), so clarifying him as working the event as a pundit seems relevant. Let me know what you think.Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:06, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Carter won the first frame with a break of 126, before Bingham took the next two frames" - "Claimed the next two frames" or "won the next two frames" might work better.
  • Good to see alt texts for all the images.

I will admit that as someone completely unfamiliar with this sport, it did contain some jargons I didn't know before, but they are appropriately wiki-linked at the first mention. The article is also well-researched and well demonstrated with lots of quality images. Found it a great read. Cheers.--NØ 16:04, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Good luck with this! And in case you have some time later and feel like it, I do have an active FAC which could use comments. Cheers.--NØ 18:35, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Naypta edit

n.b. I'm only leaving comments as this is my first FAC review per the FAQ; also, disclaimer that I know very little about snooker!

  • In winning the event, Bingham won £250,000 from a total prize pool of £725,000 - to me, reading this sentence reads as if the £725,000 would conceivably have been possible for him individually to win. It might be worth rephrasing to something like "A £725,000 total prize pool was available for the competitors; as the overall winner, Bingham won £250,000."
  • The week before the 2020 Masters, organisers World Snooker were re-branded as the "World Snooker Tour" - the infobox lists the organiser as WPBSA. Looking at the article for the WPBSA, it seems the one is a subsidiary of the other, but it's probably worth being internally consistent in terms of who's being branded the organiser.
    • Added World Snooker to the infobox. World Snooker is the subsidiary of the WPBSA. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:36, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • He later remarked that Lisowski was "flawless for two frames", but O'Sullivan commentating for Eurosport said of Lisowski: - the "he" here is slightly confusing, as four different names are mentioned in the previous two sentences; it might be better to change the pronoun to a definite name.
  • In frame eight, Carter played a roll-up to the yellow ball which was called as a foul by referee Desislava Bozhilova who deemed the cue ball not to have made contact with the object ball could probably do with some commas - "Carter played a roll-up to the yellow ball, which was called as a foul by referee Desislava Bozhilova, who deemed the cue ball not to have made contact with the object ball", perhaps?
  • Video replays of the event showed that the balls had not in fact made contact - I think the flow here could be improved by either replacing "in fact" with a suitable adverb like "actually", or by splitting the clause again - "had not, in fact, made contact".
  • Carter looked likely to lead 5–2, requiring three shots to win frame seven but missed a shot on the brown ball which Murphy won should read with commas, because the clauses aren't independently split at the moment; "Carter looked likely to lead 5–2, requiring three shots to win frame seven, but missed a shot on the brown ball, which Murphy won" is how I'd write it, but you could avoid that last comma - that's just personal preference.
  • which was briefly delayed by a "whoopee cushion" device being set off in the crowd - does "whoopee cushion" need quotes? Genuine question - it's neither explicitly requested nor prohibited in MOS:".
    • So it's down as a quote, because it was very likely it was a fart machine, rather than a whoopee cushion, but all RS call it a whoopee cushion. I have no preference. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:36, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Broadly, this looks good, but I'll leave that determination to those with far more experience than me Cheers! Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 09:38, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've covered the avobe Naypta, thanks for taking a look. If you could chuck an oppose/support on this if I've covered your concerns, I'd appreciate it. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:36, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note edit

I believe this needs an image and a source review? --Ealdgyth (talk) 14:05, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • That's right - I've added it to the list on WT:FAC; but just needs looking at. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:14, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Image review—pass

All images appear to be freely licensed. However, I think it would be beneficial to pick a lead image, since many readers do not read past the lead. (t · c) buidhe 14:24, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source Review - BennyOnTheLoose edit

Placeholder for the source review. I intend to claim Wikicup points for this review. (Note - I've made a handful of small edits to the article in the past.) BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:15, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've asterisked WPBSA/World Snooker sources. These appear to be used appropriately where alternatives would be difficult or perhaps impossible to find, and they are not used here to support controversial claims. "Usage" OK indicates that the source is used appropriately and that text is supported by the source. There is an open debate at WP:SNOOKER about reliability of sources - none of the sources used here are regarded as unreliable by consensus there.

I find the article to meet the relevant criteria:

  • "well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature; claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate;" - a range of appropriate sources for this type of article is utilised. I've read through the February 2020 issue of Snooker Scene, which covers the tournament in detail, and have no concerns about range or depth of the article here following that. (I did add one citation where the existing reference was to a video).
  • "consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes" - I ran a script to remove a couple of empty parameters. I can't see any pending issues.
So I'm happy to support. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:28, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  1. broadcast RS* OK, Usage OK
  2. bbc._Mast OK, Usage OK
  3. ronnie - see below.
  4. wst._O'Su - see below.
  5. snoo_Race RS* OK, Usage OK
  6. firstdraw - see below
  7. radi_Mast RS OK, Usage OK
  8. hitc_Snoo RS OK, Usage OK (I wasn't familiar with this source but it appears to be independent and with editorial oversight. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 18:21, 22 July 2020 (UTC))[reply]
  9. live_Cent RS* OK, Usage OK
  10. 2pMvO - see below.
  11. hYf7Y RS* OK, Usage OK
  12. OZuPY - see below.
  13. tc0Wd RS* OK, Usage OK
  14. 4eGXh RS* OK, Usage OK
  15. UQdE8 RS* OK, Usage OK
  16. rjrbG - see below under "Main Draw"
  17. Robertson/Maguire BBC RS OK, Usage OK
  18. tSJPo RS* OK, Usage OK
  19. spor_Mast RS OK, Usage OK
  20. asia_LIVE URL no longer available - fixed. OK BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 18:21, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  21. finalfirstround BBC RS OK, Usage OK
  22. Perry/Ding & Carter/Selby BBC RS OK, Usage OK (Page title has changed since being archived, not an issue. Has Perry as "world number 16" rather than "15th seed" but O'Sullivan's absence is covered in the text elsewhere.)
  23. Carter/Selby & Perry/Ding SL RS OK, Usage OK
  24. Robertson/Maguire SL RS OK, Usage OK
  25. x75Yt RS OK, Usage OK (video not available outside the UK)
  26. Trump/Murphy RS OK, Usage OK (verifies "flattering")
  27. EiEI6 RS OK, Usage OK
  28. euro_Snoo_HvhrC RS OK, Usage OK (OK for Bingham breaks; not OK for "Seeded fourth.." ?(see below))
  29. quarter day1 RS OK, Usage OK
  30. Bingham/Wilson BBC RS OK, Usage OK
  31. bbc quarter 1 RS OK, Usage OK
  32. snoo_AliC RS OK, Usage OK
  33. quarter3 RS OK, Usage OK
  34. live_Matc RS* OK, Usage OK
  35. bbc semi RS OK, Usage OK
  36. Semi2Broadcast - video is unavailable - fixed. Lee Vilenski the link works but the video there says unavailable. Additional source added. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:28, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Bingham/Carter live RS OK, Usage OK
  38. rte final - RSOK, Usage OK after change.
  39. wst._Bing RS* OK, Usage OK
  40. referee RS OK, Usage OK
  41. SL microscope RS OK, Usage OK
  42. snoo_TheM RS OK, Usage OK
  43. bbc final RS OK, Usage OK
  44. wst._Dafa RS OK, Usage OK
  45. whoopie cushion OK, Usage OK
  46. Final WST RS* OK, Usage OK

Article by sections

  • 0. Infobox & Lead - no sources used here, they are elsewhere - no issues
  • 1 Overview
  • 1.1 Prize fund - no issues
  • 2.1 First round
    • "Carter, 17th in the world rankings, had qualified for the event after world number three Ronnie O'Sullivan had chosen not to participate" is verified by the live version of **"Perry/Ding & Carter/Selby BBC" but not by the archived version from 12 Jan.- changed citation
    • "Robertson won the first four frames to lead 4–0 at the interval" is not in the cited source. "Robertson/Maguire SL" could be used -done
    • "above Neil Robertson" is not in the cited source. - removed - not all that important
    • "Seeded fourth, Higgins was the first higher-ranked player to win their first-round match and progress to the quarter-finals." is not verified by the live version of the cited source - sure, I'm not sure this one is such a biggie, and isn't a contentious item, considering we already mention what happened to the three players higher than him. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:25, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2.2 Quarter-finals - no issues.
  • 2.3 Semi-finals - no issues.
  • 2.4 Final
  • "RTE final" doesn't verify "played as a best-of-19 frames". "tc0Wd" could be used instead. - done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:25, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 3 Main draw / 3.1 Final
    • snooker.org ref archive link rjrbG is from before the final results and referee were included. the ref "referee" could be used here instead - I've just removed the archive Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:25, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 4 Century breaks - no issues.
  • 5 Broadcasting - no issues.
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) 23 July 2020 [23].

Computer Space edit

Nominator(s): PresN 03:57, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Following my recent successful FAC of Spacewar!, potentially the first real "video game", comes its spiritual successor: Computer Space, the nine-years-later first arcade video game and first commercial video game. It's not so important for what it is in and of itself—a junky game so stripped down from the Spacewar! clone it originally wanted to be as to be unrecognizable, that sold decently for the time but not great—but for what came from it. It launched Atari, proved video games could be successful as commercial products, gave a model for how video games could be consumer arcade machines instead of arcane research experiments, inspired multiple people to enter the industry it spawned (including one of the first black video game developers), and in one case inspired someone to develop a hardware vector graphics system and a game to run on it just because he thought the game was so bad compared to Spacewar!. Without Computer Space, it's possible that the arcade video game as a concept would have looked entirely different; and without its success leading to Atari existing and releasing Pong right as the Magnavox Odyssey home console launched, allowing the two to boost each other, the industry as a whole might have gotten off to a very different start. Kind of like this article, which I originally wrote in 2016, but never brought to FAC until now due to better sources only recently coming out. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 03:57, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support by GamerPro64

Gonna stake a claim here to get the ball rolling. Will take a closer look soon. GamerPro64 02:23, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reading through the article, I am satisfied by its prose and believe it meets the criteria for Featured Article. Support. GamerPro64 23:31, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Computer_Space_Gameplay.jpg: FUR is incomplete, although I'm not convinced what's being shown is creative enough to warrant copyright protection. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:44, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Filled in the other fields; it's my upload so I can't even blame the uploader. --PresN 03:16, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support by Namcokid47

Looked through the article, and I think it's great. A very fascinating and interesting read! This gets my support. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 00:05, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Indrian

As the reviewer of this article at GAN four years ago, I am happy to see this show up at FAC. I am making some copyedits as I go, but am bringing a few points here for the nominator to look at.

Gameplay
  • "A round has an adjustable time limit of 60 to 150 seconds, with a default of 90" - I believe this is adjustable by the operator via a dip switch or some such in the cabinet, yes? This should be clarified so the reader does not think the players themselves can select a time limit.
Development
  • "Unable to put the game idea out of his mind, however, Bushnell soon thought of a way to manipulate the video signal on the screen with hardware without a computer having to control it, and from there the pair came up with the idea of removing the computer altogether and building specialized hardware to handle everything for the game instead" - So I know we have a real problem here in that Computer Space has two creators who tell about fifty different stories between them, but I would pay some attention to the series of events that Bushnell outlined in his court depositions and described in the Smith book. In the depos, Bushnell claims they had a basic dot-generating system going running on an exerciser that simulated just enough of the Nova to make sure the custom hardware was functioning. He then prepared to order some Novas, but learned from another programmer that the game would not run properly on the Nova. He therefore decided to expand the exerciser to eliminate a need for the computer entirely. Bushnell is sometimes hard to take at his word, even under oath, but the fact that he was ready to order some Nova computers in January 1971 is proven by a copy of a letter he wrote, but did not send, to Data General to order some Nova computers. The ongoing dialogue with Data General is confirmed by a letter from the regional sales manager for Data General dated February 26, 1971, in which he apparently is wondering why Bushnell has not ordered any computers yet. I know a little of this makes it into the article a little further along, but the part about being in contact with a Data General salesman in early 1971 is not in here, nor is the part about the exerciser.
  • " By January 1971, the pair had built some basic hardware which could connect to a monitor," - As per above, this is true, but the sequence is off because Bushnell was still considering a Nova computer in January 1971. Admittedly, some of the timeline stuff gets really weird in here because Bushnell and Dabney's more recent recollections do not gel well with the depo. However, said recollections are based on forty-year-old memories, while the depo is supported by documentary evidence from the period in question.
  • "Nutting had been founded in 1967 on the basis of Computer Quiz" - Nutting was established in January 1966 per Smith with cite to an internal Nutting document.
Location Test and Release
  • "and that some of the construction was done by Steve Bristow" - Bristow himself denied doing any engineering or board layout work on Computer Space while Bushnell was at Nutting, and there is really no reason to doubt that. What Bristow did do, as he told Retro Gamer for its Making of Computer Space feature, is work on some of the prototype boards in early 1971 while Bushnell was still employed by Ampex.
  • "monitor they are projected on" - While not an incorrect use of the term "projected" per se, using the term here does conjure up images of a projection television system in which an image is being magnified by lenses and projected onto a surface. Using a different term would provide more clarity. It's also written in passive voice.
  • "The rudimentary algorithm constructed by Bushnell has the enemy ships" - "Has" is an imprecise verb here. We can do better.
  • "The rudimentary algorithm constructed by Bushnell has the enemy ships firing towards the quadrant of the screen that the player's rocket is in, rather than a more complicated tracking algorithm" - I am not sure why there is a comparison here. He used a simple algorithm, so we already understand its not a complex algorithm by that single statement. The article does not provide an expectation that he would have used a complex algorithm, so the "rather" part does not serve any real purpose.
Reception
  • "it was a disappointment to Nutting, who had been hoping for a large-scale success" - There is Bill Nutting the man, and Nutting Associates his company. Up until now, only Nutting Associates the company has appeared in the article; Bill is not mentioned at all. The pronoun here indicates you have shifted to talking about the man. The easiest way to fix it is probably just changing the "who" to a "which."
  • "The game had no further involvement from Bushnell or Dabney" - Passive voice.
  • "Ed Logg, who borrowed the control scheme for Asteroids" - It inspired more than the control scheme: as Lyle Rains told Retro Gamer, the Asteroids concept started as essentially combining the movement and physics of Computer Space with the "clear the screen" game play of Space Invaders.
  • Another important influence not menioned in the article is that Steve Bristow stated in the book Replay that his inspiration for Tank was wanting to redo Computer Space with simpler physics and easier controls.

Overall, this is a wonderful article, and I look forward to supporting after a few small edits are made. Indrian (talk) 20:17, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Indrian:
  • Gameplay: Adjusted to clarify that it's a setting the operator controls
  • Development: Rewrote/adjusted this section to handle the early 1971 issues. Should be better now! Also fixed the Nutting 1966 bit- I read that section of the book while I fixed up that section, you'd think I'd notice the obvious date mismatch.
  • Location Test and Release: Fixed the grammar and Bristow issues
  • Reception: Fixed grammar issues, expanded Logg bit and added Bristow; I wrote Tank as well so I'm surprised I forgot about that.
Thanks for reviewing (again) and the copyedits! --PresN 22:52, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose I really should Support this. Nicely done! Indrian (talk) 19:49, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note edit

I'd like to see a source review from someone outside the video game project, likewise a comprehensive review from someone outside the video games project, just so we're sure that it's clear to non-specialists. --Ealdgyth (talk) 14:50, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Nikkimaria: how is the source review looking? And we're still trying for an outside the video game reviewer for this..I'm putting it on the urgents list. --Ealdgyth (talk) 15:00, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not super-happy with the Starlog rationale but it's otherwise fine and I'm not going to oppose over that. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:47, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • The anchor for the Smith source differs between References and Sources
  • FN5: is this an authorized republication?
  • What makes Technologizer a high-quality reliable source?
  • Infolab is a publisher not a work
  • Our article on Cash Box identifies it as a trade magazine for the music industry - is that an accurate characterization? Similarly Starlog is identified as a science fiction magazine?
  • I haven't found a website or anything for Syzygy Press - is there any more information available about this publisher? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:30, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cash Box primarily functioned as a music trade, but because the jukebox was a big part of music and jukebox route operators also operated coin-operated amusements, each issue into the 1980s contained a “Coin Machine News” section that functioned as an amusement industry trade. After Billboard basically stopped covering amusements circa 1970, Cash Box and Vending Times were the only trades covering the coin-op amusement industry in the United States until Replay and Play Meter appeared in the middle of the 1970s. The founder of Replay had actually been the editor of the Coin Machine News section in Cash Box. Indrian (talk) 17:41, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria:
    • Fixed the anchor
    • unlinked ref 5 as I can't prove it's authorized
    • Technologizer is a tech site founded/run by Harry McCracken, the former chief editor of PC World, an editor for Time, and the current technology editor for Fast Company; it was for a couple years part of Time.com though it's now independent.
    • Fixed Infolab formatting
    • As Indrian said, Cash Box was a music industry trade magazine, but at the time of this game (aka the founding of the video game industry) it also covered the "arcade" industry due to its connection to jukeboxes, and therefore was the trade magazine for that as well.
      • What about Starlog? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:34, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Starlog is (was) a magazine focused on scifi entertainment; by 1983 it had been in publication for 7 years. I've added a They Create Worlds cite as it covers the same thing, but I want to leave the Starlog cite in as I think it's useful to have a source from 1983 saying the same thing as the 2019 source. --PresN 02:54, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know about Syzygy Press; I know that specific book is cited by a lot of other ones, such as They Create Worlds (used in the article), as well as The History of Visual Magic in Computers, Tempest: Geometries of Play, Breakout: How Atari 8-Bit Computers Defined a Generation, Adventure: The Atari 2600 at the Dawn of Console Gaming, and Troublemakers: Silicon Valley's Coming of Age, to name a few from different authors and publishers. --PresN 02:25, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is FN14 part of the same book or a different source? If the former suggest formatting it like that; if the latter, what makes it reliable? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:34, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • FN14 is not part of the book. It is a blog post crafted by one of the authors of the book, Marty Goldberg, describing his research into the computers available at Utah at the time Nolan Bushnell attended the university and his conclusion based on that research that Nolan Bushnell could not have seen the game Spacewar at the university in the mid-1960s. This is a key point of historical contention in the evolution of Computer Space specifically and video games generally. Mr. Goldberg is considered an expert on Atari who has been published in multiple reliable publications including the magazine Retro Gamer. He also co-authored an article for the online academic journal Kinephanos with Devin Monnens on the spread of Spacewar that references this research and this blog post, which was central to the writing of that article. Kinephanos is a proper academic journal with an editorial board and therefore should qualify as a reliable source. Goldberg's record should qualify his blog post as a situationally reliable self-published source. In this case, the source is used to illuminate Mr. Goldberg's own research methods and activities alongside his conclusions based on that research. As Mr. Goldberg should qualify as a subject-matter expert based on his prior publication history and the numerous cites to his self-published book in reliable published scholarly works, that should meet Wikipedia's requirements for a self-published source. If you have any other questions or concerns about the source, I would be happy to answer them to the best of my ability. Indrian (talk) 06:57, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • @Nikkimaria: +1 on what Indrian said; also responded to your other point. Sorry for taking so long. --PresN 02:54, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie edit

I'm copyediting as I read through; please revert anything you disagree with.

  • Although not as influential as Pong, Computer Space's release marked the ending of the early history of video games and the start of the commercial video game industry. These two thoughts seem unrelated to me -- I'm not sure why you're joining them with "although".
  • making it potentially the first video game to be available outside a single research institute: "potentially" is an odd choice of words -- wouldn't "probably" or "apparently" or "as far as is known" convey the intended meaning better?
  • The first commercial video game based on Spacewar! would not be released until Computer Space in 1971. Just a suggestion but given that Computer Space is the subject of the article, I think it would be more natural to put it first in the sentence: "Computer Space, which would not be released until 1971, was the first commercial video game based on Spacewar!"
  • Can you expand either the caption or the text next to it to clarify what the elements seen on the screen are?
  • The monochrome game has... :this made me think you were going to describe a colour version of the game. If you mean that the game was monochrome, I don't think we need that in the "Gameplay" section; it could be mentioned under "Development". It's implied under the description of the hyperspace feature later in any case.
  • though it can rotate at a constant rate without inertia: not sure what "without inertia" means here.
  • or two quarters if the machine is adjusted against the instruction manual's recommendations: seems odd -- any reason for that recommendation? Or do the sources not mention it?
    Striking, since that explains it. You could also drop "for optimal pricing" from the text and put in a note saying the manual recommended 1 quarter as the best price to attract customers; the expanded explanation wouldn't hurt but is too long to go inline. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:39, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The game displays distorted characters if the player or computer scores pass 9, and scores restart at 0 if they reach 16: so the distortion is a bug? And does the restart affect both sides -- e.g. if I am winning 15-3 and score a hit, does the score go to 0-3 or 0-0? And if it goes to 0-3 and time runs out do I then lose the game?
  • as he had been working on designing video processing and control circuits and power supplies: three "ing" endings in a row. How about: "as he had designed video processing and control circuits and power supplies"?
  • Further location tests found a less enthusiastic response from customers confused by the game mechanics and controls, and Syzygy hurriedly tried to adjust the game to be more understandable to players. This is interesting -- are there any details available on what customers found confusing and what changes they had to make?
    Your comments below are helpful; could some version of that be put in the article, perhaps in a note? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:39, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • as to whether Nutting took a handful or no orders at the show: doesn't seem the best phrasing. How about "as to whether Nutting took a handful of orders or none at the show"?
  • the design was initially contracted to Bushnell, but was either uncompleted or unused: the two-person game was never completed? Or Bushnell's design? I think it must be the latter but it should be clearer.
  • The sentence starting "It directly inspired..." is very long and hard to parse (and I think the word "interesting" is syntactically out of place). I think this needs to be broken up somehow.

Generally this is in pretty good shape; just a few points above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:33, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PresN: just making sure you saw this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:14, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Christie: Saw it, but wasn't able to get to it until now. I've done all of these in this diffset. To answer the questions (beyond just changing the article to answer them):
any reason for that recommendation? - the manual says that 1 quarter is a better price for attracting customers; it does not justify this claim.
are there any details available on what customers found confusing and what changes they had to make? - not with any detail, though the implication (based on retrospective commentary, so not based on this pre-release test) is pretty much "all of it" - players understood pressing a button to make things happen, but rotating a moving spaceship while firing missiles at a target was just way too much for people who had never played any sort of game like that and didn't have a mental framework for "video games" to start with. I forgot to change this sentence until now; it was too late to really change the game itself and if they made any changes they are unknown; they did expand the instructions placard on the game to give more instruction.
Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 16:23, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Struck most; looks like you missed one? And I had follow up on one other. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:39, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Christie: Sorry again for taking so long; tweaked the wording to try to make it clear that the scores resetting to 0 happen independently of each other, and really do go back to 0 more than just visually. Also added a note with a bit more specificity (and sources) than my off-the-cuff remarks above. --PresN 02:41, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The changes look good. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:16, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 20 July 2020 [24].

Ismail I of Granada edit

Nominator(s): HaEr48 (talk) 14:37, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the fifth Nasrid Sultan of Granada, following the first four whose articles have been reviewed in FAC (Muhammad I, II, III and Nasr). He took the throne after deposing his uncle Nasr in a civil war, which continued after his ascension as Nasr tried to retake the throne with help from their Christian neighbor Castile. Not only he repulsed repeated invasions from the larger Castile, he managed to snatch some border territories in a counter attack. He seemed destined for a successful rule, but he was murdered at the age of 46 by a relative. I've tried to find all relevant information about him, mostly about the geopolitical conflicts, domestic administration, background and legacy, and I hope it's ready for FA review. HaEr48 (talk) 14:37, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild edit

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

Re the intro, shouldn't that be 'the first four'?

I have done a little copy editing as I went. Shout if I have messed anything up.

  • "defeated the unpopular Nasr and he was proclaimed sultan". "he" → 'Ismail'.
    Done. HaEr48 (talk)
  • "Castile, who then secured". "who" → 'which'.
    Done. HaEr48 (talk)
  • "despite being surrounded by two larger neighbours" They didn't surround it. Maybe different phraseology? And a colon after "neighbours".
    Replaced with "located between" and added the colon. HaEr48 (talk)
  • "and Muhammad I, for instance, on other occasions" I don't think that you need "other". (Other than when?)
    Done. HaEr48 (talk)
  • "while Harvey rejected this explanation". "rejected " → 'rejects'.
    Done. HaEr48 (talk)
  • "and wrote that". "wrote" → 'writes'.
    Done. HaEr48 (talk)
  • "The historian Antonio Fernández-Puertas linked". "linked" → 'links'.
    Done. HaEr48 (talk)
  • "On the other hand, according to the Encyclopaedia of Islam's entry". Suggest deleting "On the other hand".
    Done. I added to emphasise that the timeline in EoI is different from the timeline from Vidal Castro described in the same paragraph, do you think it is not needed?
Personally, no. It's not as if it were a fundamental difference. I have tried to think of a way you could emphasise it, but I really think that it is better as it is.

HaEr48 (talk) 18:11, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:37, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Done, looking forward to working with you. HaEr48 (talk) 18:11, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise. Are you going to work your way through all of the Nasrids? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:30, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: I don't know. There are about 20 sultans so it's not going to be that that easy :) I'll probably keep doing it as long as it's still enjoyable. HaEr48 (talk) 22:49, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "his promise of guaranteeing". A guarantee is a promise. Suggest 'his guarantee of'.
    Done. HaEr48 (talk) 12:54, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the help of his relatives and servants to regain the throne" → 'to attempt to regain ...'.
    Done. HaEr48 (talk) 12:54, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "securing an agreement and support for a military campaign". Optional: delete "an agreement and".
    Done, you're right we don't have to say "agreement". HaEr48 (talk) 12:54, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "who also authorised the use of funds levied by the church" Maybe add 'to support the war'? (I assume that was the case?)
    Done, yes this is correct. HaEr48 (talk) 12:54, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Peter invaded Granadan territories in May 1319 and captured Tíscar on the 26th. Peter was joined by his co-regent, Infante John, and they advanced to Granada in June. Ismail's troops under Uthman ibn Abi al-Ula began engaging the invading army's rearguard on 25 June." Suggest mentioning that the Castilians had stopped advancing and were withdrawing, and that's why the Granadans were attacking their rearguard.
    Good point, I had missed that detail. Added now, as well as the number of troops on both sides which I found while re-reading the source. HaEr48 (talk) 12:54, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "killing and capturing the enemy as well as taking their property" This, IMO, doesn't read well. Maybe 'killing and capturing many Castilians and looting the camp' or similar?
    done ('killing and capturing many Castilians and looting the camp'). I was worried about saying "Castilians" too many times, but I guess it's better than saying "the enemy". HaEr48 (talk) 12:54, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and the thorough defeat of their forces ended the threat to Ismail's throne" I don't know what the sources say, but do you want to specify 'external threat', or Castilian threat'?
    Castilian threat. There was still Aragon (which was technically also in a crusade but actually didn't do anything significant at this point), which is explained later in the paragraph.
  • "Nasr's death eliminated his claim to Ismail's throne" This seems a bit of a statement of the obvious!
    Replaced by "eliminated a rival claim". The idea is that Ismail's rule is now uncontested. HaEr48 (talk) 12:54, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In which case can I suggest going with the explanation you have just given above? Eg 'Nasr's death meant that Ismail's rule was now uncontested and ...'.
Done. HaEr48 (talk) 02:50, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is his death covered before his domestic policy?
    Good point, reordered. HaEr48 (talk) 12:54, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I have. An excellent piece of work. Supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:52, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: thank you very much for your feedback and support. HaEr48 (talk) 18:58, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass edit

All images are free and appropriately referenced. buidhe 23:07, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Aza24 edit

Support: Based on my readthrough in GA and the final product there. - Aza24 (talk) 04:57, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from SnowFire edit

Nice work as usual.

The ensuing Battle of the Vega of Granada resulted in a complete Muslim victory. Both Peter and John died, apparently from natural causes, demoralising the Castilian troops whose remaining commanders began a disorderly retreat.

Is this O'Callaghan's eccentric opinion, or is there new scholarship on this? This appears to contradict other articles. Peter of Castile, Lord of Cameros says the Infantes "were killed in the ensuing rout" with a reference, and es:Pedro_de_Castilla (1290-1319)#Desastre de la Vega de Granada y muerte del infante Pedro (25 de junio de 1319) says:

Et el Infante Don Pedro metió mano á la espada por los acapdillar, et nunca pudo: et á golpes se tollió todo el cuerpo, et perdió la fabla, et cayó del caballo muerto en tierra.

Falling off a horse doesn't sound like "natural causes" to me.

Indeed, he fell off his horse, I was using "natural causes" more broadly, as in "not killed by the enemy". There seemed to be different versions of how John and Peter died, I was trying to avoid delving too much as this is Ismail's biography but I can see now the original passage can be misleading. Added more details now, please take a look. HaEr48 (talk) 15:17, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If it's too much irrelevant content feel free to scale it back, I just think we shouldn't say "natural causes" when at least one version of the story has Peter falling off the horse only after receiving wounds / blows first, which is enemy action. Even if it was an accident-in-combat, that's still functionally a combat fatality not natural causes. SnowFire (talk) 08:44, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It was the first recorded military use of cannon on the Iberian Peninsula

This is an impressive claim. Did the sources elaborate on how exactly the Granadans got the cannons? Build them themselves? Buy them? From who? How reliable is this? According to Cannon#Islamic_world, it calls this usage "vague" and only denotes it as a "a possible appearance in the Emirate of Granada by the 1320s and 1330s, though evidence is inconclusive." I can understand the historical skepticism here - is it possible that the word for cannon was used here, but was actually describing some earlier proto-artillery piece, such as Harvey apparently thinking it was Greek Fire instead? This does seem a little early for cannons, honestly. I think including either some more skepticism of the claim, or else explaining why these historians think the skeptics cited in the Cannon article (also a FA!) are overly suspicious.

Indeed, I initially found it curious and might be suspicious too, which was why I found it worth checking in various sources, and I added them in the footnote. I now expanded the footnote into its own section, explaining what each historian said. Basically we have Vidal Castro, O'Callaghan, and Harvey saying cannon, and Arié saying Greek fire. I think it's fair to treat Arié's opinion as the minority, and additionally her work (1973) is the oldest. Among these four, Harvey is only one to bother discussing both points of view, and he too decides to argue for cannon. HaEr48 (talk) 15:17, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think having a separate section to explicitly discuss this and the clashing historical views forward is a step forward, thanks. I'll buy that "this was really cannons" is the consensus among scholars of Granada, I just wonder if that's the consensus of scholars of cannons. If cannons didn't reach Iberia until decades later, it doesn't matter what sources seemingly indicate they were there earlier, similar to a hypothetical report of fixed-wing aircraft in the Napoleonic Wars from an otherwise trustworthy source; it's impossible. Cannon#Islamic_world cites at least some scholars arguing for a much later date of cannons reaching this far. Checking "The Gunpowder Age: China, Military Innovation, and the Rise of the West in World History" which the Cannon article cites...
In Iran and Central Asia, firm evidence of firearms emerges only in the late fourteenth century. In India the first clear references do not occur until around 1442. In the Middle East and other western Islamic areas, the earliest reliable references are from the 1360s or 1370s, although some evidence suggests that guns were present in Andalusia as early as the 1330s. Russian chronicles seem not to have reliable mentions of firearms until 1382. (...) We will probably never know precisely when or how guns arrived in Europe, but what is clear is that it had happened by the 1320s, which is when the first unambiguous references to guns appear in European sources. The most famous is an illustration found in an illuminated manuscript of 1326–1327: Walter de Milemete’s De Nobilitatibus, sapientii et prudentiis regum (Concerning the Majesty, Wisdom, and Prudence of Kings). It shows what is unmistakably a gun with a large arrow emerging from it. A man has lowered a long stick to the touchhole to light it off.
Hmm, so some form of proto-cannon might have been in Europe in the 1320s, although 1326 is right at the edge. Unsure whether the author using "1330s" is a typo or is referring to some other incident involving cannons in Andalusia a decade later. Anyway, I suppose I'm just rambling at this point: this source isn't sufficiently on-point as to not be a potential SYNTH violation, but it's a general issue with Wikipedia sometimes when skeptical sources are all on the general topic ("astrology doesn't work"), and only credulous sources talk about specific claims ("the power of the Scorpius constellation can cure cancer") - the historians saying "this didn't happen until decades later" need to actually talk more specifically about the alleged cases that it maybe happened earlier. So I suppose the new article content is fine as is, especially since the 1340s usage seems pretty uncontroversial and that would indicate that the above passage simply wasn't including Granada within the "Islamic world." SnowFire (talk) 08:44, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Something not in the article currently: while Ismail's issue are mentioned, I don't see any mention of his wife and/or mistresses. I know that the time period was not exactly very interested in women, but is there truly no record left of them, not even a name? (I know I've asked this on an earlier FAC, but worth checking again, maybe the story will be different for Ismail.) SnowFire (talk) 04:25, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed we have better luck for Ismail. Added this information now, in the #Family section. HaEr48 (talk) 15:17, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you SnowFire for the feedback, I have responded and adjusted the article accordingly. Please take a look and let me know what you think. HaEr48 (talk) 15:17, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the addition of the Family section. Support. SnowFire (talk) 08:44, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note edit

Looks like we just need a source review? --Ealdgyth (talk) 16:06, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ealdgyth: given where this review stands so far, may I have permission to start another nomination? HaEr48 (talk) 17:08, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Seems fine to me. --Ealdgyth (talk) 18:41, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Be consistent in whether you include publication locations
  • The two Diccionario Biográfico electrónico should be formatted the same. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:49, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Nikkimaria for the review. Done both your suggestions. HaEr48 (talk) 01:34, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 20 July 2020 [25].

William Edward Sanders edit

Nominator(s): Zawed (talk) 10:25, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about William Edward Sanders, a New Zealander who was awarded the Victoria Cross (VC) for his actions as the commander of a Q-ship during the First World War. Q-ships were merchant ships that acted as bait for U-boats which would approach on the surface but then be targeted by hidden guns. It was hazardous work and in this manner, he and his crew engaged U-boats on a number of occasions. He and his crew was killed in action in 1917. The article was put through the GA process in 2014 and then a Milhist A-Class review in 2018. I just found a new source and freshened up the article in preparation for FA. Thanks in advance to all those who stop by to provide feedback. Zawed (talk) 10:25, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass edit

  • File:HMS Prize Q-ship attacking U-93.jpg — Which of the PD-US conditions is met? It's not clear from the image description.
  • File:Ambrose McEvoy - Portrait of Lieutenant William Edward Sanders.jpg — My understanding is that if the author died in 1927, the work would not have been free on the URAA date. Is there any evidence that the work was publicly displayed before 1925?
  • Other images are free. buidhe 12:32, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Buidhe, unfortunately I don't know enough to correct the issues with those two images (both added by another editor after the A-Class review) so have removed and replaced with one that I think is OK. Zawed (talk) 23:01, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The image you added is good so I'm passing this review. Nice article! buidhe 23:03, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from AustralianRupert edit

Support: G'day, Zawed, I hope you are well. Thanks for your efforts with this article. I have a few comments/suggestions below: AustralianRupert (talk) 23:23, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • in the lead, suggest splitting the second paragraph at "Sanders was awarded the VC..."
  • He transferred to NZGSS Hinemoa in 1906 as an ordinary seaman. Hinemoa was a government steamer servicing lighthouses along the New Zealand coast and depots on offshore islands --> "In 1906, as an ordinary seaman, he transferred to NZGSS Hinemoa, a government steamer servicing lighthouses along the New Zealand coast and depots on offshore islands"
  • with the Craig Line: probably don't need both mentions of this
  • Once Sanders, now wounded, gave the order to fire: probably don't need "now wounded" as this has already been mentioned
  • During this engagement, Sanders: suggest using a different word to "engagement" here to vary the language with the previous sentence
  • At dawn it surfaced but no trace --> "At dawn on 14 August, D6 surfaced but no trace"?
All good here AustralianRupert, trust the same is true for you as well. Thanks for the comments, I have actioned these and my changes are here. I found another instance of close repetition of "engagement" so rephrased that one as well. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 05:56, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fairfax 1996 appears to be showing as a harvnb citation error in the References section (sorry, I missed this earlier). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:05, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That may be a hangover from when I originally cited the print version of Fairfax. I have deleted Fairfax from the references section as I now cite the online version. Does it still show up as an error? Zawed (talk) 07:45, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That seems to have done the trick. Added my support above. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:58, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild edit

An interesting looking character. I may do a little copy editing as I go; let me know if I mess anything up.

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

  • Link "master's" to Sea captain.
  • "and damaged his own ship" I am not sure that "own" adds anything here.
  • "the blame for which was placed on the master". Reading master (naval) I am not sure that it is the appropriate link - "the rank gradually fell out of use from around 1890". Maybe Sea captain?
  • Link Second mate.
  • "the first by the British in the war". The first what?


That's all. A first class piece of work. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:56, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild, thanks for the feedback, I have dealt with the above points. My edits are here. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 10:42, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM edit

I looked this over at Milhist ACR, and couldn't find much to quibble about there. On reading through again, I have some comments:

Lead
  • just a suggestion, but given he was of field rank, you could go with "Lieutenant Commander William Edward Sanders, VC, DSO (7 February 1883 – 14 August 1917)..." and add rank and postnoms to the top of the infobox
  • suggest "was a First World War [[List of New Zealand Victoria Cross recipients|New Zealand recipient]]"
  • the Victoria Cross isn't "the highest award for gallantry "in the face of the enemy" that can be awarded to British and Commonwealth forces." since the introduction of the separate VCs. Suggest "the highest award for gallantry "in the face of the enemy" that could be awarded to British and Commonwealth forces at the time."
  • for master's certificate, link Master (naval)
  • Done, but to the sea captain article. Turns out the Master link is not the most relevant. Zawed (talk) 09:04, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Body
  • for Takapuna School link Takapuna#Education
  • drop italics and replace with quotes in "He earned the nickname "Gunner Billy""
  • link cabin boy
  • "of the availability of the position, and he promptly applied"
  • link Union Company for Union Steam Ship Company
  • for India link British Raj
  • link Ordinary seaman
  • for the sailing ships, is there indication what types of ship they were? schooner, brigantine etc?
  • Have added for the Joseph Craig. Zawed (talk) 09:04, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • for SS Willochra link RMS Fort Victoria
  • After Sanders' repeated pleas
  • the Q-ship's guns would become operationalbe revealed and open fire, as they were always "operational"
  • could you add Prizes armament when she is described?
  • for "formally commissioned" link ship commissioning
  • from the U-boat's deck guns, as the Type 93 only had one 88 mm deck gun
  • "After 20 minutes of shelling, Prize appeared to the Germans to be sinking"
  • "in which Prize encountered the UC-35 on the surface"
  • link Oberleutnant
  • the captain of the UB-48
  • struck the Prize and exploded
  • link Milford Haven
  • is there something that can be added to the lead and body about the fact that his was the only naval Kiwi VC of the war and how many VCs were received by Kiwis during the war?
  • Have added a mention about being the only naval VC. I don't think I have seen other articles mention number of VCs awarded to personnel of a specific country so didn't mention that. Zawed (talk) 09:04, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • could something be added about the colour of the riband on his VC, even if it is a note?
  • suggest trimming the caption to "Victoria Cross & DSO awarded to Sanders" (no full stop as it is not a sentence)
  • the MID in the infobox is not mentioned in the body
  • Not sure where that came from! Deleted. Zawed (talk) 09:04, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • add [[Merchant Navy (United Kingdom)|Merchant Navy]] to the Service/branch in the infobox and increase the Years of service to 1915–1917 to take it into account

That's all I could find. Nice work as always! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:11, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Peacemaker67, thanks for the review and feedback. I have actioned your points above. Thanks again. Zawed (talk) 09:04, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, great work. Supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:06, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note edit

This needs a source review, and I'd really like to have a review from someone outside the milhist project just so we have some idea that it's comprehensible to non-specialists? --Ealdgyth (talk) 14:09, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If no one gets to it sooner, I can do it ... but it's behind a few others on my list. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:20, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ealdgyth:, with just a few minor niggles outstanding (below), the prose is competent and comprehensible to a non-MILHIST, non-sailor. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:46, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Everything addressed, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:39, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SG review edit

I promised to review another article first, but I glanced very briefly here and found some things to be addressed. The writing is competent and mostly concise. The last paragraph of the article has considerable text unsupported by the Teara source, so I will conduct a more thorough review when I finish the other. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:40, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retyping my notes now. Please pardon my piecemeal approach: a very big tree fell on me a few years back, and did not kill me, but left me with injuries so that I prefer browsing in a reclined position from an iPad, and limiting my sitting time at real computer to type. I see several of my scribbled notes have already been addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:24, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please review for WP:OVERLINKing; there have been considerable edits since I first looked, but I was uncertain that yacht needed to be linked at all, and it is linked twice. India does not need to be linked.
  • OOPS, sorry, now I see why British Raj, India is linked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:22, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't quite understand why removing it was necessary. It was originally linked twice, once in the lead and once in the body. It is my understanding that this is allowable. There are other linked terms in the lead that are also present in the body. Zawed (talk) 09:17, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I agree often with one link in the lead and another in the body on technical or jargon-laden articles, but yacht is not a word commonly understood to most English speakers. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:37, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Currently. (now fixed)
  • Sanders was "entitled to" other awards ... what happened ... does one not get them if dead, or did the other award supercede them, is this a military thing a layreader does not understand, or just me?
  • The reason for this phrasing is that these other medals are campaign medals (also known as service medals) that were issued after the war. So while he was entitled to them, he never received them since he was dead by then. The medals instead would have be forwarded to his next of kin. Zawed (talk) 09:17, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hopefully destroying the submarine ... not sure hopefully is an optimal word choice here ... how about ... guns would be revealed and open fire on the submarine.
  • 12-pounder gun (now linked-- done)
  • Mate’s certificate (now linked-- done)
  • Sylt ... managed to struggle back to the Sylt ... not knowing what "the Sylt" is, I guessed it may be another ship, faulty italics, had to click to discover that it was an island ... change to the island Sylt ???
  • saw to, found[26] (now removed)
  • becalmed ... not a sailor, not a word I understood even in context, had to look it up ... give us a bit more ?
  • Have added mention of a lack of wind for context. Zawed (talk) 09:44, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • a lookout spotted UB-48 ... to all of MILHIST (and even to regular FAC readers) it is apparent that UB-48 is German, but is that clear to a casual reader ... spell it out ???
  • Have clarified but in the following sentence. Zawed (talk) 10:16, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we know why Sanders opted not to follow the plan and used the ship guns instead of having the submarine torpedo? (Perhaps we don't know since he died, but do we have any idea ?)
  • Nothing to indicate why he didn't follow the plan, and the main source (Howard) doesn't speculate why. Zawed (talk) 10:16, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • use of ... were ... grammar ... was
  • I think I got all of these. Zawed (talk) 10:23, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • discreet versus discrete [27]
  • That was a typo, fixed.
  • Third para of early life needs disentangling ...
    • He joined Kapanui as a cabin boy. As regular Wikipedians and MILHIST editors, we guess Kapanui is a ship because it is italicized ... does the regular reader know that? The description of it as a ship is in the next sentence-- could be moved to first sentence?
    • The next two sentences (about the officer) gets entangled in pronouns ... which he is which.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:24, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've had a go at rephrasing the third paragraph to improve clarity, how does it read now? Zawed (talk) 10:16, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Medals and legacy
(All addressed now, but I synced the name in the lead with the name in the body). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:25, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are many memorials to Sanders ... editorializing ... let the facts speak for themselves.
  • "Best known memorial" ... not in source, editorializing.
  • Entire description of Sanders cup is not in source ... so I went looking for some mention, to try to determine if a stub could be created to indicate why this is "beat known" (indeed, if it meets notability and should be WP:RED), which led to this mess:
    • Javelin dinghy (Australasia) is an uncited mess that is mirrored at [28]
    • If Sanders Cup is so significant, and meets notability, could a stub be written? Otherwise, remove WP:RED and certainly remove mention of "best known" which is uncited ??
  • A stub/start class article could be written for it. I have come across it in another article on a New Zealand yachtie as well so will look to put together a cited article in the near future. Zawed (talk) 10:16, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Those are my notes so far; I will re-read the entire article after two other reviews I promised Ealdgyth. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:24, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looking good, I will re-read the entire article today. There may be one or two outstanding query above? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:25, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Continuing
  • Several memorials exist to Sanders' memory, including the Sanders Memorial Cup, too much memorial ... can the first memorial be changed to tribute or something else to vary the wording?
  • Entitled to ... query above ...
  • With his seafaring career to date spent working on steamships, Sanders decided to spend time ... spent, spend, can one be varied ?

Rest is all good, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:44, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • SandyGeorgia, I have finished this off. Responses above including a couple further up in the review. Zawed (talk) 09:44, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

- spotchecks not done

  • FN2 is missing publication date
  • FN18: title is incorrect, missing issue
  • Title fixed and issue number added. Zawed (talk) 06:12, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN46-47: given work title should be listed in |publisher=
  • I remember being unsure about work vs publisher when citing those two. Have put the museum as publisher. Zawed (talk) 06:12, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Updated the URL. Nikkimaria, thanks for the source review. Responded as per my comments. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 06:12, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 20 July 2020 [29].

Meteorological history of Hurricane Dorian edit

Nominator(s): NoahTalk 22:39, 7 June 2020 (UTC) and ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs}[reply]

This article is about the meteorological history of Hurricane Dorian. This is one of many articles written about the powerful storm that stalled over the Bahamas at peak intensity and made at least eight total landfalls. I have renominated it per the request of a few project members. NoahTalk 22:39, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

  • Images are all correctly licensed and appropriately sourced.
  • There are some issues with image layout. The first image sandwiches with the infobox, and the image captioned "Dorian over Grand Bahama on September 2 as viewed from the International Space Station" breaks the next section header for me. buidhe 04:09, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Buidhe: This likely means that your browser's width is significantly larger than mine. NoahTalk 10:41, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possibly, but featured articles should also follow the MOS for a variety of reasonable browser settings. buidhe 10:44, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some articles won't have leads large enough to avoid "sandwiching" the infobox. I believe this article to be one of those cases because it isn't particularly large. NoahTalk 20:25, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by JavaHurricane edit

Doing. JavaHurricane 09:33, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Having sorted out things, I am doing the review now. Sorry for the delay. JavaHurricane 03:47, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "With little change in intensity, Dorian made landfall over Barbados [...]". No reason to mention "with little change in intensity" as it has been mentioned previously that the intensification trend had ceased.
  • It said "all but ceased" as the intensification that did occur was very slow and only involved a pressure drop of a few mbar. NoahTalk 10:52, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At that time, composite radar showed that the system lacked a strong inner core." Add bolded.
  • The caption in the PR/VI image mentions "Tropical Storm Dorian" when in fact Dorian became a hurricane at 1530Z (which is almost the same time).
  • Unfortunately it is OR to assume it was a hurricane at that time even though we know it was. The NHC said 15:30 UTC, so that means we can't say it was a hurricane at 15:29:59 or before without adding OR. NoahTalk 10:52, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the mountainous terrain of the island disrupted the low-levels of the system." I'd use "low-level circulation" here, the formal term.
  • "landfalls in the Bahamas" and not "over" as there were multiple landfalls.
  • There is no need to mention that Dorian was the most powerful storm to impact the NW Bahamas as it was the strongest to ever make landfall.
  • Changed as it says in the Bahamas later in text. NoahTalk 10:52, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • An erroneous "After" survives in the first line of the Records section.

Looks good otherwise! JavaHurricane 05:05, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Hurricannehink edit

  • The lead should be split into three paragraphs, given how long the first one is. I suggest the first one stop at August 24 (formation).
Done. NoahTalk 21:01, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You should mention somewhere in the lead that the storm was in the Atlantic Ocean
Just changed the mention for the season. NoahTalk 21:01, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can notes 2 and 3 be combined? They're listed next to each other.
Done. NoahTalk 21:01, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Dorian originated from a westward-traveling tropical wave over a thousand miles east of the Windward Islands on August 24. " - the first paragraph of MH says "however, the system organized into a tropical depression at 06:00 UTC on August 24, while approximately 805 mi (1,295 km) east-southeast of Barbados". I know Barbados isn't technically part of the Windwards, but this could appear contradictory to the layman.
Changed the lead to state when it became a TD and a TS. I removed that bit about the windwards. NoahTalk 21:01, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As the wave traveled westward across the low latitudes of the Atlantic, it lost most of its convection before developing into a low-pressure area on August 22." - the "as" is ambiguous here whether it means "Because" or "While". Also, did the wave really develop *into* a LPA? Or did the LPA form along the wave? From my understanding of meteorology, the wave still exists when a LPA develops along it. I could be wrong though.
Fixed and did a minor mod for the second. NoahTalk 22:21, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the 2nd MH paragraph, I suggest linking "eye" on its first usage, not second
Fixed. NoahTalk 22:21, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Later in the day, a NOAA Hurricane Hunter aircraft reported the presence of concentric eyewalls, indicating that an eyewall replacement cycle had commenced. " - I suggest re-adding the date, since it's been several paragraphs since the last mention.
Done.. NoahTalk 22:21, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given the heightened media attention, is it worth mentioning the early forecasts of Dorian's track into Florida?
I would rather leave that in Dorian's preparations since there wasn't really a "track error" and large location changes here. NoahTalk 22:21, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did Dorian cross Prince Edward Island in Canada? Not sure if you could get a source saying that, but from the track it looks like it.
This shows that Dorian moved just east of the island. NoahTalk 22:21, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All in all, a good read, well-researched, and well-cited. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:46, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricanehink: I believe I have addressed your concerns. Let me know if there is anything else NoahTalk 22:21, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:02, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Airborne84 edit

Did a quick run-through. Reads nicely. Will return in a bit to finish. In the meantime, only one note below:

  • In the first section after the lede, wasn't sure what "a mid- to upper-level low" was, and the average reader probably won't either. Maybe put "(cold-core cyclone)" or a similar brief explanation afterward for the first use. Airborne84 (talk) 05:07, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Airborne84: Thanks! I have added your suggestion. Let me know if there is anything else. NoahTalk 21:54, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you add a citation to this note? "A major hurricane is one that ranks at Category 3 or higher on the Saffir–Simpson scale." Should be straightforward and it's probably available on various articles here already.
  • You use spaced en dashes vs unspaced em dashes to set off phrases in the article. Nothing wrong with that, but with varying browser widths among readers, a possibility exists that an en dash will appear at the beginning of a line, which WP:DASH prefers to avoid. I recommend replacing your normal spaced en dashes with the non-breaking en dash template {{snd}} or other options at WP:DASH throughout. I did a couple in the second paragraph of the lede as examples. Will look the same in the final markup, but prevent the potential catastrophe of en dashes at the beginning of lines. :)
The good news is with that level of detail I don't have much left for you as far as comments for the article. Airborne84 (talk) 01:24, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Airborne84: I think I took care of the citation and all the dashes that needed to be addressed. NoahTalk 01:42, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I won't second-guess Buidhe on the images, but the sources look good and the prose reads well. I also like the records section that appears to be above and beyond that of other FAs of this type. Well done. Airborne84 (talk) 04:18, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@WP:FAC coordinators: Should this be added to the urgents list to get another review? I know two usually isn't enough. I put in a request for a source review a while ago as well. NoahTalk 20:32, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note edit

Adding this to the urgents list... --Ealdgyth (talk) 15:29, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And it needs a source review... like so many others... --Ealdgyth (talk) 13:53, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ealdgyth: Did something happen? I notice an unusually large backlog. NoahTalk 00:39, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No idea but I may have to return to source reviews, which will slow down promotions ... which isn't good.. --Ealdgyth (talk) 00:49, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ealdgyth: The page really exploded since you commented here... and the list of needed SRs was obliterated. NoahTalk 15:20, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SG review (Support) edit

Reviewing June 22 version. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:12, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fixed everything above this comment. NoahTalk 19:47, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NBSP work needed, sample left, so we don't read Category
    5 and Category
    3 and Category
    4. It is OK to use NBSPs within wikilinks. You don't need NBSPs if the term occurs in a table or at the beginning of a sentence where it won't linebreak anyway. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:26, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:29, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Noah, you did more NBSPing than I care about ... the way I see it, Wikipedia software should solve the dates and not expect us to! I only asked for after Category, but you went all the way ;). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:49, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the Table in the Records section, could you add a footnote explaining that the quotes are because Hurricanes before Year X (?) were not named ?
  • I messed around with Template:Hurricane Dorian related to try to reduce the MOS:SANDWICH in the first section, resulting from the length of the infobox. What I did might not be optimal (you will want to change surely), but the problem needs to be addressed. I checked several computer/browser configurations, and my iPad is fine, but on others, the infobox is causing sandwiching with the first image in the first section. Template:Tourette syndrome might give you some configuration ideas ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:45, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would moving the images down to the second paragraph be a possible fix to this problem? NoahTalk
  • Yes, that would work ... I was just trying to help you find a solution to the broader problem, as this often happens. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:13, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, basics out of the way, looking now at prose:

  • The system organized into a tropical depression and later a tropical storm, both on August 24. Is it unusual for a storm to do both in one day? Should anything be said about that?
  • Not really unusual at all. It happens frequently if conditions are favorable. Some storms skip the depression phase altogether. The most recent example of this is the currently active TS Fay. NoahTalk 22:05, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The mountains of St. Lucia seriously disrupted Dorian's structure and caused the system's center to reform north of its previous location. I understand what this is saying, but am uncomfortable with mountains doing something active, noun-verb. How about ... Dorian's structure was seriously disrupted after encountering the mountains of St. Lucia, causing the system's center to reform north of its previous location"? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:51, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead has "relaxing shear", while vertical wind shear is linked later in the article. Are they the same thing? Link on first occurrence ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:52, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarified it was relaxing wind shear... Also, wind shear is linked at the start of that paragraph in the lead. NoahTalk 22:13, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Saffir–Simpson scale is not linked in the lead, but is linked later in the article-- link on first occurrence (yes, I realize it is linked in the infobox, but not all readers look at infobox, would prefer link in text). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:54, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Afterward, Dorian weakened steadily as it slowed nearly to a standstill on September 2, crossing Grand Bahama while doing so. Again, I see what it's saying, but this sentence is weird. On the one hand, slowed nearly to a standstill, but on the other hand, not standing still as it crossed the Grand Bahama. Some re-jigging to remove the apparent contradiction? I understand they are not mutually exclusive, but sentence could still confuse the general reader. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:56, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... was absorbed by a larger extratropical cyclone on September 9 ... do those have names? (Dumb question, but the layreader may think they should or do ?) Or add the word "unnamed" so we don't wonder?
  • Extratropical cyclones occur all the time across the world and are unnamed spare the European wind storms and the occasional winter nor'easter (the latter is unofficially named). NoahTalk 22:29, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems like stadium effect should be briefly defined here, so we don't have to click out to know what it is ... where the clouds of the eyewall curve outward from the surface with height.
  • Gave a brief explanation. NoahTalk 22:57, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Necessary to use "respectively", which twists the reader? How about instead recasting the sentence, easier to read ...
In the United States Virgin Islands, it made landfall over St. Croix at 15:30 UTC and St. Thomas at 18:00 UTC.
  • It would then cause issues with the part about it strengthening into a Cat 1 storm at the same time. NoahTalk 22:57, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • it broke numerous intensity records ... is this not worthy of mention in the lead? and slow forward motion near the Bahamas also set several records ...
  • Added this in as the second sentence. NoahTalk 22:57, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • With Dorian, 2019 became the fourth consecutive year – the most ever – to produce at least one Category 5 hurricane ... OK, again, I can stop and re-read and figure out what the sentence is saying, but on first quick pass, I go ... most ever what ... then realize, most years consecutively ... not sure if you can find a way to re-cast that for smoother reading. How to do it escapes me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:16, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added a note for the one part. NoahTalk 22:57, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's all ... the writing is competent and I like how the language is varied. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:16, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The prose adjustments are excellent, and you have a fine way with words, Noah ... I know it can be hard to vary the wording in hurricane articles, and I think you've done a nice job, and have expeditiously addressed all my queries. I rarely support articles, particularly if I don't know the topic well, but I find it quite disturbing that a well prepared and FAC-ready article had to sit here for two months without reviewers engaging, so in compensation for whatever is causing other reviewers to avoid hurricanes, you have my SUPPORT. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:23, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review, SandyGeorgia! NoahTalk 23:26, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done edit

  • Some of the details in the lead don't appear to be cited anywhere - for example that it was the fourth named storm of the season
  • The article relies quite heavily on contemporary NHC reports, but there is scientific literature discussing the storm's meteorological impact (eg)
  • Don't mix templated and untemplated citations
  • What are you meaning by this? NoahTalk 01:34, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of the citations are formatted using a template - eg {{cite web}} - but then in Records there's at least one that isn't. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:02, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • That should be fixed. NoahTalk 15:10, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fn46 is missing publication date. Ditto FN47, check others. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:32, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed several. NoahTalk 15:10, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Nikkimaria: as I understand the Hurricane article structure, impact is covered in a different article. I think? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:39, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which article? I would anticipate that meteorology-specific impact could appropriately be included here... Nikkimaria (talk) 00:27, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • From what I have read, the meteorological impact causes effects that are felt elsewhere. In this case, the Gulf Stream flow reduction led to increased coastal sea levels. It would be best to discuss this either on the main article and/or the effects of Dorian in X (wherever it caused the sea level increase). The sea level increase caused by the disruption of the Gulf Stream may have had some impact on land (low-lying for example), sealife, beaches, etc.. I'm just pointing out examples of possibilites. NoahTalk 01:34, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: I believe everything has either been fixed or addressed. NoahTalk 15:10, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral by CPA-5 edit

I just was looking here around and found this article. Nothing special like with other hurricane articles before I wanted to have a review before it closes. I then found something strange. Why is this written in American English? The Hurricane Dorian was the worst hurricane the Bahamas ever had. There's no policy (as far as I'm familiar with) about what to do with multi-English speaking countries unless Commonwealth countries but that's not the case. Per MOS:TIES "An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation should use the (formal, not colloquial) English of that nation." 74 people died and 245 were missing in that country while the US had only 10 deads and none missing? And if we look at the costs then we get this the Bahamas got $3.4 billion while the US had only ≥$1.2 billion. If I look at the numbers and the sentence "Hurricane Dorian was the strongest hurricane to affect the Bahamas on record, causing catastrophic damage in the Abaco Islands and Grand Bahama in early September 2019." in the article then I have the feeling that the Bahamas has a "closer tie" then the US had in this event. I believe it should be written in Commonwealth English. I disagree to see the usage of American English in this article without a good reason. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:57, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CPA-5: It's not like the USA did not get any impacts either and as bad as Dorian was in the Bahamas, the American impact was also significant. Plus, the Regional Specialized Meteorological Center, the NHC, speaks in American English and this article is emphatically not about the impacts the storm had, but its history, which was documented primarily by the (American) NHC. TIES is not applicable here.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:30, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@CPA-5: This is just the meteorological article. The ties for it would have to go to the United States since the National Hurricane Center is the one reporting on the storm. I don't disagree that Commonwealth English should be used, but it belongs in the Effects of Hurricane Dorian in The Bahamas and possibly the Caribbean one too rather than here. NoahTalk 21:34, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm okay then but does the NHC use MM/DD/YYYY or like the military and some other US departments DD/MM/YYYY? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 12:53, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • NHC uses MM/DD/YYYY for their public watches and warnings, but use DD/MM/YYYY internally. NoahTalk 14:21, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • at 18:00 UTC after developing a 10 mi (15 km) wide --> "at 18:00 UTC after developing a 10-mile (15 km) wide"
  • Done since it is an adjective. NoahTalk 14:21, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Windward islands?
  • 805 mi (1,295 km) east-southeast of Barbados --> "805 mi (1,295 km) east-southeast of the island of Barbados"
  • Dorian briefly developed a 10 mi (15 km) wide eye --> "Dorian briefly developed a 10-mile (15 km) wide eye"
  • located to the north of Hispaniola --> "located to the north of the island of Hispaniola"
  • Dorian's structure began to improve on August 28 --> "Dorian's structure began to improve on that same day"
  • and sea surface temperatures of 29 °C (84 °F) Thought that this article was written in American English?
  • Must have forgotten to add the disp=flip here. Scientists only use degrees C and Kelvin for their measurements. NoahTalk 14:21, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe remove celsius this sentence reapets the conversion from the this sentence "temperatures near or over 84 °F (29 °C)" before. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:17, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @CPA-5: The first one was discussing a forecast of temperatures NEAR or ABOVE that value while the one in the other section shows that the forecast checked out and that the temperatures were at 29C (not near or above). NoahTalk 22:28, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • on August 30 about 445 mi (715 km) east --> "on August 30 about 445 miles (715 km) east"
  • No reason to bust the abbreviation here as it conforms with other articles. NoahTalk 14:21, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • brought an estimated 3.0 ft (0.91 m) of rain Round the nought here.
  • Added sigfig=1 so it removes the extra .01 meters. NoahTalk 14:21, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • towards the eastern coast of the United States Per MOS:OVERLINK the US is too common to link.
  • its secondary peak intensity as a 115 mph (185 km/h) Category 3 Compound adjective should be fully written with hyphens which means it should be this "its secondary peak intensity as a 115-mile-per-hour (185 km/h) Category 3"
  • made landfall near Sambro Creek in Nova Scotia, Canada Per MOS:OVERLINK major geographic regions shouldn't be linked so no link for Canada needed.
  • The Bahamas is overlinked.
  • rounded to the nearest 5 units (knots, miles, or kilometers) In note 2: per MOS:OVERLINK everyday terms shouldn't be linked so no link for miles and kilometres.
  • The body doesn't say southern Greenland?
  • I guess that was a remnant from before the NHC trimmed the extratropical portion of the track.. ie they determined it wasn't Dorian at that point. NoahTalk 14:21, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Try to avoid using citations in the lead even though it's not included in the body – see MOS:LEADCITE.
  • Unfortunately, that one citation is the only way to prove it was the fifth TC, fourth named storm, 2nd hu, etc.. NoahTalk 14:21, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 12:53, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CPA-5: How does that look? NoahTalk 14:21, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Jasper Deng edit

There are numerous problems that must be fixed with the prose, however:

  • Generally, references to advisories need to be replaced by TCR references, which are considered more reliable
  • Unfortunately, the TCR doesn't give lots of detail while the advisory discussions help on that end. Articles like this would not get off the ground primarily using one source. NoahTalk 22:34, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "dry air and vertical wind shear." and "as a result of wind shear" – These, especially the latter, are nearly omnipresent. At the least, it should be specified what level of shear is at play here.
  • Specified the shear came from the southwest. NoahTalk 22:34, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "reorganized" – should be "reintensified", as the storm didn't really lose organization during its stall, only intensity
  • "be battered" – not the right word, choose something more academic. Also, this is not in parallelism with "interacted".
  • changed to a less strong word. NoahTalk 22:34, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but it quickly eroded because of instability in the storm's organization" – not quite, dry air is cited as the actual reason. Instability (in this sense) is another symptom of the dry air intrusion, not the root cause.
  • Clarified what direction. NoahTalk 22:34, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Despite this, the aircraft discovered that the central pressure had fallen, but did not find any stronger winds as Dorian continued to track towards the northwest."–This is not exactly contradictory so "despite" and "but" are not good words to use. Just separate the sentence out.
  • Removed both of those words and split the winds and pressure into two sentences. NoahTalk 22:53, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This caused Dorian to track west-northwest into a highly favorable environment characterized by low wind shear, high relative humidity,[3] and sea surface temperatures of 29 °C (84 °F), then west straight towards the northwestern Bahamas." – This is awkward. Separate these sentences, because right now you're changing horses mid-sentence and back again. This isn't an idiomatic use of a complex sentence.
  • "At this time, the NHC estimated the one-minute sustained winds to have reached 180 mph (285 km/h)"–needs to be brought in line with the TCR, which brings Dorian to 155 knots 3 hours earlier (at 12z).
  • Moved this to before the recon plan sentence. NoahTalk 22:53, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as a eastward-moving mid-level trough"–"a" should be "an"
  • "Despite this, the NHC opted to continue issuing advisories on the system due to the threat it posed to Atlantic Canada." – This needs to go before the sentence mentioning the ASCAT data, since the current placement makes the reader think the "despite" is saying that the NHC's decision is at odds with the ASCAT data.
  • Moved the one-sentence up. NoahTalk 22:56, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:49, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support by MaranoFan edit

No problems I can see with the article, great prose and it was engaging throughout. Great work here! Just one minor comment, at least one repetition of intensity in the sentence "after Dorian rapidly intensified to its peak intensity, it broke numerous intensity records" can be reduced, if it is changed to "after Dorian reached peak intensity, it broke numerous intensity records". Cheers.--NØ 16:29, 13 July 2020 (UTC) @MaranoFan:[reply]

I modified it slightly. Changed the second intensity part to strength. NoahTalk 17:15, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@MaranoFan and Hurricane Noah: "peak intensity" is the term used in academic discussions, while "strength" is less academic. "Rapidly intensified" is also an academic term, but I'd rather it be replaced by "rapidly strengthened". But also, the RI is hardly relevant to the record itself so I recommend it just be omitted. This would allow for using a more active voice with "Dorian's peak intensity set numerous intensity records" or something similar.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:50, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. NoahTalk 22:29, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 20 July 2020 [31].

Andreas Palaiologos edit

Nominator(s): Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:32, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about one of my favourite historical figures, Andreas Palaiologos, nephew of the last Byzantine emperor and "emperor"-in-exile from the 1480s to 1502. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:32, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Don't use fixed px size
Removed fixed px size for the Bessarion image. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:11, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Σφραγίς_Ανδρέου_Παλαιολόγου.png: if the creator of the sketches is unknown, how do we know they died over 100 years ago?
Yeah, we don't. I've removed the 100 years ago template; since the image is from a Greek-language source maybe it would be good to point out that the image would be in the public domain in Greece as well? Since the creator of the image is unknown/anonymous, Greek copyright law states that it's the date of publication (1904) + 70 years. The Greek public domain template was deleted in 2011 though so I can't add that (if there isn't some other way). Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:28, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If there's no Greece-specific tag on Commons you can just use a generic PD tag like PD-because and add the explanation. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:22, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, true. Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:42, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Bessarion_1476.JPG needs a US PD tag. Same with File:Andreas_russia.png, File:Charles_VIII_Ecole_Francaise_16th_century_Musee_de_Conde_Chantilly.jpg, File:French_troops_and_artillery_entering_Naples_1495.jpg, File:Facial_Chronicle_-_b.17,_p._110.gif, File:Sketches_of_John_VIII_Palaiologos_during_his_visit_at_the_council_of_Florence_in_1438_by_Pisanello.jpg
Added US PD tags on all. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:11, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:OttomanEmpire1481.png: what source(s) verify the data presented here? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:58, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a source which presents the same borders. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:19, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:19, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Constantine edit

Claiming my place here, glad to review this little gem... Constantine ✍ 19:26, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article reads well and is quite comprehensive, the referencing is very good and includes, as far as I can tell, all the relevant scholarly works that deal with Andreas. From reading it, I couldn't immediately detect any significant omissions, so my comments will be on style and clarity:

  • the daughter of Centurione II Zaccaria, the last Prince of Achaea. For context, perhaps it would be a good idea to introduce the Principality of Achaea a bit earlier, when you discuss how During their rule as despots, they managed to restore Byzantine control of the entire peninsula.
Yeah, true. I've reworked this bit in the background to introduce the principality. Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • when preparations were being made for a crusade, which never took place, Thomas personally rode around Italy to drum up support. can you add the date for this?
Added. Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Despot of the Romans I suggest linking to Rhomaioi here, and perhaps adding a note that this is what the Byzantines called themselves; otherwise the uninitiated might think that this refers to Rome.
Added a link to Rhomaioi. I wonder what the popes made of his use of "Romeorum" and why Andreas went with "Romans" for his despot title and "Constantinople" for his imperial one. Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Demetrius and Manuel Rhalles may I suggest adding "the Greek brothers" and possibly link them to Raoul (Byzantine family)? It is of note that Moscow sent Greek exiles to Rome, rather than Russian boyars
Added, and linked "Rhalles" to Raoul (Byzantine family). Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The French Cardinal uncapitalize the "C"
Fixed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • receive 4300 ducats (almost 360 ducats a month) the 4300 ducats were an annual pension rather than a one-time payment, correct? If so, then clarify it.
Yes, it's an annual pension. Clarified. Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Out of curiosity, what is a saddle horse? Is this a horse to be ridden, as opposed to one for carrying burden?
I'll admit I had no idea what it meant either, so had to look it up. Your guess seems to be correct (link). Should this be clarified in some way in the text or is it fine? Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Plans around the projected crusade had often revolved around the part Cem was expected to play repetition of "around"
Rephrased and fixed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mihailović" is an unusual transliteration for a Russian name, change to "Mikhailovich". Also, add that he was Prince of Vereya. He also has a Russian WP article (Василий Удалой), so perhaps add an interwiki link to it.
Changed to "Mikhailovich", added his principality and added interwiki link. Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • must have been considered threatened "precarious" perhaps?
Yeah, that works better. Changed to "precarious". Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • to travel Europe in hopes of employment and eventually travel to the Ottomans repetition of "travel"
Fixed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Changed last name used to Spandounes and linked. Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • but had minimal basis this appears to be Harris' assessment/opinion, so make this explicit
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 20th-century work Le despotat grec de Morée -> 1932 work Le despotat grec de Morée, precision
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • by writing of his deeds on the frescoes did he literally 'write' of his deeds, or did he portray his deeds in frescoes?
Harris 1995, the sources used, states that the deeds were "recorded", so maybe he didn't literally write of his deeds. I've changed the entire thing to "For instance, Sixtus IV recorded his generosity towards the Palaiologoi in the frescoes of the Ospedale di Santo Spirito in Sassia", so the article now just mentions that the deeds were recorded. Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some modern historians have gone so far name a couple
Harris 1995 mentions that it was Runciman who said this, so just added that it was Runciman. Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise an excellent piece of work. Will have a look in my library to see if I can find anything that can be added, and once the above have been taken care of, will be happy to support. Constantine ✍ 13:43, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I tried to incorporate everything I could find, but I only had access to what was online so I'd be happy to add anything if you find some missing info :) Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ichthyovenator, your changes look good. One suggestion would be to briefly mention that the Morea had been partially held by Venetian and local Greek/Albanian stradioti during the Ottoman-Venetian War, out of which Cladas' revolt grew. This is the reason Andreas could hope to find some support there: Ottoman power was still shaky in the peninsula. Otherwise I didn't find much, I still haven't had a look at my copy of Zakythinos though. Constantine ✍ 11:37, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that could absolutely be mentioned. What source should I use for this and where do you think it fits best? Early in the "attempted expedition ..." section before Clada's introduction maybe? Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:32, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say Setton, he has more than enough material on the Ottoman-Venetian war. Perhaps after " in the late summer of 1481, Andreas planned to organize an expedition against the Ottomans." would be a good spot. Add "At the time, the Morea...." and explain why the moment was opportune. Constantine ✍ 15:28, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Right, added. Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:08, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ichthyovenator: I've posted a request at WP:REX for Zakythinos, as I can't seem to find the copy I had. Since this may take time, and since the article is fine as it is and my suggestions have been addressed, I move to support. Well done, once again! Constantine ✍ 20:32, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:52, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ichthyovenator: since I got the chapter unexpectedly quickly, a few remarks: Zakythinos (p. 290) writes that Thomas called his sons over in spring 1465, which contradicts the statement that Thomas summoned the children to Rome shortly after that,[13] Andreas and his younger brother Manuel did not choose to rejoin their father until a few days before Thomas died in 1465. This actually makes sense, for how could an underage boy 'choose' not to heed his father's summons? Harris has copied most information that Zakythinos has to say, but there are a few details that are missing. I can add them over the next few days, if that's OK with you. Constantine ✍ 15:26, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Cplakidas: Yes, that does make a lot more sense. Since I don't have the text (and don't know what publisher or OCLC/ISBN to put) you'd be more than welcome to add anything Zakythinos says that is currently missing, if you have the time! Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:40, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ichthyovenator: Done! Constantine ✍ 19:27, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Cplakidas: Thank you very much for the additions! I guess that's everything we know of Andreas, then. He might not have been able to retake Constantinople or the Morea, but perhaps he can claim his place on Wikipedia's main page :) Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:55, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Borsoka edit

I also like the Palaiologi. :)

Consider adding a "Background" section. Few editors had information about 15th-century history. I think the short section should cover the Palaiologi and their European policy, the Despotate of Morea, the Venetian possessions in the Pelopponnese, the Ottoman expansion, the Church union and Bessarion. Borsoka (talk) 16:05, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a background section. For the info on the European policy and the church union I just moved up some of the info on this that was already in the "Legacy" section, since this resulted in an awkwardly short "failure of Palaiologan policy" subsection, I had to restructure that a bit and removed the subsections there. I didn't bring up Bessarion in the background section since I felt that he was properly introduced without much confusion under "early life" but if you feel that something is missing there I could add more on him as well. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:50, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More to come. Borsoka (talk) 16:05, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Background

Thank you for adding the section.

  • ...the Ottoman Turks had conquered vast swaths of once Byzantine territories and by 1405, they ruled much of Bulgaria, Serbia, Thessaly, Macedonia and central Greece: most territories mentioned were not conquered from the Byzantines. What about deleting "once Byzantine" and adding Anatolia to the list?
Of course "once Byzantine" isn't wrong but yeah, I see what you mean. I've removed "once Byzantine" and added Anatolia. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:11, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • During their rule as despots, they managed to restore Byzantine control of the entire peninsula, save for the scattered towns and port cities under the control of the Republic of Venice, holdovers from the Fourth Crusade. Consider changing one of the two terms "control".
Changed the second "control" to "authority". Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:11, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • As their empire crumbled, the Palaiologan emperors pursued a policy of attempting to secure military aid from Western Europe. Hungary and Poland are Central European states, but the emperors sought the Hungarian and Polish kings' assistance several time. I think terms like "Orthodox Palaiologan emperors" and "Catholic Europe" could help.
That's true. Changed to emphasize religion rather than geography. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:11, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider changing the term "religious orthodoxy". I know it is a perfect term in the context, but it is also disturbing, because the Palaiologi adhered to the Orthodox Church.
I see what you mean and I agree, it's difficult to find a good replacement, though. Something like "adherance to Christianity" or "Christian faith" wouldn't really work since the popes were well aware that the Byzantines were Christian.
Terms, like "lack of heresy" or "willingness to put an end to East-West Schism"?
Went with "lack of heresy". Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:03, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:11, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider mentining that the church union was unpopular and was never fully introduced.
Not sure this is directly relevant to Andreas and the rest but it doesn't hurt to mention it. Added. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:23, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder your sources mention that a Catholic prince, sponsored by the popes had any hope to achieve popular support in the Morea.
I don't think this was mentioned, no, but I think we can surmise that Andreas himself did not know a whole lot about the social dynamics and religious history of the Byzantines; he was raised in Rome and thus probably had a quite western perspective on the whole thing. If he had succeeded with any of the at least 4 attempts/schemes to get control of some land in Greece his religion and backing would likely be hindrances, yes, but it might have worked out fine either way; after all some of the Catholic domains founded in the Fourth Crusade lasted for centuries. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:03, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Early life

  • Consider mentining that Bessarion was one of the few Byzantine clerics supporting the union with Rome.
Added. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:23, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:23, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Andreas continued to stay in Rome by consent of the pope, who recognized him as the heir of Thomas and the rightful Despot of the Morea. Name the pope and consider deleting "the rightful".
Both done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:23, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider changing "eastern emperors" to "Byzantine emperors".
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:23, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decide: Papacy or papacy?
Changed to consistent "papacy". Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:15, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Andreas's upbringing in Rome may have left him unaware that the Byzantine emperors had been formally titled as Emperors of the Romans rather than Emperors of Constantinople. Consider rephrasing: the titles are repeated too many times. Maybe: "Andreas's upbringing in Rome may have left him unaware that his title differed from the Byzantine emperors' official style"?
Changed to something close to your suggestion. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:23, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider deleting until his death in 1472
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:23, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More to come. Borsoka (talk) 07:53, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Financial troubles

  • Introduce the Empire of Trebizond, possibly in the Background section.
Introduced it right after it's first mentioned in this section; I found it difficult to fit it into the background section in a non-awkward way. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:28, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • So far his claim to Trebizond was not mentioned. Was this a "right" or he fabricated it to be able to sell it?
Yeah, it's a quite questionable claim. The sources don't say where he got the claim from and there were probably living Komnenoi descendants of the Trapezuntine emperors at this point. Maybe he just thought the Trapezuntine title was connected to the Constantinopolitan?
Did he actually have rights either to Constantinople or Trebizond? What about "claims"? Borsoka (talk) 18:20, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Byzantines did not have formal succession laws, but by the time Andreas claimed to be the Emperor of Constantinople (1483) he absolutely was the most senior "heir" of Constantine XI, so the Constantinople claim/right checks out. The Palaiologoi did intermarry with the ruling family of Trebizond a bit, but none of Andreas's immediate ancestors were Trapezuntine. The closest thing I found was that Andreas's step-grandmother was Eudokia of Trebizond but that doesn't give him a claim since she wasn't his ancestor. Constantinople wasn't a fabrication, but he might just have made up the Trebizond claim to squeeze some more money out of people. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:38, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My concern is that the text suggests Andreas had actual right to rule Trapezunt (and Serbia). Could I claim to sell my neighbors' house? I am Hungarian and they are also Hungarians, moreover we live in the same village, and one of them is a cousin of mine. Borsoka (talk) 01:47, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ooooooh, yeah I wasn't reading this properly. I missed that it said "rights" even with you pointing it out. I've changed "rights" to "claims", which would be correct. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:19, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider changing Euphrasina Palaeologina to Euphrasina Palaiologina. I know both forms are correct, but I would prefer a consistent usage.
Yeah, done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:33, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Could be, but I'm not sure. Andreas lived on the Campo Marzio whereas Sant'Andrea della Valle is in Sant'Eustachio, the districts are right next to each other so might still be possible, I don't know. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:33, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point.

Attempted expedition against the Ottomans

  • As it is quite obvious, I am not a native English speaker, so I am probably wrong, but the section title sounds artificial for me.
It's the longest section title so if there's something better I could change it, but I don't think it's wrong. It's an attempted expedition and it's against the Ottomans. Do you have another suggestion? Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:33, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like his father Thomas, Andreas actively attempted to organize expeditions to retake Constantinople and restore the empire. Is this true? If my understanding is correct, only one attempt is mentioned.
The 1481 expedition attempt is the only one where Andreas himself was to lead the thing, yes, but he was involved in other stuff as well. Notable, his sale of the imperial title to Charles VIII of France in return for the promise of being granted the Morea is another attempt at organizing an expedition to retake Constantinople and restore the empire, albeit not with himself as the leading figure. I've rephrased this a bit so that it's not only focused on expeditions as he was involved in other schemes of trying to secure Greek territory too. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:33, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider changing one of the two expressions "to organize an expedition" in the first three sentences.
Done for the first one at the same time as addressing the previous point. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:33, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • several of his close companions - such as? I guess they or some of them could be mentioned in a separate sentence, or the reference to them could be deleted.
They are mentioned in the previous subsection ("Manuel Palaiologos (not the same person as his brother), George Pagumenos, Michael Aristoboulos (all recorded as accompanying Andreas to Brindisi in 1481)"). I've added them here as well.
  • additional companions - mercenaries? officials?
Changed to mercenaries; Clada was definitely a mercenary at this point. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:33, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • an unsuccessful revolt - against the Ottomans, I guess.
Yes. Added. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:33, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...the major Christian realms of Western Europe were too disunited to make use of their recent string of victories - no victory is mentioned. I doubt that any of the "major Christian realms of Western Europe" waged war against the Ottoman Empire in this period. Ferdinand I of Naples, Venice and Matthias Corvinus of Hungary clashed with the Ottomans.
I believe what was referred to with this was the Ottomans failing to take Rhodes. Changed to "the major Christian realms of Western Europe were too disunited to join together and wage war on the Ottomans". Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:33, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is more likely... - according to whom?
Added. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:33, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • becoming involved in a 1485 plot - some details of the plot?
The source used here, Harris 1995, just says that he became "involved in 1485 in a plot to seize Monemvasia from the Venetians". The source Harris uses for this statement is "ASV Consiglio dei Dieci, Misti reg. 22, f. 190v (orig. 154v)" but I can't find what that is supposed to be and it would probably be in Italian, which I can't read. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:56, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More to come. Borsoka (talk) 00:29, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Travels and sale of the imperial title

Has to be, linked. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:44, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Claim to the Despotate of Serbia? During this period a Despot of Serbia who lived in exile in Hungary was one of the wealthiest Hungarian nobles. Our Andreas was really creative to sell titles. :)
Don't hate the player hate the game 😎 Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:44, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No hate. He was like the Federal Reserve: created money ex nihilio. Joke.
  • Consider All Saints' Day the following year (1 November 1495) instead of 1 November 1495 (All Saints' Day the following year).
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:44, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More to come. Borsoka (talk) 18:37, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy and analysis

  • The financial situation of the Palaiologoi in the 1470s to 1490s must have been considered precarious for Andreas to sell his inherited titles... - as I understand he only offered to sell his titles and he did not inherit the titles that he offered to sell.
Again, arguably he inherited the right to Constantinople, but the rest of the titles seem to be made up, yes. I've changed "sell his inherited titles" to "sell his titular claims". He did sell his claims to Charles VIII, so wasn't just offering them. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:19, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The following two sentences are repetitions of previously mentioned facts: "The emperors had adopted this policy since their situation in the 14th and 15th centuries offered few other options. They clung to it even though little aid ever arrived, despite many promises.". Consider deleting them.
That little help ever arrived hasn't been stated previously in the article. I think the first sentence serves as a nice recap but I could remove/rephrase this bit if you feel it is necessary. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:19, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK.

Lede

  • Introduce his father as despot of Morea.
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:19, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "After his father's death in 1465, Andreas was recognized as the titular Despot of the Morea and from 1483 onwards, he also claimed the title Imperator Constantinopolitanus ("Emperor of Constantinople")." The same info is repeated and explained in the following sentences.
This was added as per Airborne84's comments on the lede below. I've removed the stuff on his claiming of the despot title in the following paragraph instead, see if that works out well. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:19, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK.
  • Delete ", the title held by his father until 1460 (and until 1465 in pretense)."
Deleted. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:19, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider changing "some source" to "some primary source"
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:19, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "possibly sons named Constantine and Fernando and a daughter named Maria,"
I don't really see why, but done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:19, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We do not list actual childrens' names in lede. A list of the names of possible children is even less informative.

I finished my review. I had so far only read Runciman's remarks of him. Thank you for completing this nice and interesting article. Borsoka (talk) 01:47, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for looking this over and reviewing! Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:19, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. You addressed all my concerns, so I am gladly support the article. I enjoyed reviewing it. Borsoka (talk) 06:15, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Airborne84 edit

Nice article. Reads well. Appreciate your work on this. Some notes below.

  • The lede section is five paragraphs while criterion 2a is a concise lede section and WP:MOS provides a general guideline of no longer than four paragraphs. I'd revise to four or advise why you think five is needed. It may be possible to combine paras 3 and 5, for example, as the end of 3 and beginning of 5 are both about financial challenges.
Restructered lede slightly and removed some things; it's now 4 paragraphs. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:02, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. The first paragraph appears a bit misaligned with MOS:BEGIN in that it jumps into temporal activities fairly quickly. I think the MOS is looking for a first lede paragraph more along the lines of Neferefre, before getting into the biography itself (although it could be longer in this article). It should be an easy adjustment, I think.
I see what you mean, but I'm struggling a bit with this. Everything apart from the first sentence could be pushed down to join with the second paragraph and work well there but then the article would start with a one-sentence paragraph. Going by the Neferefre example I suppose the first paragraph should mention the titles he was a pretender to and why, but I feel like some context is needed (which is provided in how it looks now). Open to suggestions if you have any. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:46, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The titles is what I was thinking. I think if you very briefly summarized the titles after the first sentence, as in he "held x and claimed y titles", or just state what title he actually had, the first para would then adhere with MOS:BEGIN by "supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround [him]". Paragraph 2 would then provide the details. An alternative would be to combine paragraphs 1 and 2, although that might require trimming some material.
I've made an attempt. I split off the first sentence into its own thing and added more to it, combined most of paragraphs 1 and 2 and trimmed it a little bit. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:50, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The infobox has an "Issue" entry with "Uncertain, see text" entry. Recommend striking that. It will likely be unclear to the average reader what it means.
This works, thanks.
Removed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:02, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I recommend providing some context/info on the Despotate of the Morea. I'm not an expert and it left me wondering about the location and scale of the empire Andreas has title over. Yes, there is a Wikilink, but the article itself should provide some of that basic context, IMO. Perhaps an image and a bit of description added somewhere or include it in Boroska's broader recommendation above.
I've created a background section per Borsoka's suggestion, with a map of the despotate's 1450 borders and some more context. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:50, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nicely done. Only thing I wondered was whether you had a reason for the order in "Bulgaria, Serbia, Thessaly, Macedonia and central Greece" vs, say, alphabetical?
Also, you did fine at linking the sections together in the rest of the article to "tell a story". There is a rather abrupt transition between the end of this new section and the start of the bio. This wouldn't be easy for obvious reasons, but there are "scene setter" possibilities to smooth the transition. And, if properly done, it would impress readers—including FAC reviewers.... Something to consider only, not a requirement.
No reason for not using alphabetical, just put them in in a random order. Changed to alphabetical. I've changed it so that the first thing mentioned in the bio is Constantine XI's death at the Fall of Constantinople (since the last thing mentioned in the background is the Ottomans closing in on Constantinople), which might make for a smoother transition. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:11, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "Financial troubles" section, you note about the sum of 500 ducats/month that “Although this seems a generous amount”. Seems to whom? An average reader won't know how meaningful that sum is (I don't). If you have a way to relate that in a way the average reader would understand (even if just in a footnote), I would do so. If not, I recommend just striking that part of the passage.
I've tried to find good conversion rates and whatnot but its nigh-impossible since the value of a ducat appears to have differed depending not only on time but also place. I've removed "although this seems a generous amount". Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:02, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the “Travels and sale of the imperial title” section it says, “since Andreas was provided for by him”. Passive voice is fine, but this is rather awkward. Since passive voice isn't needed here, perhaps better would be "since he provided for Andreas".
Changed to your suggestion. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:02, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This sentence appears out of place in the paragraph it’s in, which is otherwise about Andreas’s abdication and its context. “Charles VIII's Italian campaign caused some concern in Constantinople, and Bayezid began building up his defenses, constructing new ships and artillery and redirecting his military forces to defensive positions throughout Greece and the lands surrounding Constantinople.”
I think it's worth noting that Charles was considered a serious threat by the Ottomans, but yes, it has little to do with the rest of the paragraph. I've split it off into its own short one-sentence paragraph. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:02, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's doable. But if others object, you could also leave it at the end and just find a smoother transition to it.
  • In a "Negative portrayal by historians" section image caption, it says: “16th-century depiction in a Russian chronicle of Andreas's (the standing crowned figure in the center) visit to his sister.” It’s hard to read with the relatively long parenthetical interrupting in the middle of the sentence. I recommend: “16th-century depiction in a Russian chronicle of Andreas's visit to his sister. Andrea is the standing crowned figure in the center.” But this isn’t a show-stopper.
Went with your suggestion
  • In the "Negative portrayal by historians" section, one sentence says that “Historian Steven Runciman famously described her as ‘a lady from the streets of Rome’", and provides two references, while the next sentence relates that "“She is known from only a single source, the Introitus et Exitus books of the Apostolic Camera”. Do you mean a single primary source? This seems to be conflicting as there are two secondary sources noting her in the previous sentence.
Yes, I meant a single primary source. Fixed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:02, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the references, when there are multiple pages cited, you'll need "pp". Some of the references have only one "p" in those cases.
Fixed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:02, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the cited Bibliography, WP:MOS states that “English-language titles of compositions … are given in title case”. A few of the titles require revising. Airborne84 (talk) 18:25, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed I think. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:02, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note edit

Looks like we just need a source review? --Ealdgyth (talk) 15:18, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ealdgyth: Yeah, I saw you put up a request for one but I already did that a week ago. I guess all that can be done now is waiting and hoping that someone wants to do one. Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:27, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – pass edit

Formatting and consistency

  • Why the Greek text in ref #16? It isn't present in the long citation?
I can't remember whether it was me who added this ref or someone else, but the ref is to a lexicon/encyclopedia; "Παλαιολόγος Ἀνδρέας" (Palaiologos Andreas) is the word/article referenced. I don't know if there is a better way to cite this, but the PLP is cited in the same way in other articles: Demetrios Palaiologos, Helena Doukaina Angelina, Logothetes ton agelon, Ignatios Glabas. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:00, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref #32, "Housley 2017" is missing a page number. I assume that is because the edition you are using doesn't have them. Check this version instead. The information seems to be around page 41.
Yeah, that was the reason for leaving out the page number. Changed the link to the version you provided here and added the page number (41 looks like it contains all the info mentioned). Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:00, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref #38 "pp. 551–550" Should this be 550–551, 551–552, or something else?
Reading through the pages in the source, just 551 should be correct. Fixed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:00, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent about whether to provide a location for book sources. Most do, but "Housley, Norman (2017)" does not.
Added location to Housley (2017). Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:00, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If possible, provide English translations for the titles of the foreign language sources.
Added translated titles to 2 out of 3 foreign language sources. Could not add it to the PLP source (which has a German title) since it has its own template instead of the "cite book" template. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:00, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quality and coverage

  • All sources appear to be to high-quality, reliable sources. Academia.edu is noted as sometimes hosting unpublished material, but in this case Orientalia Christiana Periodica is not a problem at all.
  • Searches on Google Books, Google Scholar and Amazon do not highlight any obvious missing sources.

Spotchecks

  • Ref #24, which supports "The origin of the financial hardship experienced by Andreas and Manuel likely lies with reductions to the pension paid to them by the papacy." is cited to page 542, but it appears to be on page 543, or arguably, spread over 542 and 543.
Fixed this particular instance of the ref, just "542" should be correct for the other points where this reference is used. Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:48, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The same reference is used to support "During the time spent in Rome, the majority of his adult life, Andreas lived in a house on the Campo Marzio granted to him by Sixtus IV at the time of Zoe's marriage. His house was probably located next to the local Church of Sant'Andrea." All fine.
  • And also "Seeking financial aid, Andreas traveled to Moscow in 1480, visiting his sister Zoe (now called Sophia) to beg for money. Sophia provided generously for him and would later complain that she had no jewels left as she had given them all to her brother." I am happy that the source says Russia; but the only reference to "Moscow" that I can see is in the title Ivan the Great of Moscow? Also, on what basis does the article say she "provided generously for him"?
Now that you mention it, the source does not explicitly say Moscow, no. I think it can be assumed since Moscow was the capital and Zoe was consort to Moscow's ruler, but "Russia" works just as well and is used in the source, so changed to that. I think that she "provided generously for him" can be deduced from that "she had no jewels left as she had given them all to her brother"; but it is not completely necessary. I've removed it, just saying that she complained about the jewels also works here. Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:48, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More spotchecks to follow. Harrias talk 14:52, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ref #45, which supports "On 22 February, Charles triumphantly entered Naples (supposedly wearing an imperial crown),": From what I can see, the source talks about Charles entering Naples in May 1495, not the 22 February?
Ref #45 was intended to support the statement in paranthesis ("supposedly wearing an imperial crown"), not the 22 February date, which is supported by ref #46. I can see how the sources line up in a way which makes this seem erroneous, so added ref #46 to before the paranthesis as well. Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:08, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref #11, which supports "Thomas then left the rest of the family to go to Rome, where he was welcomed and provided for by Pope Pius II.": "welcomed and provided for by Pope Pius II" is a direct copy of the text in the source material; try to para-phrase to avoid any copyvio concerns.
Changed to "where he was welcomed and financially supported". Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:08, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref #21, which supports "but modern efforts to locate their graves within the Basilica have not succeeded." Is it reasonably to say "modern efforts", given the book is from 1921? The source also only appears to discuss efforts to locate Thomas's grave?
Technically speaking, 1921 is in the modern period and it is significantly closer to today than to 1502, but I see what you are saying. I don't know what would be a better word choice here. I don't think the source only discussing efforts to find Thomas grave is a problem since (as per ref #53), Andreas was buried right next to him (if you find one, you find the other). Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:08, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little concerned that five of the six spotchecks I have completed have revealed issues, albeit generally minor ones. Rather than me continue to check each specific reference, I would ask that you go through each and every footnote and check that you are happy that each specifically references the material given in the article. Once you are happy that they are all accurate, I will complete another round of spotchecks. But, at the moment, I have to oppose this article on verifiability grounds. Harrias talk 09:33, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Harrias: I don't think any of the issues you found were major ones but I can see why you are concerned. I will take a look through everything in the coming days, might take a while but I will notify you once I am done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:08, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Harrias: I've gone through the citations in the article; there were some that I do not have access to; the refs to Zakythinos (1932) were added by another user during this FA review (the discussion regarding this is above) and I do not have access to Runciman (1969), Potter (1995), Enepekides (1960) or the PLP either (these citations having been added before I got to work on the article). In many cases where I did not have access to these sources I have now added citations to other sources that I could access as to corroborate and confirm the information. I revised a handful of citations and added some information that was previously left out, but overall I believe the citations are sufficient now if you want to do another round of spotchecks. Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:44, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'll look through as soon as I can, but be aware that I don't tend to be online as much Fri-Sun. Harrias talk 19:28, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Further spotchecks

  • Ref #1, where on page 3 of Grierson 1999 does it mention that they ruled from 1259? I only see 1261 on that page? The article also says "longest-ruling dynasty", while the source says "one of the two longest ruling dynasties", which are subtly different facts.
Looking at Grierson again, you're right. I've added a new citation to corroborate 1259. I think Grierson is mistaken with "one of the two longest ruling dynasties"; the Palaiologoi ruled for 194 years (1259) or 192 years (1261), beating the runner-up (the Macedonian dynasty, 189 years) by 3 or 5 years. The difference is small however and it might depend on how you count (John VI Kantakouzenos's reign 1347–1354 could arguably be subtracted from the Palaiologoi's time, which would make the Macedonians longer). Changed to "one of the longest ruling dynasties". Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:24, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref #3, all fine.
  • Ref #9, it might be because I'm looking at a different edition, but although page 110 mentions the 29 May 1453, I can't see any mention of Constantine dying to defend Constantinople from the Ottomans?
Yeah, I don't know what happened here. I've changed the cited pages to page 70, which states that Constantine was killed in the fighting as the Ottomans entered the city and page 69, which gives the date as 29 May. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:24, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref #14, all fine.
  • As an aside, per MOS:LANG, don't use italics markup for foreign language words and phrases, use the {{lang}} template.
Changed all instances of italics for foreign languages to the lang template. The only foreign word kept in italics is "livres" since that seems to be italicized in its own article as well. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:24, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref #23, all fine.
  • Ref #31, all fine.
  • Ref #53, all fine.
  • Ref #63, all fine.
  • Ref #65, all fine.

@Ichthyovenator: Overall, I'm much happier this time around. Only two of the nine checks I did revealed anything concerning, and both are very minor issues (at least, insofar as a couple of quick Google searches confirms both 1259 and 29 May 1453 as being correct, if just not apparent to me through the sources provided). Harrias talk 08:52, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Harrias: Thank you for taking the time to do another round. I've addressed the three concerns you raised. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:24, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy that this meets the sourcing criteria required for FA status. Harrias talk 17:10, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 20 July 2020 [32].

Canada lynx edit

Nominator(s): Sainsf (t · c) 05:49, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a North American cat that I came across when I was looking for information on lynxes, and I realized our article on it can be improved a lot. I was fascinated by its unique appearance and its strong correlation with snowshoe hare populations. So I began work on this article a few years back, and it has recently become a GA. After a thorough copyedit, I feel we can take this to the FA level. I hope you enjoy reading this, thanks! :) Sainsf (t · c) 05:49, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Enwebb edit

Note: I'll be claiming points for the WikiCup for this review

  • Can you add a citation at the end of the first paragraph in taxonomy?
  • Done
  • A 1987 study... this is quite old. Is this idea still supported?
  • I have revised this part a bit, it is not exactly a single study.. rather it is a collection of results from more than one. Seems there has been no recent research that one can get hold of even after a lot of searching, and the results stated here are mostly based on work in the 20th century. There seems to be nothing that opposes this theory.
  • The large, broad paws are covered in long, thick fur and can spread as wide as 10 centimetres (3.9 in) to move quickly and easily on soft snow I think this would be helpful if you provided the context of how wide their paws are ordinarily
  • Good point, but I am unable to find any information on that.
  • The paws of a Canada lynx can support nearly double the weight those of a bobcat can bear before sinking phrasing is a little odd here. How about "Its paws can support almost twice as much weight as a bobcat's before sinking" ?
  • Done
  • The deciduous dentition is 3.1.23.1.2 (24 teeth) I feel like you could tack on a bit at the end here, such as, "...as the young do not have molars." That would emphasize the difference between deciduous and adult teeth for people who may not know how to read a dental formula.
  • Done
  • with the sizes of lynx' home ranges if the plural of "lynx" is "lynxes", then the plural possessive is "lynxes' "
  • Fixed
  • After a gestational period.. I think it's just "gestation period"
  • Fixed
  • (in 24 States) I think it's just "states"
  • fixed
  • 14 contiguous United States again, I think you would just say "states" (that's my familiarity as a US citizen)
  • Fixed
  • sometimes Bobcat tracks common names not capitalized
  • Fixed
  • Is this in British English? If so, should it be "grey" instead of "gray"?
  • Canadian English. Seems a few inconsistencies had appeared since I last checked it, I have now corrected these instances and more using a script and added a template mentioning the type of English on the talk page. Sainsf (t · c) 16:26, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Out of curiosity, what's the script? Seems useful! Enwebb (talk) 16:55, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll come back with more later today, just wanted to start a section. Also, would you consider adding a review to Horseshoe bat? Enwebb (talk) 14:56, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Enwebb: Thank you for your comments, I will address all of them soon. So far I have added the required citation, I missed it while I was rearranging things a bit in that section. I am not sure I can review articles at the moment but I will surely take a look at your FAC and may be a few others next week. Cheers, Sainsf (t · c) 15:48, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Enwebb: I have replied to all of your comments. Cheers, Sainsf (t · c) 10:01, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This was very well written. I couldn't find anything besides my minor quibbles. Thanks for addressing so quickly. Enwebb (talk) 16:55, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Enwebb! Your comments showed me some errors I often make so I am not repeating those ever again :) Sainsf (t · c) 17:47, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Why is it significant that the animal is in Payette's coat of arms? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:51, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I could not find any details of its cultural significance except for this only proper instance of its use as a symbol so I included it. Can remove it if it is that irrelevant though, or if we find better things to add. Sainsf (t · c) 21:25, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't think the fact that this is the only use of it as a symbol you could find, is a good indication that this is a use that should be included. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:59, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right. I have removed this part. Sainsf (t · c) 09:46, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@FunkMonk, Casliber, Jimfbleak, and J Milburn: Pinging a few biology FAC reviewers as this has been inactive since 2 weeks, my apologies if any of you is busy. Cheers, Sainsf (t · c) 11:34, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see what I can do when I get a bit more time. It also seems archiving time is a bit slower now because of the pandemic, so I think they're a bit more lax. FunkMonk (talk) 11:37, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Seems you've already racked up the necessary reviews, but I'll come back if it stalls! FunkMonk (talk) 09:30, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've finished scheduling TFA now, so should be able to take a look early next week Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:08, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping. I can't promise anything I'm afraid, but best of luck with the review regardless! Josh Milburn (talk) 18:24, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Jens Lallensack edit

  • forming "intrasexual" territories. – I'm not sure what this means myself, and I think it is definitely not accessible enough for the lead. Same-sex territories? But it was stated that they where solitary, how does this fit together?
  • As the text preceding it says, it means the territories are formed such that individuals of the same sex avoid each other. Any suggestions to clarify this better?
  • the ancestor of five extant felid lineages—Lynx, Leopardus, Puma, Felis and Prionailurus plus Otocolobus—arrived in North America after crossing the Bering Strait 8.5 to 8 million years ago. – This doesn't seem to be precise – or does this really mean that extant felids originated in North America? I think it was not the common ancestor that crossed the Bering Strait.
  • To quote the source, "The second migration (M2) relocated a common ancestor to five felid lineages (ocelot, lynx, puma, leopard cat, and domestic cat) across the Bering land bridge to North America for the first time,8.5 to 8.0 Ma". I think it matches what is given here.
  • Lynx diverged from the Puma, Felis and Prionailurus plus Otocolobus lineages around 3.24 mya. The Issoire lynx (L. issiodorensis), believed to be the ancestor of the four modern Lynx species, probably originated in Africa 4 mya – these ages seem to contradict each other. How could Lynx have diverged 3.24 mya when its oldest species is even older?
  • "3.24" is an approximation but the estimated interval is 2.53-4.74 mya, so I have replaced it with this time range now. That should include the rough estimate for the oldest species.
  • Canada lynx fossils excavated in North America date back to the Sangamonian and the Wisconsin Glacial Episode. Fossils have been recorded more often from various locations across Europe. – this means Canada lynx lived in Europe? If so, I would recommend to state it directly since it is an important fact.
  • Oh this one could have been a real error. The source I used here included details of the Eurasian lynx too without specifying it, thanks for pointing it out. The rest of the sentence is accurate. Deleted.
  • the back appears to be sloping downward toward the front – I wonder about the use of the word "appears". It appears to be sloping but actually it is not sloping?
  • No it's actually sloping, reworded
  • more soon. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:00, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although no melanistic or albinistic forms of the Canada lynx are known, "blue" lynxes have been reported in Alaska. – I don't think blue fur is possible because blue is a structural color, not a pigment. Is it possible to explain what is meant by "blue lynxes"? I have no idea.
  • Changed to "a specimen from Alaska was reported to have bluish-gray fur"
  • Similar to other lynxes, black tufts around 4 cm (1.6 in) in length emerge from the tips of the ears – anything known about the function of those?
  • Sorry, no clear info about those
  • Both species walk with the back foot typically following the front foot – the feet of the same or opposite side of the body?
  • Same side, added
  • This would be very awkward. Mammals usually move their hind limb first, and the forelimb on the same side leaves the ground a bit later. Youtube videos about this Lynx I watched showed just this. Can you please confirm? If the hind foot moves first than I'm not sure if this warrants mention as this is the most common gait in mammals. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:57, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re-checked this, I really did not think this could be unusual. The source doesn't clarify this, and I must have read the "same side" bit in an article about another species. It does seem to be the typical gait, and probably needn't be mentioned explicitly. For now I have removed "on the same side" from the line. Sainsf (t · c) 17:50, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On the same side" was correct, I am worried about this part: with the back foot typically following the front foot. It is the other way around, the back foot moves first and then comes the front foot. You clearly see it on this image, where the right hind foot already touched down while the right fore foot is still in the middle of the swinging phase. Its called an lateral-sequence singlefoot walk. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:59, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • both killed more than necessary for subsistence; – do they eat more or do they not finishing up the kills?
  • They did not store the kills for later but could not finish all of it so some of it was wasted. This is stated in the line "Lynxes rarely cached their kills, unlike coyotes, and this may have led to incomplete consumption of some kills".
  • Urine marking and mating calls are part of display behaviour and increases – "increase"?
  • Fixed
  • The home range of the expecting female shrinks and her activity at the den site increases. – already mentioned earlier.
  • Removed

Thank you for your time. I will get to these in a few days. Cheers, Sainsf (t · c) 12:25, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jens Lallensack: I have addressed all your points, could you take a look? Cheers and stay safe! Sainsf (t · c) 09:09, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:59, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Jim edit

Very comprehensive, so just a few niggles before I support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:52, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Canada lynx was first described by Robert Kerr in 1792— "formally" needed, I think
  • The "Diseases and mortality" section has a few problems.
  • I'd expect a paragraph division predators/diseases, so predator plus plague/other diseases looks odd
  • I have now changed this to disease/predator.
  • Do bears ever kill lynx?
  • Sorry, couldn't find sources clearly stating that
  • with the plague, I'd expect a link to Yersinia pestis and mention that it was acquired from infected prey
  • Done
  • I'd dispute the caption improperly labelled as "Canadian". The photograph is taken by a German in a German collection. It's perfectly plausible that he is using BE for his translation, where "Canadian" would be expected. As a Brit, my first thought was "why isn't it Canadian lynx?". After all, its cousin isn't "Europe lynx". Anyway, not using the Nam spelling isn't incorrect.
  • There has been some discussion on this here [33]. I am not really sure why "Canada" is preferred over "Canadian", User:7&6=thirteen you can clarify this better (I really couldn't figure how to use the ping template for you, that "=" confused it I guess). Sainsf (t · c) 09:20, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comments. Will respond to these soon. Sainsf (t · c) 12:26, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's the species name. ... 7&6=thirteen (☎) 10:51, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jimfbleak Replied to all your points, mind taking a look? Cheers and stay safe! Sainsf (t · c) 09:20, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to support above. I raised the bear issue only because it's a much larger predator, so it is certainly capable, and I know that in Europe bears negatively impact on lynx by competing for food Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:40, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass edit

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

  • Captions: why "Fossils of the Issoire lynx", but "Distribution of Canada lynx (2016)", no "the"?
  • Good catch, added "the" to range map caption
  • "Numbers of snowshoe hare (Lepus americanus) (yellow background) and Canada lynx (black line, foreground) furs sold to the Hudson's Bay Company". Optional: add 'from 1845 to 1935'.
  • Added
  • Enlarge the three images in "Physical characteristics".
  • Width increased to 250px
That has done the trick. (Just about, they still look small to me.) But the use of px is depreciated; could you change it to "upright"?
I thought of it too but seems you can't insert it in the multiple image template.. I hope I am not missing something. Sainsf (t · c) 17:18, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How odd. If you are, so am I. Ah well.
  • "File:Milliers fourrures vendues en environ 90 ans odum 1953 en.jpg" needs a more precise source; "statistics collected by Odum archives (published 1953)" is not sufficient for me to clearly identify and/or check the source.
  • Fair point. I searched for this publication online and it seems to be this one [34] Fundamentals of Ecology (1953) by Eugene P. Odum. I can't access the book itself but I found several sources citing the same plot from the book [35] [36] [37] [38]. I think this should suffice for verifying the source and the name of the book can be added to the file description.
You can cite direct to the image 1.13 in Pikovsky et al. Could you add it to "Source" on the Commons page. (Ie 'Own work, based on ...'.
Great, done. Sainsf (t · c) 17:18, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 15:45, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Gog the Mild, and sorry for the delay. I've replied to all of the above. Cheers and stay safe, Sainsf (t · c) 16:24, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, Wikipedia isn't going anywhere. Two minor follow up actions above and we are done. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:38, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note edit

I've added this to the urgents list and requested a source review. --Ealdgyth (talk) 15:16, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Ealdgyth :) Sainsf (t · c) 16:25, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • FN3 is wikilinked to a comedy film, which I expect is not what you're meaning to cite!
  • FN5: DIANE appears to be a republisher - what's the original publication information?
  • Be consistent in whether you include locations for books, and if you do they should be specific (eg not "Colorado") and consistently formatted ("Baltimore" vs "Boston, US", "Cambridge" vs "Oxford, UK"). Ditto reports
  • FN27 is missing access date
  • How does FN42 meet WP:SCHOLARSHIP? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:55, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review Nikkimaria. I believe I have fixed all the issues, mind taking a look? Cheers, Sainsf (t · c) 16:35, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, looks good. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:04, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 20 July 2020 [39].

Joseph A. Lopez edit

Nominator(s): Ergo Sum 15:52, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a short but comprehensive article. Given some old discussions about how to deal with short articles at FAC, this should be an interesting go; perhaps even a test case. Ergo Sum 15:52, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Joseph_A._Lopez_portrait.jpg: is this portrait known to have been publicly displayed anywhere prior to its digitization? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:39, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • After searching, I can find no evidence of it being published prior to 2003, in print or digital format. Ergo Sum 01:48, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Therapyisgood edit

Resolved comments from Therapyisgood (talk) 03:49, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
*When the Emperor of Mexico, Agustín de Iturbide, was executed in 1824, his widow, Ana María Huarte, and children how many children? I think this would be useful because you list daughters and two sons later but the actual number of children is unknown. Presumably the ones in Georgetown would be the same as the ones who fled Mexico with her as she never remarried according to the article.
    • After some digging, I discovered some sources that give a bit of detail to the number of children and Lopez's journeys with them. Added it to the article. Ergo Sum 00:44, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Following the death of William McSherry, Lopez was appointed president of Georgetown College by whom?
    • The source does not say whom. However, it does not explicitly say it was an appointment (I know for some time, Georgetown's presidents were elected), so I've rephrased it from "appointed" to "named". Ergo Sum 00:46, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • which replaced the Phileleutherian Society. can you explain? What did the Phileleutherian Society previously do?
    • All three of the "Phil-" societies were competing literary societies. Ergo Sum 00:59, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • His presidency lasted just several months, before he became ill with what?
    • It does not say. Just that he became ill. Ergo Sum 00:48, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • He returned to the position of minister only briefly for how long exactly?
    • Sadly, the source gives no indication of the exact timeline. This is often the case with these sorts of sources from this time period. Ergo Sum 00:50, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • and it was reported by whom?
    • I've removed that language to just state the events more directly. Ergo Sum 00:51, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • before all the graves there were reinterred in the cemetery adjoining St. Ignatius Church when?
    • The source does not say, and I've tried to look for that date in the histories of the Jesuit properties in rural Maryland, but cannot find it. It may be one of those facts lost to history. Ergo Sum 01:03, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Georgetown was a separately chartered city I don't know if "separately charted" should be hyphenated, can you look into this?
    • I wasn't sure about this, so I looked it up. Turns out Merriam Webster is adamant that "-ly" adverbs should never be hyphenated when preceding the verbs they modify. Ergo Sum 00:53, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The archived version of reference 5 doesn't load for me. Therapyisgood (talk) 03:32, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't seem to be having an issue with that link. Internet Archive is very buggy. Perhaps it's just the way it is interacting with your browser's cache? Ergo Sum 00:57, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging Therapyisgood. Thank you for your comments. Ergo Sum 01:04, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • He was then put in charge of the local church in Peribán. does the source say by whom or by what mechanism?
    • It does not say by whom, though from context, it would seem that the Iturbides played some role. Ergo Sum 17:40, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • and the other son this implies there were only two sons, is that right? But I read about another son above whom Lopez tutored? maybe just "while another son, Prince Salvador," if that's the case.
    • Yes, I can't keep track of how many sons there way and when (some were born later), since different sources seem inconsistent, so I've just changed it to "another son." Ergo Sum 17:41, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • and the other son, Prince Salvador need a comma after "Prince Salvador"
  • López was incardinated as a priest in the Archdiocese of Baltimore, when?
    • The source only says after his move to the U.S. Ergo Sum 17:43, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • and became the chaplain of the Georgetown Visitation Monastery. could use a year too
    • His chaplaincy is based on the same source as above. It does not provide definite dates. Only suggests that these events happened at the same time or in quick succession. Ergo Sum 17:44, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • He began anglicizing his name as Joseph Anton Lopez. any idea of when without speculating?
  • This required him to relinquish his role as chaplain to the Iturbides being the librarian? or being the minister? or being both at the same time? If it's just the librarian maybe combine with the prior sentence with "which"
    • The sources are silent on dates for all three of those positions. It only suggests relative, approximate timelines. Ergo Sum 17:46, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning towards support after these are looked at. Thanks. Therapyisgood (talk) 03:49, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Therapyisgood. Ergo Sum 17:46, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Therapyisgood: Have you had a chance to give the comments a look? Ergo Sum 00:42, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support for featured article status but there needs to be a source review. I am a bit concerned over the sudden change of the National Autonomous University of Mexico to the Royal and Pontifical University of Mexico as well. Therapyisgood (talk) 05:00, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it because the source refers to the "University of Mexico." I assumed that meant the National Autonomous because that is often referred to simply as the University of Mexico, but I then realized it had not yet been founded at the time he attended. Therefore, it must have been its predecessor institution, the Royal and Pontifical, which was also referred to as the University of Mexico. Ergo Sum 17:08, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SandyGeorgia edit

Egro Sum, what is here looks good, but I have bad news; you're not there yet.

I am not sure if google translate will give you all you need; if not, I am willing to help with the Spanish, but it could take some time. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:08, 13 May 2020 (UTC) Translation here: http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=es&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.scielo.org.mx%2Fscielo.php%3Fscript%3Dsci_arttext%26pid%3DS0185-26202012000200005%26lng%3Des%26nrm%3Diso%26tlng%3Des&skpa=on SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:10, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, SandyGeorgia. Not to worry, though. I've already read that (and, in fact, have already included it in the External links section). The intro of the Regulations was edited and translated by Ávila, who also wrote the Relatos article. There's nothing in the Regulations intro that isn't in the article. Ergo Sum 17:12, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But there is so much other detail in this full article that can be mined! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:28, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The only material in there that I haven't mentioned in the article is the actual curriculum that he prescribed. I'm not sure that's really worthy of inclusion in his biography. Perhaps just a sentence about it. Ergo Sum 17:33, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just seeing if you have any other thoughts, SandyGeorgia. Ergo Sum 00:48, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I will try to look in soon; Please ping me if I forget by end of week. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:03, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SandyGeorgia: Friendly ping. Ergo Sum 19:09, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looking now, and apologies for my extreme delay. Other Stuff Happened (ARBCOM :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:50, 8 July 2020 (UTC) The article has this:[reply]

  • Modeled on the educational curriculum of Spanish princes, this manual was not published due to military unrest.

Would you consider worth adding mention that The Jose A. Lopez Collections are preserved as part of a special collection of the Lauinger Library at Georgetown University? The paper I linked above (quoting from the translation, which you can see) also mention that his work discusses the "weight of religion, the importance of the prince as a guide to the Christian republic or the introduction of convenient knowledge ... from physics, chemistry, mineralogy, and astronomy". It also says that "it is a unique document of this type produced in independent Mexico and accounts for some of the assumptions about what government should be like, beyond its pedagogical proposals". (I am quoting from Google translate-- should you decide to use any of this, which I find of interest, I will go back to the original Spanish to verify correct wording.)

  • This source presents Lopez's work as "due to its importance it seems to me that it should be published in full and is extensive" ... useful in the history of education in Mexico.
  • "Lopez showed a vision of politics that was not well adjusted to the political system that had just been established, because although he pointed out as a success the establishment of a moderate monarchy, he gave an excessive role to the imperial family in the government and in the direction of their subjects."
  • "Lopez was right in noting that the heir to the throne would have an enormous political responsibility, but sometimes seems to forget that, under the representative system that had been adopted, all citizens had the capacity to govern themselves, through their representatives."
  • Mention of Maryland Province for the Society of Jesus.
  • claims he was the first librarian at Georgetown College ?

The article then appears to include the full copy of his unpublished work ... primary, but you might find something of use in it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:21, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your helpful comments, SandyGeorgia. I've added a sentence about his curriculum's view of monarchical politics. As for the role of the manual in education history, I don't know how widespread a view that is, since I haven't seen any other academic make that claim; it may be rather idiosyncratic to this author. Also, I can't find where it says he was the first librarian; that would also seem to clash with the references on William Feiner. Ergo Sum 20:59, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I added the text, then realized I didn't have a page number to cite. I suspect your Spanish skills may be better than mine. Could I bother you to open the PDF and find out the relevant page numbers to cite for the sentence I added? Ergo Sum 21:05, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
From the PDF page 178 has (in case you want to use the quote= parameter, as one theoretically should with non-English sources),

Sólo apuntaré que López mostraba una visión de la política poco ajustada al sistema político que acababa de instaurarse, pues si bien señalaba como un acierto el haberse establecido una monarquía moderada, concedía un papel excesivo a la familia imperial en el gobierno y en la dirección de sus súbditos. Por supuesto, asistía la razón a López al anotar que el heredero del trono tendría sobre sí una enorme responsabilidad política, pero a veces pareciera olvidar que, bajo el sistema representativo que se había adoptado, el conjunto de los ciudadanos tenía capacidad para gobernarse, a través de sus representantes.

which translates to (my adjustments to the poor Google translate-- but use that if you prefer):

I will only point out that López showed a political vision not well adjusted to the political system that had just been established, because although he indicated as a triumph the successful establishment of a moderate monarchy, he granted an excessive role to the imperial family in the government and direction of its subjects. Of course, reason agreed with López noting that the heir to the throne would have an enormous political responsibility, but sometimes he seemed to forget that, under the representative system that had been adopted, all citizens had the capacity to govern themselves, through their representatives.

Also, if you use the trans-title parameter for the title, Method and regulation of instruction of the Mexican princes, 1822: Palaeography and presentation.
I'm down for Support with this addition mentioning the impact of his work. I expected you would have better sources re the "first" librarian ... so good. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:24, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, the article's author's opinion, stated on page 178, is based on text from the actual curriculum, which is found on pages 187–8, in case you want to cite that page as well:

El imperio mexicano ha adoptado, por una providencia especial de Dios, la de monarquía moderada, confiando con este hecho a sus príncipes nada menos que la salud del Estado y la felicidad de todo el pueblo. ¿Cuántas pues y cuáles serán las obligaciones que por tan eminente cargo han contraído con la sociedad? “Sabed, hijo mío –decía Luis, el Godo, a Luis, rey de Francia–, que el reino no es otra cosa que una carga pública, de que hemos de dar cuenta rigurosa al que dispone de los cetros y coronas.” Un buen príncipe, que algún día ha de ser conductor del Estado, debe tener muy presente esa sentencia para no omitir esfuerzo alguno en hacerse por el estudio y buen ejemplo capaz de conducirlo benéfica y sabiamente. La ciencia del gobierno es ciertamente la más intrincada y difícil, como que tiene por objeto conocer a los hombres, para poderlos conducir a su bienestar por los caminos de la justicia y equidad, y los príncipes deben consagrar todos sus desvelos a conseguir esta ciencia que es, digámoslo así, la de su profesión: ella comprende el conocimiento de todos los derechos, puesto que su ejercicio consiste en aplicarlos, y este ejercicio ha de ser inseparable del de las demás virtudes. En el estudio del derecho público, lo primero que se ofrece es el examen del derecho de gentes, por el cual han de gobernarse las relaciones de unas potencias con otras, pues estando todas en la necesidad de auxiliarse mutuamente, y contribuir a la felicidad general, la naturaleza ha dictado ciertos principios que se llaman derecho de gentes natural. Las mismas naciones se presume que han consentido en otros principios, cuyas máximas también son consagradas al bien de la sociedad universal, y de aquí nace el derecho de gentes conocido entre los publicistas con el nombre de voluntario general; los diversos tratados que las naciones pueden celebrar, producen una nueva especie de derecho de gentes, que se dice convencional, y como es evidente que un tratado sólo obliga a las partes contratantes, este derecho no es universal sino particular; por último, hay ciertas máximas y prácticas que las naciones observan como un derecho de gentes, por haberlas consagrado al uso no interrumpido de largo tiempo, de las cuales se forma el derecho no escrito o la costumbre de las naciones.

Junta is used in the article without definition or link ... pick one? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:09, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Linked. Ergo Sum 21:16, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Kohlrabi Pickle edit

  • Though his presidency lasted a matter of several months before he fell ill and was sent to St. Inigoes, Maryland to recuperate, he garnered a reputation as a strict disciplinarian. I think this sentence has too many parts to make for comfortable reading. If the point is that he gained a reputation as a disciplinarian in a short period, does it add value to say that he was sent to St Inigoes to recuperate in the same sentence? Perhaps split the line into two?
    • Rephrased. Ergo Sum 17:45, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • It now feels slightly staccato to my ear. Hmm, how about this? In addition to this, the point about him being a disciplinarian indeed comes across as a feature of his presidency, because it immediately follows "although his presidency lasted only a matter of several months". Perhaps, something like this will help both: "As an educator, he garnered a reputation as a strict disciplinarian. A few months into his presidency, he fell ill and was sent to St Inigoes, Maryland, to recuperate, where he died in 1841." Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 01:15, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • I like that. I've tweaked it just slightly. Ergo Sum 03:16, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Though his presidency lasted a matter of several months This might be nitpicking, but “several” seems to me to convey length, like "many", even if in the context "many months" might not be long at all. I think your point instead is that his presidency was short. Perhaps “though his presidency lasted only a matter of several months”? Or remove “several”?
  • Shortly after resigning, he died in St. Inigoes in 1841. Perhaps, for ease of reading, “he died in St Inigoes in 1841, shortly after resigning”?
    • I've rephrased this sentence per above. Ergo Sum 17:46, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you elaborate on why he tried to arrest Miguel Hidalgo? I can’t tell whether this was some kind of citizen’s arrest, or else what authority he was acting under. Why did he flee to Valladolid?
    • The source doesn't explicitly say, but I infer that it was probably an extrajudicial arrest during a time of revolutionary turmoil. Ergo Sum 17:47, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you elaborate a little about his relationship with the future Empress? Was it romantic or pastoral? Or perhaps just friendly? It seems from the rest of the article that it was pastoral, but the lead section gives the impression that it was romantic. If that’s the case, then I’m confused as to why he was a close ally of the Emperor. Or else how it was compatible with him being a Catholic priest.
    • Sadly, "relationship" has been imbued with modern connotation. I've rephrased it to remove any ambiguity. Ergo Sum 17:49, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was Lopez’s appointment to the chaplaincy of Iturbide’s counter-revolutionary army a promotion? Or was it the Emperor sending someone he disliked to the frontlines?
    • The source suggests that it was a moderately prestigious position to hold. I've rephrased to signify this. Ergo Sum 17:50, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it would help very much to have historical context to all this. It may not be necessary to write it yourself, but at least to wikilink to the relevant articles on the subject. I see that you’ve linked the Liberal Triennium, which is helpful. But perhaps something more to explain his arrest of Hidalgo as well.
    • I'm not an expert in Mexican history, but I've provided the link to the Mexican War of Independence at the start of the discussion of his political/military associations. I'm not sure what else I could link to that might be helpful. Ergo Sum 17:55, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah yes, I missed that! I think that is sufficient, but that it would be useful to fit in the words "Mexican War of Independence" and link that, to remove all doubt. e.g. " I think "Mexican independence" leaves just a tad too much ambiguity. It could be referring to a Mexican independence revolutionary at a different time in his life, or even some kind of mercenary from the independence era. It would be very helpful to make it clearer that this is taking place against the backdrop of the Mexican War of Independence. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 01:33, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think it should be quite clear now. Ergo Sum 03:18, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I’m having some difficulty following the movements of the different people. Iturbide was exiled in 1823, and Lopez accompanied the whole family to Italy. They then all fled to England. In 1824, Lopez went to Mexico with Iturbide and his junta, but without the family. Iturbide is executed in 1824, and Lopez is presumably still in Mexico. The family flees to the US, presumably from England. How does Lopez accompany them to New Orleans if he is in Mexico? Does he meet them en route, or join them in New Orleans? Or does he travel to England to escort them?
    • I believe the family followed Iturbide to Mexico, before his death. Then they all traveled to the United States together. I've added that bit of clarification to the article. Ergo Sum 17:56, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a wikilink that might explain what a “minister of the college” is? I’m not familiar.
    • I actually don't know what that is either. I've done a bit of digging but cant find anything. All I know is that it was a fairly senior position at Georgetown in the 19th century, and many other of Georgetown's presidents can be found holding this position prior to their appointment as president (which is mentioned in their respective articles). Ergo Sum 17:58, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I suppose that's fine then. I found a book called "A Memoir of Ministry at Georgetown College" [40] but it just seems to describe being a minister at the Georgetown College chapel. Are we sure that this is not simply referring to Lopez being a minister and a librarian? "Librarian of the college" sounds like a rank or title, like general of the armies as opposed to a bog-standard army general. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 01:43, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • It wasn't a rank, but rather was a position of some prominence, since at that time, the college had only one librarian. Not long after, it would have one or two assistant librarians, even after it had become a large university. Ergo Sum 03:20, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps a slightly pedantic point, but was Lopez known as a disciplinarian only during his presidency, or throughout his time at Georgetown? The former is the impression I get from the lead section, but then I'd want to know what inspired the change.
    • It should be the latter. Does this not come across, since it is mentioned in the discussion of his presidency? Ergo Sum 17:59, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there any available information about the nature of his illness? Or perhaps any information that indicates whether it was anything out of the ordinary?
    • None that I can find. The records of his time in the US are rather skeletal. Ergo Sum 18:00, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • before all the graves there were reinterred in the cemetery adjoining St. Ignatius Church in the same village. This line has too many parts, I think. If the point is that he was ultimately reinterred elsewhere, then I think it should be split up.
  • Was Lopez's appointment cut short by illness, or because a successor had been found? The article says that he was a placeholder. If a replacement was ready by 1 May, then is it true that it was his illness that cut his appointment short? And was he sent to St Inigoes after he stepped down? In which case the lead section might need to be reworded. It gives the impression that it was his being sent to St Inigoes (and as a result being unable to perform his responsibilities) that led to his stepping down.
    • I think his term was cut short before a permanent replacement could be found. I've rephrased the lede so that this should be clearer. Ergo Sum 18:02, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is fine. Just another quick point which I missed in my first round. In One notable event that occurred during his tenure was the establishment of a literary society alongside the existing Philodemic Society, known as the Philonomosian Society, which replaced the Phileleutherian Society, the repetition of "philo-" words makes it read slightly comically. This is not a problem, per se, but I thought I would point it out to you anyway. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 01:43, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • I agree that it's not exceedingly elegant, but I don't see a way around it without being needlessly wordy. Ergo Sum 03:21, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is all from me, but otherwise beautifully written and neatly formatted. Despite the short length of the article, it makes for a remarkably engaging read. I'm expecting to support when these are addressed. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 06:26, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your very helpful comments, Kohlrabi Pickle. Ergo Sum 18:02, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure, Ergo Sum. I have responded to a couple of the comments with some very minor points, and I added one more at the end. After these are addressed, the article should be good to go. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 01:47, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Kohlrabi Pickle: I believe I've taken a look at each. Ergo Sum 03:22, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

With that, I am very happy to support this article's candidacy for FA. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 04:20, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note edit

Source review for reliability and formatting? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:18, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm adding this to the urgents list hoping for an outside third comprehensive review. @SandyGeorgia: --Ealdgyth (talk) 14:20, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I will look in again tomorrow, when home from cabin. I have not had time to check that all of the info from the Spanish-language sources that I thought should be included is actually there. Sorry! If I forget, please put a message on my talk page instead of pinging me ...pings get lost in the works ... I use my talk page to track work I need to do. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:57, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

- spotchecks not done

  • FN9: I think a student newspaper is reasonable for the claim that his son was a student, but I don't think the note warrants inclusion if this is the only source with that descriptor
    • Although it's not essential to the article, it does provide some context (e.g. that the Iturbides attended Georgetown, while Lopez would become an instructor there. Ergo Sum 03:00, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Do any other sources describe Lopez as the first Hispanic president of an American university? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:01, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't find any others that do. Ergo Sum 16:53, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Mendizabal source is missing full location. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:31, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ian edit

Recusing coord duties, I've copyedited a bit and will take Nikki's image and source reviews as read. Nothing jumps out, but I can't comment on possible Spanish sources. If no-one demonstrates a lack of comprehensiveness in reasonably short order this can be taken as support. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk)

Ealdgyth inquired if I had approved Spanish-language sources. It was so long ago, I forgot what exactly I had checked, so ...

The author of this article (Alfredo Ávila Rueda) is the same author as the journal article at http://www.scielo.org.mx/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0185-26202012000200005 I am uncertain if that citation is written correctly. Avila Rueda wrote the commentary, but also published all of Lopez's method of instruction. I don't know what author should be used in such a case ... so just noting that Avila Rueda is the same author.
The publisher of Relatos e Historias is a publisher attached to an archeological store. Their About us page is empty. They indicate at the bottom of the cited page ([41]) that they are reproducing this article on the web, which they published in hard copy ("El artículo "Josep Lopez" del autor Alfredo Ávila Rueda se publicó completo en esta página web como un obsequio a nuestros lectores. En su versión impresa lo encuentra en Relatos e Historias en México número 127"), so I think we can take it to be a reliable source, particularly since the same author published in a journal. There are perhaps some tidbits from that article that Ergo might want to include ... putting the translations here should you be interested ...
  • Add to the lead that he also used the name "Josep"?
  • hoy en México, en su Michoacán natal, José Antonio López es prácticamente desconocido ... in present-day Michoacan, where Lopez was born, he is practically unknown
    • I don't know if his lack of notability is notable. Ergo Sum 01:05, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Miguel Hidalgo, was traveling through Michoacán in 1810, López unsuccessfully tried to arrest him, ... we need to attribute this claim to Lopez himself, per the source.
  • "It is interesting for the history of Mexico that, from the beginning, López reported on the conflicts between the king of Spain and the liberals, and especially between the moderate and exalted liberals. Among other things, he warned that freedom of the press, discussions in the courts, patriotic societies and more radical groups (such as the comuneros and the carbonarios) could cause a civil war."
    • Is this not already captured by the statement about the Liberal Triennium? Ergo Sum 01:33, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The closeness of José Antonio López to Ana Huarte allowed him to have a privileged position in the domestic space of the person who had become the Liberator."
    • I've rephrased a sentence to include this. Ergo Sum 01:34, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "López's educational proposal is very similar to the instructions that were drawn up for the Spanish princes, with an enormous weight of religion, as well as rhetoric and the humanities, without neglecting the sciences. He had a clearly anachronistic tone, since he sought to form a pious prince with his subjects, a good ruler and legislator, regardless of the regime that had been adopted in Mexico was that of a constitutional monarchy, in which the laws were made by a Congress and justice would be administered by a supreme court."
    • I think the info I recently added about constitutional monarchy address this.

That's it, I think the arrest claim should be attributed to him, and we should add his Josep name, the rest is optional, but seems to be noteworthy to me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:44, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, SandyGeorgia. Do you have any thoughts on my comments above? Ergo Sum 01:36, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You got the most significant ... rest was your discretion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:49, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 13 July 2020 [42].

History of the Wales national football team (1876–1976) edit

Nominator(s): Kosack (talk) 19:32, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the first century in the history of the Wales national football team, covering the highs and many lows from its incarnation in the 1870s to the mid 1970s. The article has been something I've slowly worked up when I found the time and I think it's a pretty thorough and adequately detailed piece on the period. I look forward to any comments. Kosack (talk) 19:32, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Fowler&fowler edit

Although I don't use the word "football" for this sport, nor for that matter the words "side," "fixture," "edition," and "duty," in the manner employed, I can see that they belong here to an unassuming but comfortably eloquent prose style for which the author has my admiration.

My available time for doing reviews is unpredictable these days, so I can't be sure when I'll return to the article. If I do not return, the coordinators may consider this brief review to constitute support for this nomination. Here are a few minor comments:

  • The Wales national football team is the third oldest side in international association football.
  • Would it be worthwhile to say that this is the history of the first century of Wales national team? Otherwise, novices such as I might wonder why the team folded after precisely one hundred years.
  • I've added a see also link to the page that will cover the rest of the history. It's a red link for now, but is on my to do list after I finish up Phil Dwyer's page. Kosack (talk) 12:29, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wales played its first fixture in March 1876, four years after Scotland and England had contested the first-ever international match.
  • Are fixture and match used synonymously?
Yes they are. Kosack (talk) 12:29, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The team played annual fixtures against Scotland, England, and later Ireland and these fixtures were eventually organised into the British Home Championship, an annual competition between the Home Nations.
  • Do you need the second "fixture?" (i.e. will "and these were eventually" be enough?)
  • Wales did not win its first championship until the 1906–07 edition of the competition and the triumph remained the nation's only title before the First World War.
  • Will "the triumph remained its only one before the First Word War" suffice? (You've already mentioned the championship = title.)
  • Wales improved considerably in the post-war period, and claimed three titles during the 1920s, although the team was often hindered by the reluctance of Football League clubs to release its players for international duty.
  • "... during the 1920s, despite the team being often hindered by ...?"
  • The situation was so grave that, in the early 1930s, Wales was forced to select a team of lower league and amateur players in a side that became known as "Keenor and the 10 unknowns", in reference to captain Fred Keenor and the relative obscurity of his teammates.
  • I sometimes use the hyphen, e.g. "a team of lower league- and amateur players" to signify that "players" is doing double duty. Similarly, I might have written either "a reference to both captain Fred Keenor and the ..." or "a reference to captain Fred Keenor and to the relative ..." But, your call.
  • I've adjusted the reference part. Not sure about the hyphen though. Kosack (talk) 12:29, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • When able to call upon its strongest side, Wales enjoyed its most successful period in the British Home Championship, winning four titles in the six years before the Second World War.
  • A sentence begun with "When able to call upon its strongest side," (i.e. "in every instance of being able to call upon its strongest side,") which by the way is nicely phrased, is usually completed with something generic, not specific. So, do you mean: "Able to call upon its strongest side, Wales enjoyed its most ...?"
  • As competitive football resumed after the war, Wales began facing opponents from further afield and played matches against numerous other European nations for the first time.
  • A "resumption" is a one time event, unless this one happened in fits and starts, and that needs to be emphasized. So, "When competitive football resumed ...?"
  • "further afield." Do you want "farther?" ("far, farther, farthest afield (literally, "out of the field, region, country, ..."))
  • "in 1958 and progressed from its group before being defeated by Brazil in the quarter-final."
  • How much did it progress? Some indication would help here.
  • The side suffered a decline in the 1960s as the 1958 World Cup generation gradually retired.
  • Is "1958 World Cup players" meant? What is generation in football?
  • Yeah it's referring to the group of players. In football, the core of a team that plays together for a considerable amount of time is sometimes referred to as a generation. Kosack (talk) 12:29, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dave Bowen replaced Murphy and managed the team for a decade between 1964 and 1974 but enjoyed little success, failing to qualify for a World Cup or the early editions of the European Nations' Cup (later known as the European Championships).
  • Is "for the decade" meant instead of "for a decade?" Or, is the latter even needed?
  • He did help the side to share the British Home Championship during the 1969–70 season, the last time Wales won the tournament before it was discontinued. In total, Wales won the championship 12 times, sharing five titles.
  • It is not clear what was discontinued.
  • Bowen left the role in 1974, having turned down the chance to take the position full-time.
  • But you never mentioned earlier that the position was part-time.
  • He was replaced by Englishman Mike Smith who led the side to the quarter-finals of UEFA Euro 1976 in its centenary year, before being defeated by Yugoslavia.
  • @Fowler&fowler: Thanks for taking a look and supporting , I've made the amendments you suggested above. Kosack (talk) 12:29, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Some of the captions would benefit from editing for grammar and clarity
I've made a few amendments, if there's any you think I missed, let me know. Kosack (talk) 08:55, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Meredith and Ford images. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:21, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't use fixed px size - Removed
  • Suggest adding alt text - Added
  • File:Wales_national_team_1900.jpg: as per the UK tag, the image description should specify research done on authorship, and when/where was this first published? Same with File:Wales_national_team_1887.jpg
    These aren't my images, so I can't specify what has been done? Kosack (talk) 08:59, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You could either do so yourself, or ask the uploaders if still active, or use different images. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:21, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Fma12: As the uploader of both images, are you able to assist with the point above? Kosack (talk) 16:10, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Kosack: I cited the corresponding source of those images (bbc.com in both cases), which did not indicate authorship. Since I uploaded the pics, I haven't gone further with them to determine who were the photographers. Nevertheless, the website indicated that all the photos were on display at the Powysland Museum in Welshpool, Powys (November 2011). I don't know if that museum still exists but anyone could answer them about the origin of the photographs, I guess. - Fma12 (talk) 16:32, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That would be one way to fulfill the tag requirements. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:04, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Billymeredith.jpg needs a US PD tag, and if the author is unknown how do we know they died over 70 years ago?
    Added tag, I'm not sure of the author situation so it's difficult to comment. Kosack (talk) 17:00, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    When and where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:30, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no idea really, I've tried searching for a usage of it but no luck. If this needs to be removed, so be it. Kosack (talk) 18:32, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless more info can be found, yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:04, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Fred_Keenor,_Brentford_FC_footballer,_1919.jpg: the given tag claims publication before 1925, but the stated source is after that date
    Ping @Beatpoet: for clarity here as the uploader. Kosack (talk)
    Not sure what to say, other than that this picture was taken at the end of the 1918-19 Brentford season. Beatpoet (talk) 10:14, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately created and published aren't the same thing. Is there any known publication before the given source? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:21, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:John_Charles,_Wales_versus_Scotland,_Ninian_Park,_1954.jpg: source link states the licensing is NC-ND, not CC0
    The image is part of the Geoff Charles collection at the National Library of Wales. Charles released the images which is likely where the current licence came from and the image was simply directed via Flickr rather than the collection itself. Kosack (talk) 08:55, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That link is dead, do you have a source that specifies the terms of release? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:21, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This link should work now. Kosack (talk) 16:14, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't see any mention of this licensing at that source? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:30, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The Commons category for Charles' photographs verifies that the works are released for use. Would this not match the licence in use? Kosack (talk) 18:32, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't have OTRS access to verify what the ticket says; the page linked doesn't itself have licensing information. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:04, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Trevor_Ford_(1959).jpg: source link states the licensing is CC0, not BY-SA
    The licence appears to be auto-generated by the national library tag? Kosack (talk) 08:55, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    See the template documentation for instructions on alternate licensing. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:21, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Adjusted license.
  • File:The_Israeli_team_playing_against_Wales_at_the_Ramat_Gan_stadium,_1958_D448-079.jpg: what's the status of this image in the US?
    How would I find this out? Kosack (talk) 08:55, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    See WP:NUSC. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:21, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure how to determine this as the site itself has no information on publishing. The article does appear to pass the license attached, is that not sufficient? Kosack (talk) 16:50, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    In order to be hosted on Commons the image has to be free in both its country of origin but also the US. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:30, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not really sure what the play is here, does the image need to be removed? Kosack (talk) 18:32, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    If it's not free in the US, you could either remove it or try for a fair-use claim. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:04, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm a little confused, the licensing page on Commons states that a work is usable if it is in the public domain, which this is based on the license included? "Uploads of non-U.S. works are normally allowed only if the work is either in the public domain or covered by a valid free license" Kosack (talk) 05:30, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Swansea_Town_Football_Club_(20740154461).jpg: as per the Flickr notice, the tag provided and the licensing at the source don't match.
    As per the Charles image above, it's a crossover with the Charles collection and Flickr again. Kosack (talk) 08:55, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Wales_V_Scotland_3386999.tif: this meets the threshold of originality; the current tagging is incorrect
    What license does it require? Kosack (talk) 08:56, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The current US tag is correct for US status, it just needs a different tag for its status in Wales. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:21, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Added a license comparable with other NLW material. Kosack (talk) 16:22, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like it still has the PD-text tag? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:30, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I added a tag to the infobox to cover its use in Wales, with the author information etc, as the comparable NLW articles did the same. Kosack (talk) 18:32, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You can't keep a PD-text license on this image, because PD-text doesn't apply in this particular case. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:04, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose pending resolution of these issues. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:19, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: God I hate image licensing, I deliberately picked these as they were already uploaded. I'm gonna need some help on these if possible? Image licensing is a foreign language to me I'm afraid. I'm happy to remove any image that can't be used. Kosack (talk) 08:55, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that, each comment has a response either from myself or the original uploader. Let me know what you think. Kosack (talk) 17:02, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: I've removed the images with issues and the extra pd tag from the newspaper extract. I've matched the Charles and Allchurch images to the licenses at the National Library of Wales (the links to the original releases are both included with the images). The last outstanding one is the Israel image which I'm confused about. As I noted above the license page at Commons states an image can be used if it is released into the public domain, which the licence notes it has been. Or am I reading that wrong? Kosack (talk) 05:43, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Commons requires that images be in the public domain or covered by a valid free license in both the work's country of origin as well as the US. The current license states that the image is in the public domain in Israel, which is half of the equation. But just because something is in the public domain in one country, doesn't automatically mean it's in the public domain everywhere. We need a tag indicating its status in the US. Nikkimaria (talk) 10:58, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the Israel image as well if it can't be verified. Kosack (talk) 15:16, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie edit

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

  • Is "Wales", referring to the football team, a singular or plural subject of a sentence? I see "its" used for "Wales", and "their" used for "the Welsh side" or "the team", but isn't it the case that organizations are plural in British English?
  • The singular/plural issue is one that comes up a lot in football articles. At my first FAC, Struway2 provided some thoughts on the situation and these are generally what I try to adhere too. As you say, using its for the the team as an entity and "the team's", "the side's" or similar when referring to the collection of players. Kosack (talk) 12:31, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I had a look at Struway2's comments and I can see why he suggests this usage, because US editors are likely to be surprised by the plural for "Wales", but I don't think that's a good enough reason not to use the natural British English usage. My vote would be to go with the plural. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:45, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm happy to use either, when I first started coming to FAC there were very few football articles and this is what seemed to gain approval. Recently, there has been a glut of football articles coming through that adopt the plural usage and now I'm on the opposite side again ha! Kosack (talk) 06:22, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, great. Can you go through and make whatever changes you think are appropriate, and let me know? Then I'll do another copyedit pass. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:11, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I've gone through now and rewritten to use the plural throughout. If you see any I missed, let me know. Kosack (talk) 18:20, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I had a quick look and it seems fine; I'll do another pass once you've responded to the points below. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:46, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Able to call upon its strongest side, Wales enjoyed its most successful period in the British Home Championship, winning four titles in the six years before the Second World War. This reads oddly, coming as it does right after a sentence that says Wales was not able to call on its strongest side. How about something like "By the late 1930s Wales was again able to call upon its strongest side, and enjoyed its most successful period in the British Home Championship, winning four titles in the six years before the Second World War."? - Added
  • the FAW put forward a motion that national teams be granted the right to overrule clubs on player selection, although this was rejected: I assumed this motion was put to the FA, but from the following sentence it appears that's not the case. So who was it put to?
  • Unfortunately, the source doesn't state who it was put to. The wording suggests it was a vote, possibly between the national associations of the UK but I don't think it's clear enough to support including that. Kosack (talk) 06:15, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The following year, Wales defeated Scotland for the first time in its history after 29 years having both "for the first time in its history" and "after 29 years" together like this reads clumsily. Can we cut "after 29 years", and assume the reader can work it out? Or rephrase?
  • Wales was unable to capitalise on the victory as they finished second to England in the 1905–06 British Home Championship after failing to win either of its other fixtures an example of mixed singular/plural: "they finished" but "its other fixtures". I've been in the US for over 30 years but "it" for a team still sounds very strange to me; I really think it should be plural throughout. At least one of my copyedits uses the plural but I'll fix that if you convince me that it should be singular.
  • Does the switch to plural now address this? Kosack (talk) 06:15, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The team were still reliant on England defeating Scotland to secure its second championship. Despite leading 4–2 at half-time, Scotland lost the match 5–4. I think this should conclude with the direct statement that Wales won the championship; perhaps "To secure the championship, the team still needed England to defeat Scotland. Scotland led England 4–2 at half-time, but lost the match 5–4, handing the title to Wales." - Done
  • FYI, I have access to the London Times archive and am looking up a couple of match reports as I go through the article, just for fun; if you don't have access and are interested in any of them let me know. The first one I've found is a short report on the 5-1 defeat by Scotland in 1881.
  • Trevor Ford became Wales' leading goalscorer of all time: why "all time"? It was just up to that time; he's been passed by Bale and Rush since then. - Dropped
  • Wales celebrated its 75th anniversary by winning its first post-war British Home Championship title by sharing the 1951–52 British Home Championship edition with England: needs rephrasing to avoid "...by...by...". - Done
  • The period also saw the emergence of John Charles for the national side. Not quite right; he didn't emerge for the side; he emerged as a regular in the side, or a star of the side, or he established himself in the side -- whatever best fits the source. - Done
  • The result subsequently eliminated Wales from qualifying for the World Cup: why "subsequently"? Wasn't the effect immediate? - Dropped
  • resigning later in the year due to commitments with his role at Manchester United: I suspect this should be either "conflicts with his role at Manchester United" or "commitments at [or to] Manchester United". - Done

I've finished reading through. This is close to FA standard; the points above are fairly minor. I'd have copyedited a little more if I knew we were going to make Wales plural; there are times when the prose seems to awkwardly skirt the usage. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:24, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: I think I've addressed all of the points above. Let me know if there is anything else you find. Kosack (talk) 06:22, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The fixes look good. I'll read through again this morning. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:37, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do we need the footnote on the last sentence of the lead?
    The 1976 tournament was unusual in that only the semi-finals onward were played in the host country. As a result, Wales are not counted as having qualified for the tournament despite reaching the quarter-finals. I thought this was worth pointing out to the casual reader. Kosack (talk) 18:06, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • the Freeman's Journal claimed: why is this match report qualified like this? None of the others are.
    The result was a heavy loss for Ireland and Stead's book writes that the Freeman's Journal were trying to lessen the importance of the match by stating that the name of the Irish team was basically hijacked by local amateurs. Kosack (talk) 18:06, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm supporting below, since this is the last point and it's minor, but the perfectly good reasoning you give here isn't really apparent in the article. If you can source some paraphrase of "were trying to lessen the importance" that would be helpful. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:11, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I've expanded on this information a bit more. Kosack (talk) 14:40, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • simultaneously recording a first clean sheet against the Scots: I think we could cut this -- if they'd never avoided defeat before, of course they'd never kept a clean sheet. - Removed
  • The paragraph about Roose needs a little restructuring -- it says he was dropped but then goes on to talk about his subsequent international performances.
    I've rewritten now so that it maintains a chronological timeline. Kosack (talk) 18:13, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for a second pass. Once these points are fixed I'll be glad to support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:08, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed the points above. Kosack (talk) 18:13, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support. One minor point left above that doesn't affect my support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:11, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your help and support. Kosack (talk) 14:40, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note edit

  • Don't know how I missed getting this into the FAC urgents list -- let's try something more direct: TRM, do you think you could review?
    I sure can. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 10:46, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • We'll also need a source review.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:51, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from TRM edit

Lead to "New century" section edit
  • "Wales played ..." quick repeat of Wales.
  • Would be better to move that Wales to " The team played " instead, as you mention two other teams in between.
  • " and later Ireland and" comma after Ireland.
  • "Wales did not win their first championship" is it worth noting in the lead when they actually got their first win in international football?
    I did consider this, but in trying to keep the lead to the point, I omitted it in favour of larger achievements. I can add it in if you think it's particularly worthwhile? Kosack (talk) 12:09, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I think their first ever win is probably notable enough for the lead. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 09:18, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the 1906–07 edition of the competition" -> "the 1906–07 tournament" -> I can't think of a single BritEng person that refers to these as "editions".
  • "1950 and 1954 editions" tournaments, and put "tournaments" inside the last pipe to avoid easter egg year links.
  • " in 1958 and " another easter egg year link.
  • "in the quarter-final in the following round." I don't think you need "in the following round". I know what you're saying, you want to make it clear it was the very next match, but this current wording reads odd to me.
  • " 12 times, sharing five titles" I would prefer "twelve times" since you have "five titles" here.
  • Any chance of a lead image?
    As you can probably tell by the image review above, I've had problems finding suitable images to include here and removed several due to licensing problems. I'm not aware of any that would be worth going in the lead that are freely available. Kosack (talk) 12:09, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, no stress. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 09:18, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in rugby" I would be explicit and call in rugby union.
  • But I'm not clear on the relevance of this to the football team?
    I've rephrased this as Kenrick was responding to the piece but instead pushed for a football match. Kosack (talk) 12:09, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "pushed ahead" and "pushed forward" in the same paragraph, could use a sprinkle of variation.
  • "The result remains" normally have an "as of" here, although I confess it's unlikely that Wales will be so defeated again...
  • " Wales and England met" England is overlinked.
  • "were less than 100 in" fewer.
  • "were defeated 2–1" as it's so notable, could we also know the oppo scorers?
  • "against England. ... against the English" bit repetitive.
  • "recorded a second victory" who scored?
    This match finished 5–4 with 8 different goalscorers. Listing them all seems a bit like overkill perhaps. Kosack (talk) 12:09, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 09:18, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The inaugural edition of the tournament was" ->"The inaugural tournament was"
  • "highest placed finish to date in 1895 by finishing" repetitive.
  • "thrashing" journalese.
  • "crushing" likewise.
  • "of his side's goals" redundant.
  • " fell on deaf ears" colloquial.
  • " revived hope" for whom?
  • "deemed unlucky" by whom?
  • "where three goalkeepers were used" by Wales? And why?
  • " era, goalkeeper Leigh Richmond Roose entered" comma after Roose.
  • " began proving" began to prove.
  • "the final edition of the championship before " -> "the final championship before "
  • "with one point." Interesting. You and I both know this means they drew a single game, but I wonder if our non-footy oriented readers get that connection? Perhaps expand?
  • "including Leigh Roose" no need to repeat his first name, the mention by surname is unambiguous.
  • "40-year old" shouldn't that be "40-year-old"?
  • "Wales' first post-war match" first official international you mean?
  • " 45-year old" again " 45-year-old"?
  • "his final cap, 25 " link cap.
  • "defeat Scotland. Scotland led" quickly repetitive.

That's taken me to the "1920s success and decline" section, I'll pause here while we see if these comments are useful, and come back to complete the job as required! Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 11:31, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: Thanks for taking up the review. Apologies that it took me so long to address the issues above, I've had very little time available here recently. I've fixed all of the points above with a couple of notes to one or two as well. Thanks. Kosack (talk) 12:09, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"1920s success and decline" section to "Austria and The Battle of Wrexham" section edit
  • " unable to defend their title in the 1920–21 season, losing 2–1 to Scotland in the opening game." this is fake causality, they didn't fail to defend the title because they lost to Scotland. I would end the first sentence after "season" and then go on to describe the whole ":reason why.
  • "the national team often found itself losing out to the domestic game" I think I know what you mean, but are you saying this in terms of attendances, or personnel availability?
  • "victory over Ireland ... victory over Ireland" repetitive.
  • "an instant impact" a little bit journalistic for me, it obviously wasn't literally instant...
  • ", scoring in a... scored again... with Ted Vizard scoring" repetitive.
  • "a last minute interception" doesn't feel encyclopedic, last minute-> late, not sure how to change "interception" but it doesn't seem quite appropriate.
  • Link own goal.
  • "winning each one" tiny bit strange to my ear, why not "winning them all"?
  • "the most any player has scored in a single match against Wales." citation?
  • "a Scottish newspaper" do we know which one?
    Unfortunately, the ref doesn't give a name of the newspaper. Kosack (talk) 12:27, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link header.
  • "in 1934–35, " +season/competition/tournament etc
  • "via goals from" with rather than via.
  • "won ... by winning... " repetitive.
  • "The following year..." new section, perhaps reiterate where we are.
  • "less of a draw" a bit like the "interception" above, perhaps best to avoid football parlance in general prose, could have the potential for confusion (like when I once offered "the tie was tied"...)
  • "two sides meeting 15 times" above you had "26 players in only 3 games" which I guess is an interpretation of MOSNUM for comparable items, one of which I'm less enthusiastic about, so perhaps either make that "26 players in only three games" or make this "2 sides meeting 15 times" or better still, "two sides meeting fifteen times".
  • " the national side was rocked" Wales, because you've mentioned other national teams in between.
  • also feels like "rocked by" is a little POV/emotive.
  • "One of the ... one of ..." repetitive.
  • "The following year" you could link this, no?
  • Link "kit".
  • " in 1950 and" perhaps "in the 1950 tournament and" and link the 1950 World Cup therein?
  • "avenged" feels POV.
  • "His first match in charge of the side was a match against " delete "a match", redundant.
  • "17 years at Ninian Park" 17 years in general or 17 years of matches at Ninian Park?
  • " as "indeed the " what does "indeed" add to this?
  • "as a tie" draw?
  • "German or English had" comma after English.
  • "Tapscott [...] had " can you check MOS:ELLIPSIS here, I don't think the brackets are necessary, and just ensure you have non-breaking spaces before each one.
  • "while The Times wrote "there" The Times didn't write that...

Kosack That's the next three sections done, let me know when you're good to continue, and by all means take your time. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 11:06, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: I've amended all of the issues above. Kosack (talk) 12:27, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"1958 FIFA World Cup" section to "World Cup generation fades" section edit
  • "Jimmy Murphy as manager in 1956. Murphy's..." quick repeat of his surname, just "His" would be fine and unambiguous.
  • "drawn qualifying groups. Wales were drawn" drawn .. drawn, repetitive.
  • "John Charles became highly critical" why not just "was"?
  • Why is Ray Daniel so non-notable despite being called into the Wales squad?
  • Link FIFA.
  • Belgium is overlinked here.
  • "a favourable draw " according to whom?
  • "Ford, the nation's record goalscorer. Ford had been" He had been...
  • Is that Saltsjöbaden? If so we should respect the diacritic.
  • "had weakened the side" any more on this, like was it because players had died, or hadn't been playing football or something else?
  • "for Wales after 27 minutes" the 11v11 source you used for the other goal says 26 minutes.
  • "10-men" not sure that needs hyphenation in that usage.
  • "Sweden which had already" that's odd phrasing for me, I would say "who".
  • "see it advance" similar, them? I haven't noticed this prior to this point...
  • "with 10-men following" same, no hyphen needed.
  • "attempts to recover" "failed to recover" repetitive.
  • "the post World Cup" now then I would put a hyphen between "post" and "World".
  • "The following year, the post World Cup..." the previous year mentioned was 1959, so that makes "the following year" 1960, but the BBC source says that game was played in 1961. 11v11 concurs.
  • Re: first match vs Rep of Ireland. "Goals from Cliff Jones and Phil Woosnam won the match for Wales" but 11v11 says this game ended 3–2 so while what you've written is technically correct, it could be misleading. And this will need to be sorted chronologically with the England game.
  • :Leave myself a marker here for now. Kosack (talk) 12:20, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A shared British Home Championship title in 1959–60 British Home Championship and" this is noted after the 1961 matches...
    This was intended to be a build up to the feeling of positivity heading into the qualifying campaign, combined with the other tournament in the sentence as a general background to the build up. I can rewrite if you still think it's necessary. Kosack (talk) 12:09, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • " to the following year's campaign" could be linked?
  • "positive finish" I guess that's the 5–1 victory against Ireland?
  • "Spain for the first match... Spain won the first match" repetitive.
  • "Wales' goal. The result eliminated Wales from qualifying for the World Cup.[117] Wales" Wales ... Wales ... Wales...
  • The qualifiers v Spain were played in April/May 1961, again, before the Ninian Park record, so double check the chronology here.
  • Worth noting that first friendly v Brazil had a crowd of 100,000? Would that be a record for the team?
    The record is believed to be 110,000 against East Germany a few years previously but some reports I've seen have cast doubts over the reliability of that number so I chose to omit it. Kosack (talk) 12:17, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "inaugural edition in 1960" I would make that the whole pipe.
  • "demoralising" not in Wikipedia's voice.
  • Somewhere we should be linking the 1964 tournament.
  • Wales' qualification group for 1966 has its own specific article at 1966 FIFA World Cup qualification – UEFA Group 7.
  • "which ended in a goalless draw." probably should state against whom the match was played.
  • Could note the Soviet Union had finished as runners-up in the 1964 tournament.
  • "previously unbeaten opponents" I assume this means just during qualification, not forever?
    Yes indeed. Kosack (talk) 12:22, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 15:44, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Amended everything in this section now. A couple of comments above also. Kosack (talk) 12:22, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Late 1960s struggles" section onwards edit
  • " UEFA Euro 1968 " it wasn't called that contemporaneously was it?
  • "1967–68 editions" put editions into the pipe. But prefer "competitions" or "tournaments" to "editions" any day.
  • "which of the Home Nations would progress" how many could progress?
  • All of "Wales recorded a creditable ... a single point.[131]" is referenced by RSSSF which doesn't list goal scorers, make claims like "creditable win" etc.
  • Any reason why we have these latter Home Nations at a year range when they took place in a single year? You have "of the last British Home Championship of the decade " but of course we then have 1969–70 British Home Championship which presumably was still within the same decade if the name of the article is to be believed?
  • "Late 1960s struggles" section title and then in the section itself we have "Wales' struggles during the 1960s" not just late-1960s?
  • "to not allow" split infinitive, no to allow.
  • "until a day before" surely "the" day?
  • "Gareth Davies" our article has him as Davis.
  • No need to link common geographical terms like Rome.
  • "Goalkeeper Gary Sprake later " avoid false titles.
  • "shambles [...] some" see previous MOS:ELLIPSIS comment.
  • "when it failed " unclear what "it" refers to here, the incident or FAW, consider a re-word.
  • "The success was the final time Wales were victorious in the competition. The title was the 12th time it had won the competition and the fifth time it had shared the title." merge these and per MOSNUM, 12th/fifth should be "12th/5th" or "twelfth/fifth".
  • "The success..." starts two sentences in quick time, jarring.
  • "for UEFA Euro 1972" same again, it wasn't called that then.
  • "The side began" you mentioned several sides previously.
  • "than their birth" perhaps add "own" before birth to make it crystal clear.
  • "four consecutive seasons between 1971 and 1975" that's five seasons.
  • And a bit more confusion, the 1971 tournament Wales finished third, not fourth, despite RSSSF's typo.
  • "Hockey would turn villain" journalese.
  • "to be sent-off" no hyphen. And link.
  • " he felt "your physical well being " I would rephrase: " he felt his "physical well-being ""...
  • " full-time occupant and offered Dave Bowen the position on a permanent full-time" repetitive "full-time" here.
  • "for UEFA Euro 1976 as " again, should use the contemporary name.
  • "to win in Hungary since 1909, winning 2–1 via goals " win, winning repetitive.
  • Euro 1976 qualifying is a bit weird when you say "qualify for the final eight" because it turns out that means qualification for the finals. And little wonder I was surprised to see a friendly against England jammed in between the "rounds". Perhaps make it clearer how Euro 1976 qualification/finals worked, ironically for those of us who have a little bit of knowledge...?
  • "1976 edition of the European Championships" there, it's definitely not Euro 1976. And do avoid that "edition" thing.
  • There's a link for two-legged tie.
  • "The second-leg was" no hyphen required.
  • "lead after only 45 seconds" the reference doesn't support that.
  • " Glöckner controversially awarded " just "He... " as there's no ambiguity and you mentioned his surname in the previous sentence.
  • Link penalty (but do it the first time, this is the third instance, but I only just noticed).
  • "for UEFA Euro 1980 be" again, not the contemporary name.

That's it. Once we're done, refs and one final read through. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 20:52, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from TRM edit

It was a pleasure to re-read and although I fixed a couple of very minor errors, I find it difficult to find fault with the article now. Hopefully my comments have been useful, despite the unfortunate manner in which other users have reacted to them. Excellent work Kosack. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 08:39, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks TRM, your reviews are always welcome. Kosack (talk) 10:24, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Aza24 - Pass edit

Woah is this article still waiting on a source review? Geez, doing now. Aza24 (talk) 22:14, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well those were admittedly very thorough references. The only issues I could find was that the first two books use ISBN-10 rather than 13, so please fix those accordingly. (Here is links to those of Davies & Garland as well as Farmer & Peter)

Besides that the sources are all reliable and those that are not published books or from news corporations are citing uncontroversial information. (Scores and such) Aza24 (talk) 22:59, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spot checks - Pass edit

Checked 5, 18, 27, 39, 44, 47, 61, 93, 131 - all good Aza24 (talk) 22:59, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will be checking sources once I've covered the prose. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 23:14, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@The Rambling Man: Oh, I didn't mean to overstep if you were already planning to do the source review, sorry about that. Aza24 (talk) 00:12, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, just noting that I'll be doing more than just a spot check on them. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 06:47, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
TRM, appreciate you getting stuck into the review when I pinged, are you close to wrapping up now? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:47, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Ian: I'm unsure whether the source review is complete. If it is not, or if you do not consider that it is, please let me know. Although I am on vacation through September, I consider this FAC to be unfinished business from long before. I am therefore happy to pitch in if needed. As you may know from Leech, I can review sources comprehensively and in short order. Otherwise, I am more than happy to let my sleeping dogs (of source snuffling) lie. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:56, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tks for that offer, F&F, but it looks to me that reliability and formatting are reviewed, and there were also spotchecks. This has had a much longer run at FAC that we normally like so subject to my own final checks I'll be aiming to close shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:32, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 10 July 2020 [43].

Battle of Adys edit

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 15:02, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nine years into the First Punic War and the Romans carried the war to the Carthaginians by invading Africa. They established a foothold which the Roman commander Regulus was left to hold over the winter. He pushed inland and was confronted by the Carthaginians. He defeated their incompetently-generalled army at Adys. He then marched to within sight of the city of Carthage and the despairing Carthaginians sued for peace. "Wait!" you cry - the First Punic War lasted another fourteen years. Indeed, read the article to find out what happened.

This is the last of the four land conflicts from the war I will be submitting for FAC; I believe that it is there or thereabouts but would welcome all suggestions for improvement. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:02, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Therapyisgood edit

Resolved comments from Therapyisgood (talk) 12:31, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
*File:Altar Domitius Ahenobarbus Louvre n3 (cropped).jpg and File:Pompeii, Statuette of a war elephant.jpg are incredibly small given they are against article text and could be considerably larger. The "aftermath" section could use a clear template because File:First Punic War Africa 256-255BC.svg is breaking into the notes section on my monitor.
There are huge differences dependent on monitor size, monitor settings and Wikipedia preference settings. I usually check images on five different screens, but it still doesn't work for everyone. That said, I have increased the size of the war elephant image (it now looks monstrous on my default screen) and I have put a {-}, which I am guessing is what you wanted, at the end of "Aftermath". Any better?
  • near Adys is there anywhere you could link this to?
It is linked at fist mention in the article, but I forgot to link it in the lead. Now fixed.
  • Other, later, histories of the war exist, but in fragmentary or summary form are these from modern times or from years before 1000? A year range could be helpful. Even an example would be great.
I have inserted "ancient" to make this a little clearer. The next sentence starts "Modern historians usually take into account the later histories of Diodorus Siculus and Dio Cassius ..."
  • The immediate cause of the war was control of the Sicilian town of Messana Was Sicily an independent nation like Rome and Carthage? Or was it owned by Rome or Carthage? Can you link it somewhere?
Sicily was a patchwork of squabbling city states at the start of the war. I deliberately don't go too much into the socio-politic situation on Sicily as the article is about a battle in Africa. (I could, if you feel it would be helpful; I have in other FAs about events on Sicily.)
  • @Gog the Mild: Maybe link to Sicily on first use in the article, "the most powerful city-state on Sicily" I believe. Therapyisgood (talk) 23:16, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Therapyisgood D'oh! I have linked in the lead and not in the article! Done. Also linked city-state. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:34, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 260 BC Romans set out to construct a fleet using a shipwrecked Carthaginian quinquereme can you provide some background, maybe a half sentence or a sentence, on the state of the Carthage navy?
I have changed "Carthage was a well-established maritime power in the Western Mediterranean" to 'Carthage was the leading maritime power in the Western Mediterranean; its navy dominating both militarily and commercially.'
  • plus an unknown number of transports can you link "transports" somewhere? I'm not sure what the term means.
I have added the word 'ships' and linked to Cargo ship.
  • They captured 20,000 slaves from whom? who were they? Native Africans?
The sources say not. At a guess, yes: Carthaginians and Numidians and their slaves, who in turn would have been largely but not exclusively of African origin. But that's OR.
  • Carthaginian citizens men and women?
Oops. Inconsistency with Roman citizens. Fixed.
  • The Romans followed up and captured numerous towns, including Tunis, only 16 km (10 mi) from Carthage.[67][66] switch these.
Not a MoS nor FAC requirement, but done.
  • unacceptable, the Carthaginians decided to fight on.[69][66] again switch.
Done.

Therapyisgood (talk) 23:42, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Many thanks for that Therapyisgood. Several of those I had to really think about, which is good. Apologies for taking so long to get back to you - I missed that you had carried out the review. Your points above all addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:34, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Therapyisgood, does your labelling your comments "resolved" imply that you support the nomination? Or are there more to come? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:01, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Image review—pass edit

All images free + adequately sourced, only one comment: caption says "showing two Roman foot-soldiers from the second century BC", photo description says the relief is from the second century BC. buidhe 03:21, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Buidhe: Thanks as always for this. Do you have anything currently on the go where I could QPQ? I am afraid that I am missing your point re "2nd C BC", could you elaborate? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:38, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The caption is ambiguous as to being created in the second century or depicting second century soldiers; the image description only supports the former. (I should have been more clear). I expect to be nominating another FAC soon and will let you know when that happens—many thanks for the offer. buidhe 01:12, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I was too close to the language to see it. Tweaked. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:24, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Airborne84 edit

  • Pending. Airborne84 (talk) 04:43, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • A very nice article. Well done! My comments are minor points, noted below, and shouldn't take long to address.
  • In Primary sources, the lead-in to this quote is a bit off: The modern historian Andrew Curry considers '"Polybius turns out to [be] fairly reliable". Maybe instead The modern historian Andrew Curry sees Polybius as "fairly reliable” or something similar?
Tweaked.
  • "The immediate cause of the war was control of the Sicilian town of Messana (modern Messina)." A stickler would argue that "control" itself can't cause a war. Perhaps desire for control? Disagreement over control?
Tweaked.
  • The temporal flow of the background jumps around a bit and may be distracting to the average reader. E.g., it starts in 264 BC and goes to 256, 260, and then 256 again. One possible way to mitigate that would be to adjust the wording at the end of the first paragraph to change “By 256 BC the war had grown into a struggle” to “Eventually the war had grown into a struggle”. Less precise, but the temporal flow of the dates is then linear through the section and you can keep the first paragraph as a summary of the war. There are other ways to handle this, of course. Just a suggestion.
You are quite right. The first 256 BC should read 260; now changed.
  • "Regulus chose to take his relatively small force and strike inland." Recommend making this the start of a new paragraph. It's both a new idea and seems as if it would be more impactful for the reader. Not a show-stopper though.
Done.
  • "Traditionally the Romans would raise two legions, each of 4,200 infantry and 300 cavalry." In what context? For an Army? Overall?
I am not sure that I understand the comment. It is the second sentence of the section "Armies", does that not provide the context? In terms of numbers of legions, the Romans traditionally raised two, like it says. What am I missing?
What I was thinking is that a reader might enter the section noting the plural "Armies" title, start with the Roman paragraph (not yet seeing the Carthage paragraph below), and think that the Roman army might have had, like the US Army in WWII, for example, multiple armies within the larger army. The reader will eventually figure it out, but perhaps with some pauses. I wonder if adding "in their force" at the end of the sentence or something similar would prevent that and enable a smoother reading?
@Airborne84: Ah. I have changed it to "Traditionally, each year the Romans would raise two legions, each of ..." Does that address the issue? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:36, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It does indeed!
  • "Carthaginian male citizens served in their army only if there was a direct threat to the city." The city of Carthage? The closest large city within the Carthaginian Empire? The question is whether “Carthaginian” here means from Carthage or from the broader Carthaginian Empire. I'd defer to your knowledge on this.
It means Carthaginian citizens, who, like Roman citizens at the time, were (predominately) inhabitants of the eponymous cities. I have inserted "who were largely inhabitants of the city of Carthage" to clarify.
  • Are there any map images of the battle? There's text description of the split Roman armies attacking the Carthaginian on the hillside, etc., which could be supplemented by a close-up map image if there was one available. To be clear, it's not a show-stopper on my part because it's not an overly complex battle, so not that hard for the average reader to visualize with text. Just checking.
Sadly not. I know of no map in any source. Which hill it was no one has even guessed at. It would, I agree, be nice to include a battle map (eg, as with Battle of Ecnomus or Battle of the Bagradas River (255 BC)) but it would be pure OR.
Thanks for that Airborne84, much appreciated. Your points above all addressed. See what you think. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:10, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5 edit

  • jointly commanded by Bostar, Hamilcar and Hasdrubal Why isn't Bostar red-linked?
Cos this is his one and only appearance in history and I don't see that there will ever be enough information on him to warrant creating an article. (Hasdrubal pops up again and I have him on my "Create an article" list.)
  • is the historian Polybius (c. 200 – c. 118 BC) Circa template is needed to the second circa.
Ah ha! good spot. Done.
  • a Greek sent to Rome in 167 BC as a hostage You really like Rome so much it should be linked? :)
I must have done it once by accident and then cut and pasted. De-linked.
  • but he is known for his The Histories Odd the sentence.
Done.
  • Polybius' --> "Polybius's"
Done.
  • available warships, 350, under Hanno --> "available warships, 350, under Hanno II the Great" first mention.
No. I prefer to go with the sources and describe him as just "Hanno". Not one refers to him as 'Hanno the Great' and "Hanno II the Great" sounds like a king.
  • I disagree, that'd be MOS:EGG. The redirect of the link goes to the Hanno II the Great's section but the reader wouldn't know that and believe it goes to the Hanno the Great (which is kinda true). When they click on it they would get the surprise section instead of the lead. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 17:49, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And I disagree. A reader clicks on Hanno and ends in a section about Hanno II the Great. What is EGGy about that? (Why wouldn't they know that? All they have to do is look at their screen.) If you are arguing against links to sections, then I am not aware of a policy disallowing it, and it is quite common in FAs, as I am sure you are aware.
  • I'm not saying that. We're working for a Wikipedia page on the highest level an article could get here in Wikipedia. I've recently read this WP:EASTEREGG which told me "Keep piped links as transparent as possible. Do not use piped links to create "Easter egg" links that require the reader to open them before understanding what's going on. Wikipedia is not an Advent calendar. Also remember there are people who print the articles." and this "In a print version, there is no link to select, and the reference is lost. Instead, reference the article explicitly:" and it got my attention. There are people who print our articles into a printed version and if someone prints this article then they wouldn't know who Hanno was and they wouldn't know it was meant to be Hanno II the Great. You're telling me to click on the link well I wouldn't mind clicking on the normally-linked word in a printed book. I don't think it would work; let me know if you clicked on a word in one of your printed books and actually works. ;)
This link is not a WP:EGG. There is no requirement for a reader to open it in order to understand perfectly what is happening in the article. If they wish to obtain some further information on Hanno, not relevant to this article, then they have the option of clicking on the link, in which case they get exactly what they expect - no surprise - more information on Hanno; including the all but irrelevant detail that he was the second Carthaginian in their history called Hanno to be known as "the Great".
  • I have an idea, why don't we like (PM has asked) adding a footnote which describes that he was also known as "Hanno II the Great"?
CPA-5 Sounds reasonable. Would you be happy with "He was known as Hanno the Great, the second (of three) Carthaginians named Hanno to be awarded that sobriquet"? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:39, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Gog the Mild: Let's say without my opinion and in my general perspectives; yes that looks okay. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 10:38, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@CPA-5: Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:26, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • generals named Hasdrubal and Bostar Red-link Bostar.
See above.
  • Most male Roman citizens were eligible Wait for a second this just came up but does that mean they used child soldiers or was this after their age of majority? Same for Carthage
Once they became "citizens". Same as today, there was an age of majority for citizenship. This is so universal that I don't feel that it needs to be specified. Ie "citizen" is synonymous with 'adult'.
  • Yes but, their age of majority was totally different. I'm not an expert on this topic but an adult could be different than the adult these days. An adult at the time could be maybe bellowing 16 or even bellow 13 who knows? These days that'd be a child soldier. I think a reader could get confused with a modern 18-year-old adult, like the UN that specific standardised. In my eyes, there's a difference between an ancient era adult/citizen and a modern one. For the Romans this could be 14 (which is by the UN a child soldier). Of course, I am not sure when the Romans recruited children.
I could change "citizens" to 'adults', but I really don't want to. It would be OR. The sources just say "citizens". By our standard many of them would be "children", but so what? Once we start this, there is no end; eg should I explicitly state that slaves could not be, nor become, citizens? More OR, and I don't see that it will improve the article for a reader. Most readers will understand that one becomes a citizen on reaching the local age of majority and that this varies in space and time. Eg, right now the Saudi age of majority varies because it is based on physical signs of puberty (bulugh), with age 15 as the upper limit; in Indonesia or Myanmar it is 15; in Japan or Thailand it is 20; 21 in Gabon or Samoaconsider 15 year olds to be adults, while others 21ear olds to be children. Just because 18 is the age of majority in the EU does't mean that it is that it is universal, even today.
  • Was I talking about the EU's age of majority? I'm sorry if you thought I mean that. I meant the UN's age of majority which is based on the children's rights of the UN which is signed by every country except you guessed it, the US. It indeed sounds reasonable to expect that from a reader and yes that would be OR if we change it. But how about we look at this sentence "Despite this, several Roman legionaries were known to have enlisted aged 14 in the Imperial Roman army, such as Quintus Postunius Solus who completed 21 years of service in Legio XX Valeria Victrix, and Caecilius Donatus who served 26 years in the Legio XX and died shortly before his honorable discharge.[11]" in the "History of children in the military" article with as source the "Roman Legionary AD 69–161". It wouldn't surprise me that the Old Republic would also use child soldiers like in this example. Were they citizens? Yes, they were. Were they child soldiers? Yes, they were. Did they violate the UN's don't recruit under 15-year-olds children policy? Yes, they did. If "citizens" really is synonymous with "adults" then we now know when they were adults. I still would add a note that they used child soldiers because "Most male Roman citizens were eligible for military service" means boys were included. If there is, of course, a source. In my view if they really used boys in the army then it should be part of the section where it describes the Romans' armies and those boys probably participated in the war.
I suspect that we are getting well away from the main point. One could add further explanations to every sentence of the article, but personally I feel that as it stands, including on the question of the age of maturity of Roman citizens, "neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context". Even if I weren't I am unaware of a source covering this, although there probably is one. It would need to relate to this period - your quote above is interesting, but the "Imperial" means that it relates to at least 200, and probably 300, years after this battle.
PS Have you noticed who created History of children in the military?
  • I haven't found any other source of child soldiers in the Roman army. Maybe in the future someone would publish one. And not me at least. ;)
  • Both Spain and Gaul provided small numbers --> "Both Hispania and Gaul provided small numbers" Would be strange if you use both Spain and France here.
  • Link Balearic Islands.
Bleh! Done.
  • although Tipps describes Tipps who?
Described.
  • Modern historians suggest the Carthaginians suffered few or no losses Like whom?
Like the three cited at the end of the sentence. I have used the phrase "modern historians" to describe a scholarly consensus twice before in this article (and in numerous other articles) without it being an issue.
  • no losses to their cavalry and elephants.[63][62][65] Re-order the citations.
Done.
  • This assumes, per G.K . Tipps Should it be "G.K. Tipps" or "G. K. Tipps"?
Well I think there should be a gap, but someone keeps "correcting" it. I'll change it and we'll see what happens.
  • "present day Oudna, Tunisia" --> "present-day Oudna, Tunisia" in the infobox.
Done.
  • out a night march with the intention of launching a surprise --> "out a night march to launch a surprise"
Done.
  • I see a lot "apparently" maybe reduce a little bit.
I have cut two of the three.
  • You mean two of the four?
Cnrl-f only finds one "apparently", in "Battle". Where are you seeing another?
  • Whoops was the mistake of my PC which strangely gave four.

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 07:27, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CPA-5, that was great. Thanks a lot. Your points addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:45, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers CPA-5. My three responses above. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:46, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Gog the Mild: group of Carthaginians also faced a frontal counterattack by Roman reserves counterattack --> counter-attack.
Cheers. Done.

Hi CPA-5 Back to you. :-) . Gog the Mild (talk) 20:31, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • {ping|Gog the Mild}} Back to you. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 14:22, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nope that's anything I believe. Support. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:17, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM edit

Nice work as always, Gog. Some comments from me:

Lead
  • no redlink for Bostar?
As I said to CPA-5 above "Cos this is his one and only appearance in history and I don't see that there will ever be enough information on him to warrant creating an article. (Hasdrubal pops up again and I have him on my "Create an article" list.)" I don't much care and am happy to be told that I have the wrong end of the stick.
  • I wonder if, when referring to a Hasdrubal, we should explain which one he is? ie "Hasdrubal, son of Hanno"
I have added a footnote at first mention. That do?
  • say Carthage was the capital?
Done.
  • comma after "Battle of Tunis"
Only if I can also have one after "later". Otherwise, by the grammar I use, it is wrong. I have inserted both, see what you think.
Body
  • move the links to Ancient Carthage and Roman Republic to "Carthaginian and Roman"
Done.
  • suggest "and had gained control of most of Sicily via military operations" military meaning land forces, or alternatively "land operations"
I have added "using their army"> (Out of interest, why should "military" exclude naval forces?)
  • "and so could be supplied and reinforced by sea"
Done.
  • link Carthage (the city)
I thought I had. Apologies.
  • link consul
Done.
  • suggest "They took 20,000 slaves, "vast herds of cattle", and after a brief siege, [[:Siege of Aspis|captured the city of Aspis]]"
Done.
  • link infantry and cavalry
Seriously? Done.
  • suggest "the same size as the Roman force"
Done.
  • suggest "a more wealthy minority"
Done.
  • "rebelling against Carthage" no mention of this until now, could you introduce it earlier?
I had "by fomenting rebellion among Carthage's subject territories", but I have rephrased both to make it a little clearer.
  • well-armoured?
Thhe weakest of my numerous weak points. Done.
  • move the spear link to first mention
Done.
  • rather than Spain, would it be better to go with Iberian Peninsula or something? link?
I was certain I had changed that! Now "Iberia".
  • "Determined to preventstop the Romans despoiling the countryside" as they were already doing it
Fair point. I have inserted "further" instead. That do?
  • link Nigel Bagnall
Done.
  • wing , or assault? wing is usually used to refer to the extreme flank of one formed body, not split bodies of troops
Bizarre! I have precisely the reverse understanding. I have just had to check several texts to ensure that I am not going loopy. Possibly your usage is a very modern and formal in-military one? A historian referring to the "right wing" of an army means the rightmost third (give or take). Any hoo, I have switched to "column".
  • suggest "faced a frontal counter-attack" and link
Both done.
  • drop the comma from "the Spartan, mercenary commander"
Done.
  • link Battle of Cape Hermaeum
Done.
  • the figure of 16,000 only appears in the infobox?
True. But the article gives "4,000 cavalry and 12,000 infantry", so I have put that in the infobox.

That's my lot. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:36, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Peacemaker67 and thanks for sorting out my sloppiness yet again. You seem to be looking at a lot of my articles, and I appreciate it. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:48, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All good, supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:45, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review—pass edit

  • I would omit the Google books links if they don't link specifically to the content being supported, especially as they're inconsistent with the non-linked books.
Removed.
  • Checks of Tipps 1985, relying on JSTOR version:
    Tipps 1985 does'nt seem to support "The main source for almost every aspect of the First Punic War[note 2] is the historian Polybius (c. 200 – c. 118 BC), a Greek sent to Rome in 167 BC as a hostage". It only says that Polybius has the most complete account of a particular battle.
Groan. True. It looks as if I added this to Goldsworthy for my first 1PW article and have been omitting to delete it ever since. Sloppy, sloppy. Now deleted. The sentence relies on Goldsworthy "By far the most important [ancient source] was the Greek historian Polybius"; "[Polybius] as a result provides our most complete and reliable account of the First Punic War".
  • Likewise, it doesn't support "Other, later, ancient histories of the war exist, but in fragmentary or summary form", since it refers to other accounts of that particular battle.
Same again. Tipps deleted. The statement is a summary of Goldsworthy from bottom of p. 21 to the end of p. 23 where he discusses the other sources.
  • "details of the battle in modern sources are almost entirely based on interpretations of Polybius's account" which battle?
Very good question. It should read 'war', not "battle"; now changed. It goes to Tipps' statement "[Polybius] our best authority for the First Punic War as a whole."
  • "The Roman fleet of 330 warships plus an unknown number of transport ships sailed from Ostia, the port of Rome, in early 256 BC, commanded by the consuls for the year, Marcus Atilius Regulus and Lucius Manlius Vulso Longus" the cited page does not mention either Regulus or Longus.
You are correct. I have made a Horlicks of the references. Tipps p. 445 covers my "from Ostia, the port of Rome, in early 256 BC"; the commanders are named on p. 446. Cite amended accordingly.
  • " With a combined total of about 680 warships carrying up to 290,000 crew and marines, the battle was possibly the largest naval battle in history by the number of combatants involved" Tipps does not support this as far as I can tell; he argues that Polybius figures are almost certainly an exaggeration (so the actual number was significantly less than 290,000) and I cannot find where he says it was the largest naval battle in history.
Polybius: to the contrary, his whole argument is that Polybius' figures are as good as we have, and he spends pp. 436-445 demolishing the arguments of the early 20th C historians who had argued against Polybius. He merely quibbles that the total number of Carthaginians should be a little less than 150,000 (147,000 - see Lazenby p. 86) rather than a little more. Hence my "up to". See his p. 445 for "something over a quarter of a million men were involved". Goldsworthy gives the same figures as Tipps, with a milder caveat regarding the 140,000. Lazenby has "the battle involved nearly 290,000 men".
I am assuming that we are in agreement that Tipps gives a total of 680 warships? Lazenby and Goldsworthy both give 330+350=680.
Largest battle: true I was relying on Lazenby p. 87 - "probably the greatest sea-battle ever fought".
If only one author says so (and "greatest" has other meanings than "largest")—it is probably best to quote and attribute. This is quite a strong statement.
@Buidhe: In context it is clear that he means largest (by number of combatants). A quick browse also gives "may have involved the largest number of combatants of any naval battle in history" by Rankov in Hoyos's Companion to the Punic Wars. But I take your point. I have relegated it to a footnote and quoted and in line attributed it. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:27, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "When they met in the Battle of Cape Ecnomus, the Carthaginians took the initiative, anticipating that their superior ship handling skills would tell" I cannot see where this is supported on the cited page.
True. This is all supported by Goldsworthy. Tipps was there for "poor Roman generalship", which got edited out and I didn't remove the cite. Which I have now done.
  • "100,000 men lost" no mention of the figure on the cited page
True. The 100,000 is in Miles. Tipps is relied on for the number of ships lost, and the logic as to how the figure was arrived at. Which has been subject to some historiographical dispute - see Tipps pp. 436-445.

(t · c) buidhe 04:27, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know if you would like a copy of any of the pages of sources you can't access on line.
Thanks for this Buidhe, and for picking up several instances of my being sloppy. Your comments all addressed above, hopefully cogently. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:29, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I will have to AGF on other sources as I can't access them. (t · c) buidhe 22:33, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Harrias edit

  • "..two previously unrecorded generals named Hasdrubal and Bostar.." What do we gain from saying "previously unrecorded"?
Removed.
  • Didn't CPA moan about the citation order: "the same size as the Roman force.[50][1]" (I like it.)
So, does that mean that you require me to reorder it or not? It's not an MoS nor FAC requirement.
As you say, no need to reorder it. Harrias talk 18:31, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "..and would serve.." Please can we just use "served"?
Done.
  • "with a more wealthy minority providing" Noun plus -ing?
Changed.
  • Might be worth explaining "open order".
Done.
  • "..they possibly represented four slightly under-strength legions: two Roman and two allied." This speculation needs attribution.
Done.
  • "..and his failure to make up his deficiency in cavalry in particular is puzzling." POV.
Attributed.
  • "Most of the Carthaginian infantry would fight in.." Fought?
Done.
  • I would consider merging note 6 into the prose, I think it is a pertinent fact.
Done.
  • "..made the audacious decision.." Who says it was audacious?
Tipps: "an exceptionally audacious uphill charge"; "Regulus' hard-charging audacity". Now better cited, sorry about that.
    • Hmm, "Tipps describes the plan as a demonstration of Regulus's "recklessness"." might get you off the hook.

Not a massive amount from me; another nice, informative article on this war. I will claim WikiCup points for this review, and if care to return the favour, a review of Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2010 Twenty20 Cup Final/archive1 would be greatly appreciated. Harrias talk 09:00, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Harrias, all addressed. I am sure that I will be able to review that fine game of cricket. PS When are gongs for the GAN drive due to be dished out and/or do you need a hand with this? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:25, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on prose; looks good to me. Harrias talk 18:31, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from JennyOz edit

Sorry Gog, just thought while I was feeling punic, I'd add some comments and suggestions to this one:)

That's fine Jenny. Suggestions for improvement are welcome at any time.
  • on a rocky hill near Adys where - a bit disconcerting to click on Adys and the Uthina page does not mention this name
Fixed.
  • felt the need for - per Cape Herm "on the few occasions they had previously needed a naval presence"?
That means something slightly different. What is it about the original that is the problem? Possibly it could be resolved a different way.
That relates to my comment here, the word "felt" sounds iffy to me. Does a nation 'feel' the need for a navy? But if it's just me feeling "felt" is feeble, no worries :)
I see your point. I am talking about "the Romans", not "Rome", so it is not strictly incorrect. (IMO.) One could equally argue that a nation cannot "need" anything. I started to change this, but the more I think on it the more I believe that it is within the ambit of normal, professional, prose; so I have left it.
  • in maintaining and increasing the - swap order to increasing and maintaining?
Done - although I think that you are missing the nuance of the original. But probably only I am aware of it and the new version does read better.
  • They embarked approximately 26,000 legionaries picked - move wlink up to here?
Done.
  • superior ship handling skills - hyphen?
Done.
  • by encouraging Carthage's rebellious subject territories - encouraging to do what? maybe encouraging rebellion/rebelliousness in Carthage's subject territories
It has already been noted that they were rebelling. It honestly reads fine to me, and the meaning seems clear. Does this really need rephrasing?
  • served as javelin-armed skirmishers. - in other articles this series the link is to Skirmisher. ( Plus, Velites says a class "from 211 to 107 BC")
Wikipedia is of course renown as an unreliable source. The source cited specifies "velites". Happy to change it though if you wish. (And there is no FAC, MoS or other requirement for consistency between articles. :-) )
  • tightly-packed formation - remove adverb hyphen
Done.
  • Modern historians point out that the Carthaginian generals...of their cavalry and elephants - a rather long sentence, perhaps break at "although the modern..."
Good point. Broken at "especially.
Not 100% sure that reads properly now but no biggie.
You are correct. I have tweaked it to be grammatical.
  • Finding these completely unacceptable - insert terms after "these"
Done.
  • with any of our other accounts".[16][note 3] - you prefer notes to appear first?
Done.
  • crew and marines[note 5][36][31][39] - ref order
  • size as the Roman force.[50][1] - ref order
  • combat was protracted.[56][58][note 7] - note first?
  • were present at Adys.[59][56] - ref order
:-)
  • Sources - Hoyos, Dexter (2015) [2011]. and Koon, Sam (2015) [2011] - move to below Hoyos, Dexter (2007)
Weird. Done.
  • Sidwell, Keith C.; Jones, Peter V. - authorlink belongs to Jones, add 2
Done.

That's all, JennyOz (talk) 05:15, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That was great Jenny, many thanks. Your points all addressed, although a couple have not been actioned. Gog the Mild (talk) 08:46, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@JennyOz: Messed my ping up. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:42, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gog, added 2 minor replies above but am very happy to now add my support. JennyOz (talk) 11:47, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jenny and thanks. Both good follow up points. I have gone with one and, after thought, left the other as was - see above. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:56, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Query for the coordinators edit

Hi Ian. In the light of the above, could I have permission to post another? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:41, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@WP:FAC coordinators:  ? Gog the Mild (talk) 09:59, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I thought I'd answered this but I guess I messed the save or something -- sure, go ahead. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:03, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ian. I am cheered to hear that it is not just me who does that. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:12, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note edit

@Therapyisgood: can we get resolution on the comment above? "Resolved" does not really help in determining consensus on an FAC and it's becoming a bit tiresome to continually ping you back to FACs to have you clarify your meaning. Please don't just put "resolved" unless you also give some indication of support or opposition. --Ealdgyth (talk) 15:59, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ealdgyth:, Therapyisgood has not edited since the 7th, and has only made five edits in the last two weeks. (And this nomination has just collected another support.) Gog the Mild (talk) 13:59, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was just working my way up the nominations. Quite honestly, if he can't be bothered to take things on board... anyway, promoted. --Ealdgyth (talk) 14:04, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ealdgyth:: am I being over-eager? Apologies. Ian has threatened to put me on the naughty step! Gog the Mild (talk) 14:11, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 10 July 2020 [44].

Hyborian War edit

Nominator(s): Airborne84 (talk) 01:05, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Conan the Barbarian is the central figure in this sword and sorcery play-by-mail/email (PBM/PBEM) game which occurs in the Hyborian Age created by Robert E Howard. The game launched in 1985 and has been available for play for 35 years, one of the longest-surviving games of the PBM genre. I believe this would be the first PBM game to earn FA status.

This is a renomination for FA. It currently has GA status and Gog the Mild was kind enough to give it a peer review after I addressed comments from the first nomination. Airborne84 (talk) 01:05, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass
Thanks for your review Buidhe! Much appreciated. Responses below.
  • File:Hyborian War advertisement from 1985, year of inception.jpg — If there's no copyright notice for it, it would be {{PD-US-1978-89}}
There is a copyright notice in the larger advertisement next to the image.
  • File:Example command sheet for a turn in the game Hyborian War with the Border Kingdom.gif and File:Hyborian War command sheet invasion email example, "Battle Orders For Battle ,1 in Xachotl".gif could be considered {{PD-text}}, they are probably below the threshold of originality
I'm happy to change the tag to {{PD-text}}; but, as Shem and (probably) Xachotl within the image are terms from Robert E. Howard's works which Cabinet Entertainment still asserts copyright to, does that cause issues with the tag change?
The issue is that if the sheet is above the threshold of originality, the way you have it displayed won't be legible to readers so I don't see how FUR is met. buidhe 03:22, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'll defer to your judgement on the threshold of originality. If you feel that {{PD-text}} is appropriate in this case, I'm happy to apply it. I just don't have the relevant experience. If unclear, I can upload a more readable image of appropriately larger size with {{non-free no reduce}} tag. Please advise what makes the most sense. Thanks.
I will upload a higher-resolution image with {{non-free no reduce}} tag. (Done)
  • File:Hyborian Age map based on a map prepared by Robert E. Howard.jpg—I'm not satisfied with the FUR. The image is too small to read country names, and encyclopedic purpose is adequately shown by text.
I had the same concern, thank you. I'm not an image expert. I propose to upload a larger version (as small as possible that allows reading country names), with an accompanying {{non-free no reduce}} tag. Will that work?
I have uploaded a larger version of the map with a {{non-free no reduce}} tag. The image should be of adequate size now to read the country names, but not so large, I think, that a passing admin would feel the need to reduce the image size.
  • File:Small cutaway, low-res portion of the Hyborian War game map.jpg—I am not really satisfied with the FUR, "Difficult with text to illustrate how the game breaks up the Hyborian Age map into player and non-player kingdoms with accompanying land provinces and seazones". First, it's not obvious to me which are player and non-player kingdoms. Second, this looks very similar to many similar game maps which readers are likely already familiar with, so I don't see how contextual significance is met.
Great comment, thanks. I updated the image's legend to identify which kingdoms are non-player kingdoms. And you are right, the rationale was inadequate. I updated it to highlight why this map is different than existing Hyborian Age maps (esp. province size and scale). Please advise if it still needs adjusting.
  • File:Set Piece Battle (Version 3) example in Hyborian War between the Border Kingdom and Brythunia.gif I am not persuaded by the FUR; the image is not enhancing my understanding of the game. There is not enough in-text commentary for contexual significance. buidhe 03:31, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I added some text in the main body to on battle frontage and terrain, pointing to the image. I also did what I intended in the first place, but did not, which was to link the battle orders image to this resulting image. It's not an exact translation (I couldn't get RSI to upload some images with free-use licenses), but it's close enough to show that the orders from one image results in a configuration on the battlefield in this image. Updated the FUR. Please advise if I missed something or anything is otherwise inadequate. Thanks.
  • @Nikkimaria: would you mind taking a look at this? I admit I'm not the most familiar with FURs for video-game related articles so could use input, eg. if multiple maps can be justified. Thanks! buidhe 23:44, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a general rule, the more non-free media included the stronger the FUR should be for each. In this case there are quite a few non-free images, and in my opinion the FUR for the second map (File:Small_cutaway,_low-res_portion_of_the_Hyborian_War_game_map.jpg) is not strong enough to support its inclusion. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:49, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for weighing in Nikkimaria. My concern in this case is that the second, smaller cutaway map shows a portion of the Hyborian War game map with provinces which are one of the three elements of gameplay. None of the maps of the Hyborian Age do that, including the first map in this article. I propose that the main map is necessary to show the scope and scale of the broader game setting, while the second map highlights a very small portion of the RSI game map to visually show the reader what the first cannot: the scale of the province or seazone—the single geographic element of gameplay (with the other elements being troops and characters). Again, if it's a showstopper, I'll remove the second image, but I think it will reduce to some degree the encyclopedic value of the article for the reader. Please advise and thanks again. Airborne84 (talk) 01:28, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Update on image issues—Buidhe
Thank you for your work on this Buidhe—it's probably more of your time spent than the average nomination and I appreciate it.
  • Header image: This FUR seems weak to me, as advertising isn't the best way to identify the subject. (The actual image content is not discussed in the text and the "battle" visual depicted does not occur in gameply, am I correct?) Is there no free illustration that could serve this purpose? For example, what does the actual product look like and is it below threshold of originality?
Unfortunately, there is no box or other product associated with the game. Hyborian War is similar to other play-by-mail games in its general lack of graphics and images. The "setup" is the printed game rules and the game map which can be seen here in its entirety. There are some images/sketches on the individual country startup sheet covers, but they have a copyright notice on each, are very narrow in scope, and generally aren't appropriate for a lede image, IMO. For a long time, the lede image I used was just the simple name "Hyborian War" until I came across this early advertisement and I said "finally, an image that shows exactly what this game is about". It's stated in the lede and in the main text: "A central focus of the game is conquest and expansion through military action and diplomacy." It is taken from an advertisement, but it perfectly shows the central focus of the game, while highlighting the game's central character, within the Hyborian Age setting. No free existing image that I know of will do so. I strongly recommend retaining.
FUR states "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." Since this is an advertising image not a cover, and it would be possible to play the game without ever seeing the ad, I just don't see how its omission would be significantly detrimental to the reader's understing of the game. buidhe 23:35, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Buidhe. I'd say that's due to a failure on my part to adequately link the image to the game in the lede. The lede now says "A central focus of the game is conquest and expansion through military action and diplomacy." I could add after that in the lede the passage from gameplay that says "Military activities such as raids and invasions figure prominently." That's a clear link to the image. Would that help? The gameplay section in the main text also covers the military activities in more detail. Having played the game, military activities (raids and invasions) dominate gameplay (as the name suggests). I can replace with an image of the text "Hyborian War", for example, but this is the single best image I have found that shows the central focus of the game. Airborne84 (talk) 00:16, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Buidhe, I replaced the lede image. Can you check the new one for acceptability? Thank you for your time. Airborne84 (talk) 02:41, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is an acceptable non free logo. Passing buidhe 02:45, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The two text-only images are below threshold of originality and have been tagged as {{PD-text}}
No issue.
Were you talking about this image as well Buidhe?
  • Two maps: I agree with Nikkimaria above, to comply with NFCC we should pick the one that is most valuable and remove the other one. You can use {{external media}} so that a reader can click through to it, assuming it's hosted by a non-violating website.
Agreed. Perhaps in the future the company will release their game map with a free license to allow its use here to show the province details. I'll remove the second map. Thanks. (Done)
OK. This was in response to the previous nomination where a reviewer suggested something along these lines. However, I agree there is some redundancy. If there is concern from other reviewers, I think there is room for using a different image that shows an open field battle or a set piece battle that is underway so there isn't overlap with the other image. Image removed. Again, thanks for the careful look here. Airborne84 (talk) 00:03, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Buidhe, anticipating that another editor might note that I haven't accounted for all the points from the first nomination now, with the removal of the images, I've added another image that doesn't overlap quite so much with the set piece battle orders sheet. Would you mind checking it out? Much appreciated. Airborne84 (talk) 23:38, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's possible that these types of images are copyrighted by the player and not the company, since they are the result of the player's ideas and commands. The company's computer just processes them and prints them out. However, I am not the expert and went with the conservative route. Airborne84 (talk) 23:42, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's an improvement, but not enough imo because "open field" is only mentioned once in the article text—not the kind of extended discussion that could support an additional non free file. The copyrightable parts of this image are the individual illustrated figures, which presumably were created by the company. buidhe 23:43, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks. Removed. Airborne84 (talk) 04:22, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Other comments
  • Quoteboxes are discouraged because they can unduly emphasize one person's statement. These ones are unnecessary and distracting. All of them would be better integrated into the text. buidhe 03:31, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. They are moved into footnotes. Unless you feel that it's a show-stopper, I would like to keep the quotebox with RSI's description of Cimmeria, Conan's homeland. I don't think it falls into the category of emphasizing a person's statement as you mentioned. Airborne84 (talk) 22:38, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like advertising to me and also violates MOS:layout because it sandwiches the images. Why can't it be integrated into text? "RSI described Cimmeria, Conan's homeland as ..." buidhe 03:22, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. Forgot about the WP:Sandwich issue. Thanks.
I saw the citation needed tag on the topic sentence about mixed reviews in the late 1980s. I don't have a source for the sentence. Was aiming for a reasonable topic sentence for a paragraph which also provided a less than glowing side of the game and company to balance the positives and ensure NPOV. Am open to a recommendation here. Thanks. Airborne84 (talk) 23:02, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would say it is better just to remove the sentence and let the reader evaluate the reviews. buidhe 03:22, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Thanks.

Support from Hurricane Noah edit

I am not exactly familiar with game articles, but it looks like the article has everything it needs. I'm going to support promotion to FA based on the quality of the prose. NoahTalk 22:24, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Noah. I can't take credit for the prose though. That would go to Gog the Mild and Smuckola for copyediting my blunt attempts at stitching words together into a readable product. Greatly appreciate the review. Airborne84 (talk) 00:04, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Ichthyovenator edit

A very well-written and comprehensive article! Just a couple of thoughts:

Thanks for weighing in!
  • I wonder if the order of the two subsections under "play-by-mail genre" should be reversed so that a general overview of what it is comes first. Not a requirement but maybe something to think over.
I think that would work fine as well. I'm not attached to either way. The real expert in this area is Gog the Mild though and I'd value his input as a third opinion. Gog the Mild, do you have thoughts on this?
No feedback either way, so went ahead and made the switch Ichthyovenator. I think this works well. Image and new transition to setting seem fine. Also reworked the first "spell-out" of "play-by-mail game" as (PBM) between the two paragraphs from the reversal. Thanks! Airborne84 (talk) 19:56, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This wasn't a requirement either way, I just found it helpful since I personally had no prior knowledge of what PBM games were. Good job with this! Supporting now. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:36, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's an improvement then. Much appreciated!
  • Robert E. Howard is linked first under "development" rather than when his name first appears, under "setting".
Nice catch. Fixed.
  • "Magic is also part of the Hyborian Age, with wizards wielding great, but not irresistible, power" - is "irresistible" the best word here? I understand what is being conveyed but isn't "irresistible" more like "appealing" or "alluring" rather than the opposite of defeatable?
Fair enough. Changed to "overwhelming". Think that reflects the source without the added connotations. Let me know if this doesn't work.
"Overwhelming" fits well :) Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:54, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The central figure of the Hyborian Age is Conan of Cimmeria" - under setting; this is the first mention of Conan in the text so should probably be linked to Conan the Barbarian.
Again, nice catch. Fixed. Not sure how I missed that one.... Airborne84 (talk) 21:00, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:50, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Gog the Mild edit

Nb, it is my intention to claim points in the WikiCup for one review for the combination of this review, the source review, and the citation spot check.

Hi Ichthyovenator. I reviewed this at GAN, copy edited it for GoCE and helped Airborne84 a fair bit in getting it ready for FAC, see here, so I am pretty sure that I will be supporting. Having been so close to the article for three months, and nothing from this genre having appeared at FAC before, I wanted to get some fresh eyes on it before commenting myself.

@WP:FAC coordinators: you may also like to note that while I had not come across Hyborian War before seeing it at GAN, in my misspent youth I played numerous PBM games and had several articles and reviews published in Flagship, the UK PBM magazine, which probably makes me as much of a subject expert as you are likely to get. I also have a passing acquaintance with the Conan universe and own a couple of Howard's books. As such the article gives an accurate account of how PBM works/worked and the game mechanics seem at one with those I was familiar with. I am holding myself in readiness to carry out a source review and/or a first FAC spotcheck if required. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:13, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For the avoidance of doubt I am formally supporting. I believe the article to be comprehensive as regards the topic and to reasonably put it in context. It includes contributions from all of the sources or types of sources I would expect and the prose is IMO up to FA level. (Warning: I did a fair bit of copy editing, so take this opinion with a pinch of salt as I may be judging my own input to an extent.) It is soundly structured, stays focused, and has a helpful use of images. I do not see any - non-source - areas for improvement. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:37, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SG review edit

Really appreciate you taking the time to review this SandyGeorgia! Airborne84 (talk) 05:12, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot get this source to open, but it looks like Terrablood is listed as the author, but publisher is missing??

  • Terrablood. "Terrablood's PBM Archives: Section One – Kingdom Reports for Hyborian War". Retrieved January 16, 2020. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:21, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The archives in External links for Terrablood will not open either ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:22, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the source and used a different reference. I adjusted that source in External links; it should work now. (Also removed two of the External links as they are in the Refs and are redundant.)

In the image caption, should we say, “Map of the Hyborian Age”? Can an age be mapped? Or is it better, map of countries during the Hyborian Age? (I dunno ... ) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:27, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to "Map of Hyborian Age kingdoms." Please advise if that doesn't work.

External jumps do not belong in Notes, I don’t think?

  • RSI also maintains a complete set of Hyborian War rules online at Main Rules. According to A. Kaviraj, cover artist for Suspense and Decision issue #1 (November 2013), "Reading through the rules of Hyborian War is a mind-blowing experience."[35]
  • According to Robert Paquin, the Road of Kings website is the largest Hyborian War collaboration website, offering various forums for players to discuss gameplay as well as other topics.[52] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:31, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Removed the external jumps.

This statement is sourced to a forum which requires log in:

  • These websites allow players to organize games of specific formats (such as no contact between players)[69]

Could you provide a quote of what The source provided there, to help convince me this is a reliable source for the statement? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:36, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The best, most concise quote is probably "This will be a regular-speed game, total privacy (no contact, no posting)." The context is that the website administrator who posted that works directly with Reality Simulations, Inc. (RSI). The website admin puts a game together on the Road of Kings website, advertising the rules (as in the no-contact example noted), and once 36 players are signed up, sends the player information and their RSI account numbers to RSI which then begins the game. (RSI actually sends out a promotional flyer for the Road of Kings website and the Grimfinger website in each game setup.) I slightly adjusted the wording though because in this case it's not the players organizing the game, it's the website admin. It now reads: "These websites allow the organization of specifically-formatted games (such as no contact between players)".
Gog the Mild is a competent copyeditor, but he may not have reviewed the image captions ... I am having all sorts of ce issues with this image caption, which Gog might better address ...
Thank you Sandy. Indeed, looking through my notes I seem to have missed the captions. Sloppy of me and thanks for the prompt. I'll get on to it. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:47, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am now happy with the image captions. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:11, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here, the player can decide how to array characters and troops and what tactics to employ during the battle, including magic.
What does “here” add? Why not “choose battle tactics”. Array? I leave this to you all since I am neither a gamer nor a good copyeditor, but that sentence is convoluted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:52, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It was indeed convoluted. I like your suggestion, so changed to the simple "Orders allow players to choose battle tactics."

What is the source for Skills required in the infobox? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:54, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

None other than they are general skills required for a game of this type. Since no direct source, I removed that entry in the infobox.

A lot of information about developers is mentioned only in the infobox—not the article—and is unsourced. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:24, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed some of the developers that are sourceable to the RSI website, but are otherwise probably not notable. I added the map illustrator Liz Danforth to the main text as she appears to be notable across various works in the gaming community, and all developers in the infobox have sources in the main text now.
  • It is set within the Hyborian Age world of Conan the Barbarian created by Robert E. Howard.

Hyborian Age is modifying world, which is odd and seems to call for a hyphen, which is odder. And Age is a period. How about ...

  • It is set during the Hyborian Age in the world of Conan ... ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:20, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well put. I went with your suggestion. Thanks.
  • The game has been continuously available for worldwide play since its inception ...

What is “worldwide” adding here? Isn’t it obvious that anyone with access to mail or internet can play? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:24, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In this case it's consequential that the game is accessible worldwide as the email option is only available "in" to RSI, but not "out". I.e., players can email turn orders to RSI, but RSI sends all turn results by postal mail to players, apparently due to a contractual constraint. Between a slower 28-day turnaround game option and an extra Australia office, RSI has been able to offer the game worldwide. IMO, for a game with a postal play-by-mail aspect, worldwide access is noteworthy. I clarified this in the gameplay section—that RSI mails all turn results by postal mail.
  • It uses a computer program to simultaneously adjudicate player ...

What is simultaneous with what? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:27, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It adjudicates player orders at the same time as other player orders. That makes it a closed-end game where everyone starts at the same time. Some games are never-ending and the company adjudicates player orders whenever they are received; players can enter and leave at any time—an open-ended game. Since that is way too much nuance for the lead, I just deleted "simultaneous" from the sentence: "It uses a computer program to adjudicate player orders."
  • Although it still relies on postal mail or email ...

What does “still” add? Redundant? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:29, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Deleted "still"

The word “various” is overused in the lead, including twice in one sentence. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:31, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Removed various instances. :)
  • The game's setting is in Robert E. Howard's Hyborian Age ...

Again, confused how a time period is being used. Should this be ...

Agreed. Adjusted as you suggested.
  • Although some games have long since been played by mail, such as chess and Go, and more recently Diplomacy, the professional PBM industry began in 1970 when Flying Buffalo Inc. launched its first multi-player PBM game, Nuclear Destruction, in the United States.[11]
Sentence needs to be disentangled ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:06, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Disentangled. (Split into two sentences and tweaked.)

Generally, some of my prose queries could be because I am not a gamer, but based on this look at the lead only, I suggest another pass with Gog the Mild, and then please leave a note on my user talk to continue reviewing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:35, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done! Also scrubbed the article for WP:MOSNUM and NBSP formatting as you noted in your edit summaries.

Direct quote in the lead which is uncited, and content not contained in the body ... lead should summarize body, and all direct quotes require citation.

  • Gameplay is multifaceted and has been described as "marvelously complex". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:49, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added the quote in the main text with inline cite.

There is a problem with RSI links in citations. RSI 1985 goes nowhere, and one RSI 2020 goes to Setup rules, which is 1985 copyright, so where does the 2020 come from? And other 2020 link to pages that have no date, so what is 2020? These dates should reflect date of publication, pls check all ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:53, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed all. Either removed date where there is none, or added the correct date where there is.

The word various is used six times in the article, and is a hopelessly unhelpful word ... might you review those instances with Gog the Mild, attempting to vary the wording with something more specific? One example of how the word Various tells us nothing:

  • They can also collaborate through various means to progress their game goals.

Better to either drop it, or say what those means are ... pls review all instances. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:03, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. "Various" removed, and means are explained whenever mentioned in the article.

Next year, this statement becomes inaccurate:

  • The game has had an active player base for 35 years.

Avoid making statements that become dated, see MOS:CURRENT. ... has had an active player base since 1985. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:07, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to: "had an active player base since 1985"

With these changes, I think you will be good to go. Because I know zilch, zero, nothing about gaming, I do not feel qualified to support, but I do not see anything holding you up once the changes above are complete. Per Gog’s knowledge of the game, I trust the article is comprehensive. Sorry for all the typos, brevity, and lack of italics ... iPad typing (sucks). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:40, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sandy. Yep, the article is comprehensive so far as I am concerned. You probably noticed that, following the advice of a well known Wikipedian whose name temporarily escapes me, I suggested a swift withdrawal when this was first nominated for further background and context to be developed off-FAC. To my mind this has been done. Of course, I am just one editor, there is no similar article to act as guidence and I am probably a bit close. My major concern was how comprehensible the jargon and cant would be to a non-gamer. Apparently reasonably, and thanks for your pointing out various areas where this and the prose generally could be improved. (PS I have removed all instances of "various".) Gog the Mild (talk) 10:05, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yep ... I saw my role as an independent reviewer to make sure it made sense to a non-gamer. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:26, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
PS, did you all check in with Ealdgyth as she requested in the first FAC? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:32, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
He did but I've been swamped outside of wiki and did not have time to get back to him. It's on my talk page. Mea culpa for not even replying there, sorry! --Ealdgyth (talk) 13:35, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SandyGeorgia, I think I've addressed your remaining comments above (please advise if not). Greatly appreciate the review!! The article is better for it.
Ealdgyth, no problem at all! I believe I adequately addressed SandyGeorgia's last remaining comments. The article should be ready for you now! :) Airborne84 (talk) 16:01, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I did check my available sources and nothing mentioned this game. I won't have time for a full review, unfortunately. --Ealdgyth (talk) 15:48, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am satisfied, and with the Fisch and Gog reviewing, am more reassured that the article is comprehensive. I would be a support if I knew more of the topic. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:00, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you SandyGeorgia. Greatly appreciate your time. And Ealdgyth, appreciate you checking your sources! Airborne84 (talk) 21:56, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Ruhrfisch edit

It has been several years since I reviewed at FAC, so I am mostly going to comment on the prose. This seems well done, but there are a few places where I think more context could be provided (if there are sources to support it). I have played Dungeons and Dragons (decades ago) and currently am playing Axis and Allies online, but have never played a game by mail like this. - Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:55, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch, thanks! Standing by. Airborne84 (talk) 15:15, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Really appreciate the review!! Thanks for your time on this. Airborne84 (talk) 17:23, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • The first sentence of the second paragraph (The game is set during Robert E. Howard's Hyborian Age within the heroic fantasy genre, also known as sword and sorcery.) is mostly a rephrasing of the second sentence of the 1st paragraph It is set during the Hyborian Age in the world of Conan the Barbarian created by Robert E. Howard. Perhaps the second paragraph could start with something like The game is set within the heroic fantasy genre, also known as sword and sorcery.?
Done!
  • I think the lead should mention the 36 playable kingdoms of three different sizes, each with different criteria for winning, and not just Conan wandering around ;-)
Excellent catch, thanks. Done!

Play-by-mail game overview

  • Would this sentence Turnaround time is how long a player has to prepare and submit "orders" and the company has to process them and send turn results.[3] be clearer as something like Turnaround time is how long a player has to prepare and submit "orders" (moves and changes to make in the game) and the company has to process them and send back turn results.[3]
I really appreciate this comment. I wrestled with whether this sentence was clear to the average reader. Reworded as you suggested.
  • Somewhere later in the article it should be made clear if Hyborian War is an open ended or a closed end game (or can be either, depending).
Closed end. Done! I did this in PBM Game overview.

History

  • Since this section is about the PBM genre, it seems odd to have it end in the 1980s. Would this be a place to add a sentence or two on "play by email" developing later, the rise and fall of magazines devoted to PBM, and how the field in general is less popular than it once was?
Done!

Setting

  • I think adding a sentence or two here would help Provide context to the reader. A sentence on the Conan stories themselves at the start would give context for those less familiar with Conan's history, something like "Howard published 17 Conan the Barbarian stories before his 1936 death, with several stories and fragments published after." I also think it is worth mentioning the Conan movies, which came out in 1982 and 1984 (a few years before the game debuted). Even if there is not a source linking the movies to the games, I still think it can be mentioned (and the reader can draw their own inferences).
Done. I wasn't able to give an exact number. One RS gives 400 stories and 500 poems written overall, but doesn't parse them between pre and post death or Conan vs. non-Conan stories. I think I was able to give reasonable context for the average reader though. Please advise if not.
  • Is there anything that can be cited / said on how the Conan character and Hyborian setting are licensed for use in this game? Could be here or later in Development.
I stated in a footnote in Development that game materials are marked as Copyright 1985 by Conan Properties Inc. There is nothing more detailed than that to cite, unfortunately. While that means RSI must have a license from 1985 that's probably renewed periodically, I think it would be a stretch to say that.

Gameplay

  • This seems to be a reference to one of the non-free images that were removed during FAC The eight-unit vertical frontage in the battle-order image example represents a battle occurring in open, tundra, or oasis terrain.[46]
It points to the image in the section. The "front line" for the troops in the image is at the top of the image, not the left or right. I added the words "numbered" and "Xachotl" in the text so now it reads "The eight-unit numbered vertical frontage in the Xachotl battle-order image example". If you think another way of phrasing it is better, please advise.
  • I thought this section was well done and have a pretty clear idea of the general outlines of the game and how it is played. I still have some questions that could probably be answered here or in notes. Is the only cost to play the varying costs per turn (or is there a registration or set up fee, or do you have to buy the authorized Hyborian War starter kit or map or player's manual? I know there can be up to 36 kingdoms active in a game, but can someone play as more than one kingdom in the same game? Do games need all 36 players to begin or can a game start with fewer players (and if so, does the computer play the remaining kingdoms, or take them over if a player drops out)? At any given time, are there multiple games ongoing? (I assume so).
Done—mostly. Two areas I couldn't address: (1) RSI certainly could start a game with less than 36 players, but doesn't say if it actually does so in sources, and (2) someone playing more than one kingdom in a single game. The answer is emphatically no. But I can't find a source stating it on RSI's webpage or elsewhere. I think it's implied in how hard they make it to play a "friends" game, but it's not outright stated that I can find. I address the rest of these in a footnote.

Game analysis

  • Any idea how long it took to reach the first 200 games played? The article could at least give the year Cote's analysis was published (1994), as well as the analysis of over 400 games (2020).
Done. I went with 21st century for the latter since it's unclear exactly when the second list was published. It was retrieved in 2020.

Development

  • Any idea when Schoonover began developing the game?
Unfortunately, this doesn't appear in the sources.
  • Are the programming changes essentially rule changes? Or just new ways for the computer to process everyone's moves?
This again is not described in the sources. It's unfortunate as it would be good to add.
  • When I first read the article I thought this section might work better earlier (after Setting, perhaps), but since it refers to developments throughout the history of the game, I think it is fine where it is.
OK, this appears to follow the structure of FA-level video games as well (can't compare to FA PBMs as none exist)
  • I prefer "an homage"
Done.

Reception and legacy

  • I would move the issue number to the footnote here, so instead of It was reviewed in the 1987 issue No. 77 of Space Gamer/Fantasy Gamer, with... I would make it something like It was reviewed in 1987 in Space Gamer/Fantasy Gamer, with...'
Done.
  • In Note i, please use ordinal forms for the ratings / ranks, so In the Paper Mayhem Game Ratings as of March 30, 1989, readers rated Hyborian War 37th of 44 games.[17] In the Jan/Feb 1990 issue of Paper Mayhem, readers rated Hyborian War 42nd of 53 games.[18]
Done.
  • Can Robert Paquin breifly be given context - reviewer?
Done.

Hope this helps, overall well done and intend to support once these issues are addressed. - Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:21, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ruhrfisch. Really appreciate your review on this. Please advise if I addressed your comments adequately above. Happy to engage further as needed. Thanks for your time. Airborne84 (talk) 06:16, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all the edits and glad my comments were helpful. I still have two minor quibbles and a suggestion.
  • Per WP:CITELEAD, direct quotations in the lead need to be cited with an inline reference, so "marvelously complex" needs a cite. Since the lead is a summary of the article, I do not think it needs to have citations for anything else.
Added inline citation to the quoted words in the lede.
  • I think per the MOS, sword and sorcery should be linked in the lead (first appearance)
Linked. Delinked second use.
  • I still find the reference to the battle-order image quite confusing ("The eight-unit numbered vertical frontage in the Xachotl battle-order image example represents a battle occurring in open, tundra, or oasis terrain.[58]"). I think this is in part because it is the only place in the article to use the phrases "battle-order" or "vertical frontage" and one of only two places to mention Xachotl, and the reference to the image is buried in a farily dense sentence filled with several unfamiliar words. Would something like this work better? "The order for a set piece battle pictured here shows eight units in columns, and represents a battle occurring in the provice of Xachotl in open, tundra, or oasis terrain.[58] "
I adopted your version. Thank you for the suggestion.
Feel free to edit away and hope this helps, - Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:13, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ruhrfisch thank you again for your review. Please advise if there are any remaining comments that need addressing. Airborne84 (talk) 23:57, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All of my concerns have been met and I am happy to support promotion to FA now. Please let me know if you need me for anything else here. - Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:02, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Much appreciated! Airborne84 (talk) 02:27, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass edit

  • Cite 87 looks like either a duplication or an error.
It does look like a duplication, but the citations point to two different refs in the bibliography. One is Paper Mayhem issue No. 40 and the other is No. 45. The material appears on page 2 of both sources, adding to the appearance of a duplication.
Appreciate the source review! Airborne84 (talk) 23:36, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
D'oh! Gog the Mild (talk) 23:45, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The sources used all appear to me to be reliable. I am unable to find any other sources which would materially add to the content of the article. I found no unattributed close paraphrasing. Everything that I would expect to be cited, is. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:17, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Citation spot check - pass edit

  • Note e is not, technically, cited.
Good catch on a late add, thanks. Cited.
  • You cite Grimfinger, 2020 twice; but the bibliography only has Grimfinger, 2006.
Fixed. Removed the 2006 date from the Grimfinger ref and inline citations as it points to an RSI copyright date.
  • Cite 1: check. But, "The source must be named in article text if the quotation is an opinion". So maybe 'Gameplay is multifaceted: the PBM commentator Mike Scheid described it as "marvelously complex".'?
Funny, I've been wondering since I put that in if attribution was required, but didn't see it noted anywhere. Now I know. I attributed as you suggested with a slight tweak in the main text vs. the lead to keep the latter concise unless you think it should be in the lead.
Sorry, but this is, SFAIAA. the only place in the MoS where italics are used for emphasis. So they really mean it. You could resolve it by removing the quote marks in the lead.
No issue. I attributed to Mike Scheid in the lead as in the main text. Thanks for pointing that out. Probably saved a {{by whom?}} tag getting plopped on the lead if it gets to TFA.
  • Cite 94: I struggle to see where this supports the text cited. Could you flag it up for me. (But Mosteller p. 53 comes close to supporting it.)
Is it the 21st century part? I'll assume so. It's cite 96 now because I added a couple, but I was partly pointing to this sentence on page 64: "Hyborian War has always enjoyed a good deal of loyalty from its player base". That's necessary but probably a bit insufficient to link to today. Its connection to today is his note of the "group of loyalists" creating fan websites to collaborate and store info. The article is also published in 2014, and the author uses the phrase at one point "that was then and this is now", so he's pointing to the 21st century. If it's something else or I'm talking about the wrong citation, please advise.
Yeah, I read all that, and I don't feel that it is strong enough to support what you have written. Have you looked at Mosteller p. 53 to see if that might support it, or a tweaked version of it?
Agreed, Mosteller p. 53 works fine with a wording adjustment. I changed it to: "RSI's Hyborian War continues to maintain a sizable player base into the 21st century." Please advise if any concerns.
  • Cite 69: couldn't check.
If you'd like any specific passages from this source, just let me know.
No, thanks.
  • Cite 67: check.
  • Cite 41 ii: check.
  • Cite 90: check.
  • Cite 37 a & b: check.
  • Cites 76 & 77: check.
  • Cite 8: check.
  • Cite 5: check.

OK. I'm happy. But there a couple of issues to sort out above. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:34, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Gog the Mild. Much appreciated. Ready to reengage on the above as needed. Airborne84 (talk) 04:34, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild (talk) 12:09, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Adjustments made Gog the Mild. Please advise if these work. Thanks. Airborne84 (talk) 17:07, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 10 July 2020 [45].

Space Shuttle edit

Nominator(s): Balon Greyjoy (talk) 13:54, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the NASA Space Shuttle, specifically the system itself and not the program or a particular mission. I figured this iconic spacecraft was worth improving an article over. I recently got it to Good Article status and would like to continue its improvement! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 13:54, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nick-D edit

As a bit of a drive-by comment, I'm surprised to see that this article doesn't appear to discuss the cost-effectiveness of the Space Shuttles. As I understand it, while the main rationale for the program was that reusable space shuttles would be cheaper than single-use spacecraft this turned out to not be the case in practice for a wide range of reasons. Nick-D (talk) 23:33, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think the discussion on the costs/cost-effectiveness are more appropriate for the Space Shuttle program and Criticism of the Space Shuttle program. While it is certainly an important part of the discussion about the decision to use the Space Shuttle, this article's focus is primarily on the Space Shuttle itself and not the missions/program/pros and cons. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 12:18, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the often-made argument that the design didn't meet its goals deserves some space in the article. It helps to explain why the Space Shuttle is being replaced with a concept similar to that which it itself replaced, for instance. Nick-D (talk) 11:07, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Where do you see it as most appropriate to put this in the page? I'm not trying to come across as if I'm disregarding your critique, but I feel like this article largely stays away from the criticisms and defenses of the Space Shuttle, so there's not a logical place to put it without an adding a long section discussing the cost-benefits of the shuttle. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:40, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What would be the problem with that? FA level articles on aircraft and ship types, for instance, discuss whether the design met its goals (or similar) as this is typically a topic the sources have a focus on. Nick-D (talk) 10:43, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay! I'll take a look at some examples and work it in! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 01:37, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I put this in under the "Criticism" sub-section, specifically focusing on its lack of cost-effectiveness and spotty safety record. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 02:24, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Nick-D: I think I have addressed all of your comments. Please let me know if you have any more feedback! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:58, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wehwalt edit

  • I might say something in the lede about the external tiles, and how damage to them made the shuttle vulnerable.
  • I added in the tiles to the lead section, but it seems inconsistent to mention that they are a potential weakness of the shuttle, as there's no similar mention about how SRB damage would harm the vehicle/crew. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 01:44, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Beginning in the early 1950s, NASA and the Air Force" NASA did not exist in the early 1950s.
  • "The program tested aerodynamic characteristics that would later be applied to the Space Shuttle, " I don't think you can apply characteristics. I'd change one word or the other.
  • I updated this to say that the characteristics were incorporated. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 12:27, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are the Space Task Group and the Space Shuttle Task Group different things? I might then find means to distinguish them, such as the use of abbreviations.
  • I'm not thrilled about using an entire book as a source, without page numbers, as you do several times.
  • Are you talking about the specifications section that references the Jenkins book as a whole? I've begun referencing individual pages, but just to make sure I understand, you are looking for a page reference for every specification? Balon Greyjoy (talk) 13:04, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think that where a source with page numbers is used, page numbers should be used. There was a recent discussion of this at WT:FAC FYI.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:42, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The discussion of the decision to have a shuttle makes it sound rather inevitable, which I'm not certain it was.
  • Can you point me to where you think it sounds inevitable? I'm reading it over and my take is that it comes across like a study was conducted that concluded a reusable system was ideal. But it's hard to view your own writing critically, so please let me know what you want me to consider. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:30, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry if I was unclear. I understand that the Shuttle itself wasn't an inevitable decision, and I don't feel like the article presents it as such. Could you point me to where it comes across like that? Thanks! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 23:42, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mentions of the repeated delays in the shuttle, that resulted in NASA going almost six years between spaceflights, would be good.
  • I think I adequately address the delays in the development of Columbia and the RS-25; what else are you looking to be brought up? Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:32, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The shuttle was originally supposed to fly in 1977, it flew in 1981.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:04, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The orbiter used retractable landing gear with a nose landing gear and two main landing gear, " should one or more of the "gear" be "gears"?
  • "The crew compartment comprised three decks, and was the pressurized, habitable area on all Space Shuttle missions. The cockpit consisted of two seats for the commander and pilot, as well as an additional two to four seats for crew members. The mid-deck is located below the cockpit, and is where the galley and crew bunks were set up, as well as three or four crew member seats." Is there a reason why you mix past and present tense?
More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:57, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The mid-deck was located underneath the flight deck" We know. You already told us three paragraphs before. Suggest omit, similar get rid of the repetition of the fact that the cockpit had 2-4 additional seats for crew members.
  • You are not consistent "S band" vs. "S-band".
  • "Although the orbiter could not be flown without a crew," Is this entirely correct? I thought I read in the "would a rescue have been possible" of the Columbia disaster report that if the crew had been taken on board another shuttle, that Columbia could have been deorbited (to destruction) under Houston's control.
  • Reworded. I can't speak for the Columbia disaster, but the autonomous landing of the orbiter was possible, but never tested or proven. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:57, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would mention the tiles in "Thermal Protection System" might higher, in the first sentence preferably.
  • That's it for the moment, but glancing ahead, I don't see any mention of the fact that the Shuttle never had the Air Force participation that was expected (and that this and other reasons left the Shuttle short on customers), that it never flew the number of missions that NASA had expected (and told Congress) and that every few years, a shuttle had to go back to California for lengthy refurbishment.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:15, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree on adding in the refurbishment info, but I would like to leave out the commentary on the program's success to other pages (such as Space Shuttle program and Criticism of the Space Shuttle program). I think there's going to be some overlap between these pages, but my thoughts for this page are its primarily about the Space Shuttle itself and not the program. Thoughts? Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:25, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I won't insist on it but I think you could say a few words at the start of the "Retirement" section without too much of a problem.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:22, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Shuttle Launch Weather Officer monitored conditions until the final decision to scrub a launch was announced." Or, presumably until some point at launch or soon thereafter?--Wehwalt (talk) 09:51, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I removed this sentence; it seems redundant considering the other sentences about how weather is monitored to make sure it's safe to launch. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:25, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who do the various orbiters and equipment actually belong to? With the Apollo material, it's often the Smithsonian on loan.
  • In the popular culture section, I might mention Lee Correy's Shuttle Down, especially as it apparently led NASA to secure emergency landing rights on Easter Island.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:04, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't find any sources linking the book with establishing Easter Island as an abort site. I'm fine with mentioning the book itself; any idea on a reliable source to see the plot summary (the Shuttle Down page references print media and the Internet Speculative Fiction Database). Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:33, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a copy of the book itself (that I took ashore in my backpack on my visit to Easter Island in February 2014).--Wehwalt (talk) 12:14, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Wehwalt: Do you have a source for this? Easter Island was needed for an abort for a polar launch from Vandenberg, and was developed as a base by the Manned Orbiting Laboratory project in the 1960s. I thought it was abandoned in 1969, but if not I will add a note to that effect to the MOL article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:09, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • No source, just remember reading it at the time. And part of the premise of the book was that there were no such rights.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:30, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      I found some references [46][47] and have updated the MOL article to note this. 20:17, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Looks good with the changes and what Hawkeye7 has suggested.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:09, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
    Done. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:44, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest scaling up the orbiter illustration in the Specifications section
    Scalled up to 600 px. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:44, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest adding alt text
    What do you think should be expanded? Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:49, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Alt text added. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 01:30, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:LiftingBodies.jpg: source link is dead. Same with File:President_Nixon_and_James_Fletcher_Discuss_the_Space_Shuttle_-_GPN-2002-000109.jpg. Same with File:Hubble_First_Servicing_EVA_-_GPN-2000-001085.jpg, File:Space_Shuttle_Orbiter-Illustration.jpg, File:020408_STS110_Atlantis_launch.jpg.
    Changed the sources to their archive links. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 12:07, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria (talk) 21:27, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Hawkeye7 edit

A pity that WP:Spaceflight has no A class assessment process, so we come here. The article is a top-level one, so each section has a sub-article. Writing top-down like this is more difficult (but much quicker) than working bottom up, and the main problems with the article are structural, but fixable.

  • Following from Nick-D's comments, I agree that the cost of launches and operations should be added to this page. I would put it in the Post-landing processing section.
    Despite my misgivings, the consensus seems to be that this page should be more about the program and not the spacecraft. I will add it in. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:37, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I have added it in (took me long enough!). I decided to make a new section about the program as a whole, and have added it under there. Let me know what you think! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 13:40, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • My first thought was that a {{for}} template should be added to clarify the relationship between this article and the Space Shuttle Program article. However, on looking at that article, I find that there isn't anything in it that is not duplicated in this one, except for the Support vehicles section, which I believe belongs here. My strong recommendation is that that section be moved here and the Space Shuttle Program article be reduced to a redirect, and that this article, as is, becomes the top level article.
    Sounds good. I will work on that. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:37, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove the Specifications section, which belongs in the Orbiter article.
    Sounds good. I'm not a fan of specifications sections ever, so no complaints from me on removing it. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:37, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move the Support vehicles section here in its place.
    Will do. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:37, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Currently working on getting the support vehicles properly sources. Any idea on info about the Orbiter Transfer System? I can't find any good sources about it. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 01:23, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:49, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove the Orbiters on display section, which belongs in the Orbiter article and not here.
    I'm glad you agree. I didn't like putting it in the original article, but it was already there when I started working on it. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:37, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 23:34, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we need two Buran links in the See Also? Remove one. Suggest adding List of Space Shuttle missions instead.
    Done. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:37, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to see a section on the crew and their roles
    Where would you put this in the article? My thought is to put it as a sub-section under the Orbiter section. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:37, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Added. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 05:42, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NB: Space Shuttle design process is a tragic mess. Do you have designs on overhauling it? I can add it to my own work list.

Unfortunately a lot of Shuttle-related articles are a bit of a mess. I do intend to work on it and other Shuttle articles. Fortunately for me but unfortunately for my Wikipedia editing, I'm moving to the UK next month, so I'll be without most of my reference material until that arrives in the late summer/early fall. But the 2016 book by Jenkins has an entire volume dedicated to the development of the Shuttle, so I'm looking forward to eventually getting around to that. But there will be no hurt feelings if you get to it before me! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:37, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have Heppenheimer's books, and just finished reading reading John Logsdon's After Apollo? Richard Nixon and the American Space Program, which I highly recommend. I have Jenkins on order. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:26, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Jenkins books arrived in the mail the other day. May take a while to get through them. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:53, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to hear it! Mine is getting packed up next week for my move; I need to get what quality time I have with it left before I don't see it until the fall! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 13:41, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:09, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Hawkeye7: I think I have addressed all of your comments; please let me know if you have any other feedback! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:57, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some typos:

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:54, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Looks good. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:45, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for all of your feedback Hawkeye7. I was definitely pretty intimidated for an FAC when I saw the efforts that you and Kees08 had to put in for some of your previous collaborations, but I figured there would at least be no lack of information about the Space Shuttle. I appreciate your specific and guided feedback that made it clear what you want, and look forward to further improving the Space Shuttle articles (especially on my upcoming funemployment period). Balon Greyjoy (talk) 07:10, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

  • fn 1 publisher?
    Added. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:52, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • fn 2 page number?
    Hawkeye7 I don't have access to the book, and I'm striking out on finding an alternate source of that information in Jenkins or on the web. My vote is to leave it as is, but I defer to your experience on this one. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:59, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • fn 4, 6, 7, 10, 17, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 and 37 link NASA but fn 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 38, 39, 41 and 47 do not. (Suggest not linking publishers)
    Unlinked NASA as a publisher. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:21, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • fn 7 and 15 are the only books with a location (which need not be linked)
    Pardon my ignorance, but what are you looking to change here? Is the issue that they have a link to a PDF for them? Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:45, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • fn 11 link Max Faget
    Done. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:25, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • fn 18 publisher?
    Added as a website parameter. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 08:08, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • fn 29 use website instead of publisher
    Changed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 08:08, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • fn 36 replace website nasa.gov with publisher NASA
    Fixed; used publisher parameter instead. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 08:11, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • fn 40 capitalise "the"
    Done. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:14, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • fn 42 use magazine instead of publisher for Aviation Week
    Done. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:28, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • fn 43 use magazine instead of publisher for Air & Space Magazine.
    Done. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:28, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • fn 44 is the only one where a magazine also has a publisher. Possibly because its correct name is IEEE Spectrum (consider using cite magazine instead)
    Done. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:28, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Spot checks edit
  • fn 4 is okay, but the "Space Transport System" naming appears only in the lead, and nowhere in the body. If it's no important, why is it in the lead?
    Updated. Although it's not a commmonly-used term compared to "Space Shuttle" I did want it to stay on the page because of the use of "STS." Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:21, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • fn 40 is pretty contentious, and is not supported by the source
    Added reference from Jenkins (Old Reliable when it comes to references needing backup during this review) Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:08, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • fn 42 does not support the statement, nor does the associated fn 13. (Although both contain a lot of good information not in the article.)
    Updated page for fn 13 to include III-490, when there is a breakdown of the budget, which was based upon 24 missions per year. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:00, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • fn 48 does not support the (true) statement
    The description was updated to match what is in the synopsis of the ref. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:00, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • fn 20, 30, 46 okay
Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:30, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Passed Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:35, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Huricanehink edit

Support. I came here from an FAC that I'm co-nomming (so if you have time, I'd appreciate a review in return).

Thanks for doing this review! I'll take a look at your FAC as well! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 05:15, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you explain jettison on its first usage?
    I added a wikilink for its use in the SRB category. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 05:15, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • After landing at Edwards, the orbiter was flown back to the KSC on the Shuttle Carrier Aircraft, a specially modified Boeing 747. - the previous sentence mentioned two possible landing locations. Given that, I suggest this sentence say After landing, the orbiter...'
    I took a different approach and wrote "If the landing occurred at Edwards, the orbiter..." to make it more clear that the SCA was conditional on where the landing occurred; it didn't make much sense the way I had previously written it. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 05:17, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Due to how important it is, could you perhaps go into a tiny bit more detail on Commercial Crew Development on its first usage? Perhaps something about why it didn't have to rely on Russia at that point?
    I disagree with your point here. While the Commercial Crew program is an awesome step forward (in my opinion), the Space Shuttle had little to do with it, and the only connection between the two is that they were different generations of human-capable American-launched spacecraft. I think the sentence in the lead communicates that the US was reliant on Russia in between the two programs. But I did realize that I only included commercial launch info in the lead and not the body of the article, so I have put in a new sentence in the retirement section. Please let me know what you think! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 05:30, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • such as reconnaissance, satellite attack, and employing air-to-ground weapons - since the first two are nouns, I believe you should strike employing to make all three of this list as nouns.
    I changed it to "employment" and moved it to the end to keep it consistent with nouns. I just felt like it was awkward to leave it as "air-to-ground weapons"
  • In the late-1950s, the Air Force began developing the partially reusable X-20 Dyna-Soar. - I'd like something added here, like "the first craft capable of being in low Earth orbit", or whyever it is important.
    Little confused by this point. The DynaSoar was conceived as a reusable piloted glider, which is explained to me a need of the Air Force in the previous sentence. I feel like this sentence explains that this is what was developed to fulfill that need. Thoughts? Balon Greyjoy (talk) 05:34, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup, I realize now that it was my own confusion from going between the FAC page and the article. This is fine. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:35, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In July 1969, the Space Shuttle Task Group issued a report that determined the Shuttle would support a space station, launch, service, and retrieve satellites, and support short-duration crewed missions - the end of this sentence doesn't work well with regards to finishing the clause "that determined the Shuttle would..." I guess because "would support" is a vague type of verb. I suggest splitting it into something like - "the Shuttle would support short-duration crewed missions and a space station, as well as the capability to launch, service, and retrieve satellites." Or however you prefer.
    Didn't realize it until now, but my version was definitely an awkward sentence structure. I went with your recommendation! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 05:37, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Rocketdyne in lede?
    Linked! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 05:38, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is a "space tug "? Likewise "nuclear stage"
    Linked to its Wiki page! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 05:39, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • After establishing the need for a reusable, heavy-lift spacecraft, NASA and the Air Force began determining the design requirements of their respective services --> "determined"
    Done. I also changed "establishing" to "they established" earlier in the sentence to keep the tense consistent. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 05:41, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The instrument panels contained over 2,100 displays and controls - is there no exact number? 5,000 is technically "over 2,100"
    I wasn't able to find an exact number, and the "over 2,100" is directly from the source. I understand the inexact figure leaves the door open for any number of displays and consoles, but I want to lift directly from a reliable source when its ambiguous. My guess is that the unspecific answer comes from variations between orbiters (and even for a single orbiter as it underwent changes) as well as different interpretations of what constitutes a control and a display. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 05:46, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, makes sense. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:35, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "once they were travelling slower than Mach 5" - could you add km/h and mph after Mach 5?
    The sources I have for this info (both of Jenkins's books) simply state Mach 5. As the speed of sound, and subsequently Mach numbers, vary depending upon air density, I'm hesitant to estimate the speed in km/h or mph to which this is referring. Since the use and safety of the instrument deployment will only really be affected by true airspeed, they would also only be accounting for the Mach number and not a speed relative to the ground. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:18, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Totally understood. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:35, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • up to 15 feet (4.6 m) in diameter - the rest of the article has metric first
    Fixed! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:54, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're inconsistent whether you abbreviate kg or not. Ditto km
    Fixed (I think I got every example)! I switched them all to the abbreviations. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:54, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • How many landings were at KSC?
    Added. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:03, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • a runway at least 7,500 feet (2,300 m) long - again, metric first
    In the case of aviation terms (primarily altitude, but also this example of runway length) I chose to use feet because that is the internationally accepted unit for those measurements. Thoughts on leaving it as is? Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:05, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    For what it's worth, the featured article Shuttle–Mir program uses metric units first (but only briefly). Since the infobox of the SS article uses metric first, I suggest changing the order so all of the units in the article are metric first, then imperial second. I won't make a big stink out of it though. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:35, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I decided to make it all metric-first. I was just being too set in my ways, despite preferring metric. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:42, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is most of the budget in 2012 USD instead of 2020 USD? Have you considered whether it's worth adding inflation figures?
    The 2012 USD estimates are the official figures published by NASA in a review of the Space Shuttle's cost. I did consider using the inflation template, but decided not to. As those values are already estimating inflation and costs over the 40ish years of the development and operation of the Space Shuttle, I didn't want to add further uncertainty by using two inflation estimates. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:22, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was the shuttle retirement because of the Columbia disaster? The timing is close.
    Public opinion about the Space Shuttle may have swayed decisions on the shuttle getting cancelled specifically when it did, but the retirement was not because of the Columbia disaster. The shuttle's original lifespan was never intended to be that long (although it was expected to launch more regularly). Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:01, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there anything more about the discussions about the retirement? Like, "NASA administrator announced on January X..." The article goes from everything generally fine for the mission, then it stops. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:35, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that it seems to end abruptly. I added this: "President George W. Bush announced his Vision for Space Exploration, which called for the retirement of the Space Shuttle once it completed construction of the ISS." Please let me know what you think! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:06, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • it was safed in preparation for display - is "safed" normal wording?
    It's a common aviation term. A synonym is "disarmed" but I don't think that's appropriate with a non-weapon like the Space Shuttle. It's the best term I can think of for the permanent deactivation of the orbiter. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:01, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Is "decommissioned" or anything equivalent like that appropriate? I had never heard of it that, but then, I'm not around aviation terms everyday. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:35, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I decided to go with "Following each orbiter's final flight, it was processed to make it safe for display." I don't like "decommissioned," but I think saying "safed" may be too much jargon. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:46, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You don't mention anything about where the shuttles ended up after their retirement.
    I had previously removed the section about the retirement locations per the recommendation from Hawkeye7, but your comment made me think there should at least be a mention of them, so I added the sentence stating the retirement location of the 4 orbiters (including Enterprise). Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:35, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:35, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The links in See Also could use some explanation (I wondered what Buran was)
    I added a quick description for the Buran, but felt the other titles were self-explanatory. Please let me know what you think! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:38, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All in all, the article is in decent shape. I don't think it would take much to get my support. Please let me know if you have any questions about my comments. Thanks for working on this important article! :) ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:43, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricanehink: I think I have addressed all of your comments! Please let me know if you have any further feedback. I appreciate the help! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:40, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for the work. I just wanted a little follow up on metric, the retirement, "safed". ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:35, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Hurricanehink: I made some edits based upon your comments; please let me know what you think! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:07, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I'm happy to support now! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 12:50, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note edit

@Nikkimaria: Are you satisfied with the images? --Ealdgyth (talk) 14:39, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:38, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SG notes edit

MOS:SANDWICH and WP:NBSP attention needed. Things like Mode C, S band, Apollo 12 as well as the usual on units. That infobox ... ugh! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:05, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moved the MV Freedom Star photo to the right side on the page, and removed two photos, so it should be in line with MOS:SANDWICH now! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:20, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added nbsp tags for Apollo 12, Mode C, S band, and Ku band. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:26, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added nbsp tags for all monetary values and time units in article and infobox (hours, minutes, seconds, timezone, AM/PM). Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:45, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SandyGeorgia: Could you please clarify what you are looking for on the infobox? I have added nbsp tags to everything that should have it (as I understand it) and removed the photos that were sandwiching it. Was that it or are you recommending further changes? Thanks! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:46, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I realize it is unlikely anything can be done to cut down the infobox (per the politics of infoboxes) and did not expect you to be able to fix that; I was just registering my general dislike of long infoboxes :). Thanks for getting to the rest of my nitpicks so fast! (By the way, short infobox parameters are rarely affected by line breaks, in case you want to minimize NBSPing there ... up to you.) The article is approaching 10,000 words of prose, so keeping its size manageable may be a chore over time; aggressive use of WP:SS could be your friend ;). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:15, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent! Thanks for the feedback; I go back and forth on what belongs in the infobox, but I think it does have useful info in it as it stands (although I'm definitely biased)! I think I'll leave the NBSPs in the infobox; as I understand it, there isn't any harm in it. I'm sure keeping this article's quality up and length down will be a task I have to return to every now and then. Please let me know if there is any other feedback you have for this article; I've learned a lot during my first FAC process, but I'm looking forward to completing the job and moving on to new pages! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 12:57, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm good ... the article is too long for me to read further, when pressed for time. Unwatching now, good luck here! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:59, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Hope to see you on future FACs! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 16:23, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 10 July 2020 [48].

1985 World Snooker Championship edit

Nominator(s): Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:27, 14 May 2020 (UTC), BennyOnTheLoose[reply]

This article is about the most well known snooker tournament of all-time. The Snooker World Championship dates back to 1927, but the 1985 event was the first to have drugs testing and a prize fund of £250,000. Three-time and defending champion Steve Davis had become a dominant player by the time of the event, and reached the final, where he played Northern Irishman Dennis Taylor. In a first-to-18 frames final, Davis took an 8-0 lead, but Taylor made a comeback after the first day to trail 8-9. The final became very close, and went to 17-17. Davis went ahead in the deciding frame, with Taylor needing the remaining four balls to win the final. Both players missed shots on these balls, but Taylor potted the final ball to win the tournament and his only world championship.

The final finished after midnight watched by 18.5 million viewers, holding the record for the highest television audience on BBC Two and for any UK broadcast after midnight to date. Alongside BennyOnTheLoose, I've put a lot of work into this one, so I look forward to any comments you might have. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:27, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:1985_World_Snooker_Championship_book_cover.jpg needs a more expansive FUR and a more specific source, and is it a book cover or a poster? Tag doesn't match description. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:31, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have added some more info for the FUR, and a full link to the page source. It's strictly speaking neither, it's an event programme. I suppose it is closer to a book cover, so I've changed. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:29, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Betty Logan (support) edit

Please bear with me on this. I will be looking at this over the next few days and will be periodically updating my comments. Betty Logan (talk) 14:40, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Body
  • The lead looks fine overall although the following sentence could do with some sort of punctuation between the bolded words: ...and was the ninth consecutive World Snooker Championship to be held at the Crucible the first event taking place in 1977.
  • this was Davis' third world championship having also won the title in 1981 and 1983. – I understand this, but it could be slightly ambiguous. A "third world championship" could be misinterpreted as implying that it is the third time Davis had competed in the world championship. Maybe something on the following lines would remove the ambiguity: this was Davis' third world title, having also won in 1981 and 1983.
  • As defending champion, Steve Davis was seeded first for the event; the remaining 15 seeds were allocated based on world rankings for the previous season. – I think "previous" is the wrong choice of word here. The rankings were technically for the current season (even though the points themselves came from the preceding two seasons).
  • Bill Werbeniuk (seeded 14th) had not won a single match all season, but defeated Joe Johnson 10–8 and scored a 143 break in the tenth frame – the third-highest break at the championship to date. – This is ambiguous wording. A reader could take "to date" to mean 2020, and they could interpret it to mean just the 1985 Championship. The timeframe and Championship chronology needs to be made explicit.
  • With only a few shots left to play to win the match, Reardon borrowed Fagan's cue for the victory. – Is there any backstory to this or was Reardon just larking around?
    • I think he broke it - BennyOnTheLoose as I'm still waiting on TWL, is there more details? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:35, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reardon was around 50 points ahead and safe in the last frame when his cue tip came off. He would have been given 15 minutes to re-tip it, but Fagan offered the use of his own cue instead. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:46, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Davis won the second session to lead 10–6, but looked back and lost frame 17. Griffiths committed a waistcoat foul, allowing Davis to win the frame and (eventually) win 13–6 to reach his fourth World Championship semi-final. – A couple of problems here. First, this comes across as WP:JARGON. Can't we just explain in simple English how Davis lost the frame? Second, if Davis led 10–6 and lost the 17th frame, wouldn't this have taken Griffith's frame score to 7? Yet the final score is stated to be 13–6. This needs to be cleared up.
    • Benny could you quantify this for me? I think it was that Davis needed a couple snookers but was helped with the waistcoat foul. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:35, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • It was 10-6 to Davis at the end of the second session. In the 17th frame, Davis made a break of 80 after the foul by Griffiths. (The frame score ended up being 84-6 to Davis so he hadn't needed snookers.) Davis won all three frames in the third session to go from a 10-6 lead to a 13-6 win.(Snooker Scene, June 1985, p.15; Guardian, 24 April 1985, p.26.) BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:56, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reardon won all five frames of the third session (seven in a row) to lead 12–9, and Parrott won the next three frames to force a deciding frame. – Presumably this is a mistype? I think that should probably read "the first five frames"
  • The session was called interesting by Clive Everton of The Guardian, however, due to the "high quality of the tactical play." – I think this would read better if "called" was replaced with "described as".
  • He compiled his 100th century break at the Crucible, a 106 break in frame 13. – I think this needs to be double checked. According to our articles Davis made two in 1980, three in 1981, two in 1983, one in 1984 and three in 1985, for a grand total of eleven. I think that should read 10th.
    • No, I think this is the 100th overall. I'll clarify Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:35, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      @Lee Vilenski: Actually I just took a look at the source used for this, and the section is called "Crucible milestone centuries", so it's highly likely the 100th century at the Crucible. Armbrust The Homunculus 15:47, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      @Lee Vilenski: I reworded this sentence a couple of days ago, but I think I was wrong. I had understood it to mean that Davis compiled his 100th career century in this match, but I now agree with Armbrust that it must have been the 100th century ever compiled at the Crucible rather than Davis's personal milestone. Hence, the original wording: "He compiled his 100th century break at the Crucible..." was also wrong. This tweet might also bear this out... "I've just heared that they not gonna show the '85 final,but the 100th Crucible century,that also was made that year" although of course we can't use that as a source! Rodney Baggins (talk) 16:17, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The image caption in the same section speaks about career century break. Armbrust The Homunculus 21:04, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, of course, it is referring to career centuries. The fact that it confused me means it could confuse other readers though, so it needs to be clarified. Betty Logan (talk) 23:35, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restarting the match, Davis took the eighth frame and was leading in frame nine but missed a thin cut on the green ball which was later considered the turning point of the match – The match resumed, not restarted.
  • Davis also lost the following year's final, this time to qualifier Joe Johnson – I am pretty sure this is incorrect. According to 1986 World Snooker Championship Johnson was 16th seed.
  • If the defending champion was ranked outside the top 16 in the world rankings as an automatic qualifier – I have read this note over several times and it doesn't make any sense to me. I know what it is meant to say (that if the defending champion is ranked outside the top 16 then they still automatically qualify). I am not sure the note is even necessary here. The only time I know of that this has happened is in 2006.
    • Clarified. I'm not sure it's so much of an issue being here. That's why it's a note, rather than in the prose, as it doesn't effect the article, but worth clarifying. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:35, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Betty Logan - is there anything further? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:50, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No I give my full support to its promotion. Great job Lee and Benny. Betty Logan (talk) 02:15, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Potentially unreliable sources

Comments by Epicgenius edit

I intend to start reviewing this by tomorrow. Feel free to ping me if I forget. epicgenius (talk) 18:03, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • 16 of whom reached the main stage, where they met the 16 invited seeded players. - this is not a complete sentence, but it's preceded by a semicolon. Maybe the semicolon should be changed to a comma.
  • The match, often referred to as the "black ball final" - this specific quoted text only appears in the lead.
  • this was Davis' third world championship win, having also won the title in 1981 and 1983. - seems like this is a dangling modifier, as it appears from the wording that the world championship win also won the title in 1981 and 1983. But "also won the title in 1981 and 1983" applies to Davis, so it should be rephrased.
  • the tests were proposed by WPBSA board member Barry Hearn. - is there a particular reason?
    • The source says "Rumours of drug-taking preceded the association's decision to start tests." Hearn is quoted as saying, of testing, "It was the best thing to do for the image of the sport." (title=Drug snooker tests can't detect |author=Foster, Jonathan |author2=Hale, Janice |work=The Observer |date=14 April 1985 |page=3). BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:35, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The event had a total prize fund of £250,000, an increase of £50,000 in the total prize pool from the previous year, and the winner received £60,000, an increase of £16,000 from the previous year - is it standard to include increases in prize funds? Is there a reason why, or do prize funds just change from year to year?
    • It's quite normal. There isn't all that much you can comment on a prize fund, other than what it is, and how it equates to similar events. Nothing is particularly made public as to why it is more - most likely because of sponsorship, and TV rights. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:03, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 16 winners from the fifth (and final) - does this need the parentheses?
  • aged 71 and eight-time champion between 1948 and 1956 - interesting. Is there a maximum age limit for contestants?
    • There is not. It's a completely open event (other than being of sufficient quality to appear in the qualification rounds. Seniors, women and junior players have all appeared in the qualifiers. (Seniors in snooker is actually 40s and over, and we've had players over that age win the main championships, (see Mark Williams in 2018.) Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:03, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • A Daily Star series of articles about drug abuse from within the championship was based on statements reportedly by Silvino Francisco. - this seems like it's related to the drug tests
  • Davis made a break to 80 win the frame - is this missing a word (e.g. 80 to win the frame)?

More later. 🇪 🇵 🇮 🇨 🇬 🇪 🇳 🇮 🇺 🇸 (talk) 15:12, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Was there more Epicgenius? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:51, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. I'll leave some more comments today. epicgenius (talk) 15:31, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the 2010 World Snooker Championship, to celebrate 25 years since the event, - would it be better to say "to celebrate the 25th anniversary"?

@Lee Vilenski: Actually, I guess this is it. epicgenius (talk) 19:01, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support epicgenius (talk) 19:30, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Rodney Baggins edit

Sorry it's taken me so long to get this ready for you. I've done some copyediting – I hope you've had chance to look through the changes I've made and that you're OK with it all. These are my outstanding observations and suggestions:

Lead
  • "the first tournament taking place" > "the first tournament having taken place" (tense)
  • (thought we weren't linking £ sign any more?)
  • "took an early 8–0 lead" — this might be misleading as the first session had 7 frames, maybe better to just say "won the first eight frames of the match" ?
  • "The final frame was contested over the final black ball" > "The 35th frame was contested over the final black ball" (rm final/final rep)
  • "After both players missed, Taylor potted the black" > "After both players missed the black twice, Taylor potted the ball" ? otherwise it sounds like they both missed it ONCE which is not accurate
Overview/Format
  • "before spreading to" unfortunately puts me in mind of a virus, would it be possible to change that to "before being introduced to"?
  • The draw for the tournament was made at the Savoy Hotel in London > (do we need to say when?)
  • Shouldn't seed be linked at first mention? > "progressed into the main draw to play the top 16 seeds"
  • Don't we need to link 1984–85 snooker season? (and use en dash)
  • "Four players made their world championship debuts, all through the qualifying event" — sounds odd, as if they all made their debuts right the way through the qualifying event, or throughout the qualifying event — could change to "...by way of the qualifying event" or even just "...via the qualifying event" or "all via qualifying" or some such alternative wording.
Semi-finals
  • Would it be best to change "Reigning champion" to "Defending champion" here for consistency/accuracy?
  • The picture of Steve Davis in this section is misleading as it's clearly him as an older man so I don't think it's a good idea to include it.
  • "Although Reardon had won previous matches" > "Although Reardon had won his previous matches" (i.e. the ones he'd played earlier in this competition, rather than just some arbitrary previous matches)
  • I don't get this sentence: "Reardon was the oldest World Championship semi-finalist, but failed to play at the level he had played against Parrott." as the two clauses don't really relate to one another. Just because he was the oldest WC semi-finalist doesn't mean he would be expected to play at the level he had played against Parrott! I'd change it to something like: "Reardon, the oldest World Championship semi-finalist, failed to play at the level he had played against Parrott." (plus maybe put it higher up before the strong safety play sentence)
  • Also might be best to say oldest-ever WC semi-finalist otherwise it might sound as if he was just the oldest of the four semi-finalists in 1985!
Final
  • Not sure about cuegloss links for "thin cut" — should we be linking feather as there is no cuegloss link specifically for "thin cut"!
    • I always though feather was to do with the stroke of the cue ball!Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:14, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • the WPBSA rules say "A stroke is made when the striker strikes the cue-ball with the tip of the cue, except whilst addressing the cue-ball (known as feathering)". I think feather in the Cue Sports Glossary is North American usage - maybe "thin cut" here ? BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:32, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I chose to link to "feather" because the glossary describes it primarily as "A very thin cut shot" which is what we are describing here, but it doesn't say anything about it being an American term, hence my confusion. I think Benny's "thin cut" suggestion is good, but wouldn't we need to explain what is meant by "thin"? Maybe the glossary entry needs a bit of clarification. Rodney Baggins (talk) 11:04, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "although he had not been ahead at any point during the game," irrelevant in context of him waggling his finger & kissing the trophy. Just say "After potting the final ball, Taylor raised his cue stick, "waggled" his finger and kissed the winner's trophy." Maybe "Taylor had not been ahead at any point during the match." could be worked in somewhere else?
  • I've identified some problems with the details in the Final table (Main draw section) as explained on Talk page
Misc
  • In Century breaks section, I've added wikilinks for all four championships (1979/1982/1983/1981) even though they are already linked higher up in article, because I thought it likely that reader might want to check out the events directly off the information presented here.
  • In the Qualifying tables, what does "scr" stand for in place of score when the other player gets a walkover? Scratched? Would w/d be better here?

Rodney Baggins (talk) 23:20, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rodney Baggins did you have anything further? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:51, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Lee. I've had another look through and I'm happy to support the article. Just some final points that you might want to look at:
  • Lead: "the 16 invited seeded players" > does Seed (sports) need to be linked in here as it's the first mention of the word in whole article? It's a special term that's linked for the purposes of clarity in Format section, so should probably also be linked in lead section for same reason, as other links are repeated from lead at first mention in body, e.g. Crucible Theatre, etc.
Indeed it should. For reference, WP:OL seperates links in the lede and the body. So, if it's suitable for a link, it should be linked in both the lede, and the body (but not twice in the lede, or twice in the body). Execptions are things like tables, graphs and image captions. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:56, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead: "The winner received £60,000, which was the highest amount ever received by the winner of a snooker event." > "The winner received £60,000, which at the time was the highest amount ever received by the winner of a snooker event." (otherwise it says that's the all-time highest winner's prize!)
I think this made more sense before we removed a sentence before it - clarified. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:56, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second round: "his cue tip came off" > "his cue tip broke off"?
  • I'm not sure I agree (although, I don't have the source, it could say broke), cue tips are generally glued to the end of the cue. We should follow what the source says here, as it's possible it simply came apart. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:56, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • (?) Semi-finals: The image caption has been bugging me as it's quite long and the fact that he reached the final is implicit in that he beat Reardon in the semi-finals. Maybe reduce to "Defending champion Steve Davis (pictured in 2007) defeated Ray Reardon in the semi-finals, completing the 100th Crucible century break."
  • (?) Final: We have "[Taylor] was never ahead at any point" in 2nd para, and "Taylor was not ahead at any point during the match" in 3rd para, which is a bit repetitious. I'd just change "ahead" to "in the lead" for one of these.
  • (general) Davis' or Davis's...? It turns out this should really be Davis's per MOS:POSS which says that you should add 's after proper names that already end with an s. I guess it's so it sounds like normal speech / more natural if reading aloud?
I didn't realise there was a distinction! Changed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:56, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers, Rodney Baggins (talk) 12:14, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Lee. I think you missed a couple (points 4 & 5 above) or did you dismiss them? Rodney Baggins (talk) 16:00, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Armbrust edit

According to both sources in the "Century breaks" section, the highest break of the 1979 championship was 142. (The Snooker.org reference need to be rearchived too). Armbrust The Homunculus 16:03, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

According to page 21 of the Crucible Almanac (2012) the final had 7 frames in the 1st sesssion, 9 in the 2nd, 8 in the 3rd and 11 in the 4th. Thus the table for the final is wrong. Armbrust The Homunculus 16:24, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated this since your comments in the talk page Armbrust. 11 frames for the final session is ridiculous though! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:49, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Lee Vilenski: Maybe, but that's how the four sessions of the final were between 1984 and 1996 (7-9-8-11). (In 1980 & 1981 it was 9-9-8-9, in 1982 & 1983 8-9-8-10, between 1997 & 2010 8-8-8-11, and since 2011 8-9-8-10). And this also doesn't take into account that slow play. (In 2006 there were a maximum of 13 frames to be played in the last session, but only 10 were necessary.) Armbrust The Homunculus 13:38, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Armbrust: After doing some rewording, I've removed the failed verification tag you added about prize money. In Guinness Snooker – The Records (p.86), Everton writes that it was "the game's richest ever first prize - £60,000." Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 01:13, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Armbrust thanks for taking a look at this - was there anything else you wanted me to clarify/change? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:52, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note edit

@Betty Logan: have the source concerns been met? @Nikkimaria: Have your image concerns been dealt with? --Ealdgyth (talk) 14:48, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:43, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. The sourcing is of a high quality now. There is nothing here causing me any concern. Betty Logan (talk) 03:17, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Attention to WP:NBSP needed.SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:21, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What sort of things require the non-breaking space? I thought we had been through the article. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 06:37, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Things like 15 seeds, 103 entrants, 32 participants ... samples only. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:03, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to go ahead and promote and trust that @Lee Vilenski: will fix the nbsp issues. --Ealdgyth (talk) 13:39, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 8 July 2020 [49].

The Holocaust in Slovakia edit

Nominator(s): buidhe 14:38, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been reworked since the previous nomination. Almost all the text is backed up with quotes from sources on this page. As an added bonus, I was able to reduce length by using summary style. Many thanks to all the feedback on the previous FAC: @SchroCat, FunkMonk, Gog the Mild, Brigade Piron, and Ealdgyth: buidhe 14:38, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - I supported the last nomination, and as far as I can see, the article has only gotten better since. FunkMonk (talk) 14:45, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - As above. My concerns were amply addressed in the previous review. —Brigade Piron (talk) 16:45, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Minor comment: It might be beneficial to add an English translation of the Slovak into the "description" parameter of File:Antisemitická Propaganda na Slovensku.jpg which is currently used in the article. —Brigade Piron (talk) 16:50, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. buidhe 00:03, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass edit

We did this to death the last time round. I have checked the new images and my only comments are:

  • The source for "File:Birkenau Jewish mothers and their children walking to the gas chambers.jpg" is dead.
    • Repaired
  • Five of the new images do not have alt text.
    • Added

Gog the Mild (talk) 17:22, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All images are appropriately licenced, positioned, captioned and alt texted. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:54, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Eisfbnore edit

  • Okay, right off the bat, I think the very first sentence could be rewritten slightly for flow and style. Why not have the time indicator in the first line, rather than the second? Since it is the first paragraph, I think it also should mention WWII as the frame. Also, why 'during H' rather than 'in H'?
    • Reworded. I don't think it needs mentioning the dates that WWII started and finished.
  • 2nd para: Why 'according to First Vienna Award'? You're not citing an opinion here. I'd write 'following', although there are other options
    • Changed to "in the First Vienna Award".
  • 4th para: I find the two-word mini-clause 'most emigrated' a bit awkward, if grammatically correct. Also, comma splice in the following sentence
    • Reworded
  • "The party began to emphasize antisemitism during the late 1930s following a wave of Jewish refugees from Austria after its 1938 annexation by Nazi Germany and anti-Jewish laws passed by the neighboring states of Hungary, Poland, and Romania." – a bit long and unwieldy
    • Reworded
  • "In October 1939, Tiso (leader of the conservative/clerical branch of HSĽS) became president; Vojtech Tuka, leader of the party's radical/fascist wing, was appointed prime minister" – I don't think the MoS allows for parentheses out in the open like that. Same with the slash
    • Reworded slightly
  • "After the fall of the Communist regime in 1989, the Slovak government viewed remembering the Holocaust as a way of demonstrating the country's European identity before it joined the European Union in 2004." – a bit clumsy, too many verbs
    • Rephrased
  • "Although there were no transports until the end of September, the Jews experienced harsh treatment (including rape and murder) and severe overcrowding as the population swelled to 3,000 – more than twice the intended capacity" – see earlier comments
  • Yeah, I was more skeptical about the length of this sentence, but I guess it's fine. Anyway you have my Support. Great work. Eisfbnore (会話) 18:56, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Those are my preliminary comments. Eisfbnore (会話) 06:58, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for your feedback! buidhe 10:21, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Kaiser matias edit

  • In the "Slovak independence" section there is both "80%" and "95-percent" used, and I see a later use of "8.3 percent". It would be best to be consistent and use one version throughout.
    • Changed all to use "percent". The hyphens are required before a noun but not otherwise.
  • The sentences starting with "A 1940 census found that 89,000 Jews lived in the Slovak State..." feels kind of tagged on where it is and out of place. Seeing how the next section is an overview of anti-Jewish measures, it may be better to move all the above there, as it serves as a good compliment to summarizing the situation of Jews in Slovakia at the time.
    • Done
  • "Adolf Eichmann, who had been sent to Bratislava..." Should add a brief note of who Eichmann was: something simple like "Adolf Eichmann, a Nazi official who had been sent to Bratislava..." would be suffice.
    • Done
  • "The deportations occurred just after Germany's Polenaktion, a similar event." Again I'd add a small clarification of what the Polenaktion was: "Polanaktion, a similar event in Poland." I realise it's linked, but it should still be clear to the reader without having to look too hard.
    • Reworded
  • "The deportations occurred just after Germany's Polenaktion, a similar event; attracted international criticism, reduced British investment, increasing dependence on German capital; and were a rehearsal for the 1942 deportations." This reads awkwardly, with the semi-colons and commas. It isn't clear if the Slovak deportations of the Polenaktion were the focus of criticism, reduced investment, and so on.
    • Reworded

* Note: have stopped at the "Aryanization" section; will continue below. Kaiser matias (talk) 17:46, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "the head of the Šariš-Zemplín region ordered local Jews to wear a yellow band around their left arm from 5 April 1941, leading to attacks." Attacks by Slovaks on Jews, I presume? I would clarify that.
    • Done
  • "The Slovaks agreed to pay 500 Reichsmarks per Jew deported (ostensibly to cover shelter, food, retraining and housing)[142][143] and an additional fee to the Deutsche Reichsbahn for transport. (The 500 Reichsmark fee was equivalent to about USD$125 at the time,[67] or $1,956 today)." There's an extra period here; either remove the one after "transport", or after the parenthesis.
    • OK, removed the parenthesis to avoid any MOS issue.

Other than that I think it is good. Solid overview of a complex topic. Kaiser matias (talk) 20:09, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great, looks good. Kaiser matias (talk) 16:05, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Partial source review by Factotem edit

Not well informed about this subject or its historiography, and not really able to make informed comments about any of the foreign language sources. Nevertheless, I've looked into this as best I can, and have the following observations:

  • Sources are displaying "CS1 maint: ref=harv". I understand there's been a recent change that makes the |ref=harv parameter redundant, and its presence is generating this message
    • Removed all "harv" parameters
  • #ref 55 p. -> pp.
    • Fixed
  • #ref 230 (Kornberg 2015 p. 85) links the page number to gbooks, but that gbooks edition has a different ISBN number than the one provided in the Sources listing.
    • When I clicked the link, Gbooks said the long ISBN was "9781442622586" compared to 978-1-4426-2258-6 in the article, which is the same number. The ISBN is different in short format.
This is the problem with gbook links. If you look at the listing it does indeed state the ISBN 22586, but if you look at p. iv in the preview it gives a different ISBN ending 2828-1. Gbooks often previews a different edition to the one it lists. The listing states 424 pages, and although I can't be certain it looks to me like the preview edition is only 406. That difference in pagination may impact the page numbering in your inline refs. Factotem (talk) 15:13, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch. From the publisher's website it appears to be the print vs. epub editions. I have cited the isbn ending in 2828-1, which corresponds to the print edition. buidhe 15:26, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you check the year for Sokolovič's Hlinkova Garda 1938 – 1945? From the pdf it looks to me like it should be 2009, not 2013 as listed in the Sources.
    • I honestly don't know where I got 2013 from. Fixing.
  • Putik's thesis is dated in the Sources to 2015, but the only date I can see in the linked document is the defence date in 2016
    • On the title page it says "Praha 2015" and the recommended citation also gives 2015 as the date even though it was apparently defended in February 2016. It seems most online guides recommend giving the date of publication rather than defense, so I'm going to stick with 2015.
  • Can you check the publisher for Deák's Europe on Trial? I've looked through the 2015 editions on Worldcat, the gbooks link for the ISBN and isbnsearch.org and none of them list Routledge in London as the publlisher.
    • According to the title page of the version I used, it was published by Westview Press which is an imprint of Routledge. I have edited it to state the imprint and also fixed the location, which was wrong.
  • Can you check the publisher for Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos. The Sources section states United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, but Worldcat and isbnsearch.org state Indiana University Press
    • The book officially was published by IUPress, but produced by the USHMM. I am not quite sure what that means, but since all the editors are from USHMM it seems that they did most of the work while IUPress had no more than a minor role in editorial control.
  • I checked through the publishers and looked briefly into those I did not recognise - Brill, Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, Berghahn Books and National Memory Institute. The last gave me pause for further, brief investigation based on the contents of its WP article, but that source is used twice, for statements that don't appear to be relevant to the criticisms/issues mentioned in the WP article.
  • I looked briefly into The Slovak Spectator as the only English language web site that wasn't obvious to me as reliable, and did not see anything on that site's About Us page to suggest any issues.
  • In terms of comprehensiveness, the quantity of sources is impressive. In addition to my own brief survey above, I note that in the previous FAC attempt there is no indication of any doubt about the reliability of the sources. I checked through the article history, and since that last FAC, it appears that two new sources have been added: Nižňanský's On Relations between the Slovak Majority and Jewish Minority During World War II and Šindelářová's Finale der Vernichtung: die Einsatzgruppe H in der Slowakei 1944/1945, neither of which, based on the publishers, lead to me to suspect the general statement on reliability has changed since that last FAC
  • Insofar as my review can go, I can find nothing major to concern me. But, I note that the last FAC failed on spotchecks, something that I'm in no position to check myself, hence this can only be a partial review. Sorry. Factotem (talk) 10:29, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for your review. Anyone who wishes to do source checks will note that direct quotes from sources that support most of the article can be found at Talk:The Holocaust in Slovakia/Sources check. I also have PDF copies of most of the sources and am happy to send them to you. buidhe 14:40, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from KIENGIR
  • KIENGIR says that this is an improvement; I (Buidhe) disagree. Assuming that the references in his version is fixed, which version is better? buidhe 18:01, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, - I've read through this page, but still did not find on what you have referred -, you did not say earlier it was added because of any references. On the talk page everyone may read our conversation, the catch is the common sense and precise evaluation.(KIENGIR (talk) 18:12, 23 April 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Support from Cass edit

The noms are certainly brave taking in such an emotive subject, and I tip my hat to them for doing an excellent job writing it. I can see no issues whatsoever. CassiantoTalk 19:14, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for your review. buidhe 19:15, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source spotchecks edit

Ten sentences randomly picked from the article. I'm using the source quotes given here, taking it on faith that they are accurate quotes. Buidhe, thanks for setting that up; it makes this a straightforward task and must have been a great deal of work.

  • The United States and Switzerland issued formal protests against the deportation of Jews. Verified.
  • Following the 1968 Warsaw Pact invasion of Czechoslovakia, authorities cracked down on free expression, while anti-Zionist propaganda, much of it imported from the Soviet Union, intensified and veered into antisemitism after Israeli victory in the 1967 Six-Day War. First half verified. For the part starting "while anti-Zionist...", I don't see where the supporting text is on your source page -- can you point me at it?
    • I didn't type this up but here it is:

      Antisemitism and the attitude toward the Arab-Israeli conflict simply became a part of the public debate by 1968, and this fact was to shape the developments after the Soviet-led invasion. During the normalization, the Party conservative circles, which were under Soviet patronage, soon re-sponded to the previous discussion. They built their discourse on the articles that emerged at the time of the 1967 conflict before the liberalization process in Czechoslovakia reached its peak, as well as on the import of anti-Zionist rhetoric from the Soviet Union. In the following years, Czechoslovakia assumed, alongside the Soviet Union, the position of a socialist country with the most vicious anti-Zionist, and, in certain cases, even antisemitic discourse.

      — on 218
  • The party began to emphasize antisemitism during the late 1930s following a wave of Jewish refugees from Austria in 1938 and anti-Jewish laws passed by Hungary, Poland, and Romania. Verified.
  • It was neither fully independent nor a German puppet state, but occupied an intermediate status. Verified.
  • Interest in emigration among Jews surged after the invasion of Poland, as Jewish refugees from Poland told of atrocities there. Verified.
  • The Land Reform Act of February 1940 turned 101,423 hectares (250,620 acres) of land owned by 4,943 Jews, about 40 percent of it arable, over to the State Land Office; the land officially passed to the state in May 1942. Verified. A minor suggested tweak: you might make it "more than 40%", as it's closer to 45%.
    • Done
  • Leaders of the Jewish community were divided about how to respond to this development. Verified.
  • No record survives of this meeting, at which the deportation of Jews from Slovakia was probably first discussed, leading to historiographical debate over who proposed the idea. Verified. I assume the differing date in one of the sources is uncontroversially in error; you might put a footnote in pointing this out.
  • Members of the Hlinka Guard, the Freiwillige Schutzstaffel, and the gendarmerie were in charge of rounding up the Jews, guarding the transit centers, and eventually forcing them into train cars for deportation. Verified.
  • This occurred for nine transports, the last of which arrived on 21 October 1942. From 1 August to 18 September, no transports departed; most of the Jews not exempt from deportation had already been deported or had fled to Hungary. I would make it "end of July", not "1 Aug"; the source is not precise so we should not be. The comments on the verification page say "see data tables"; am I blind for not seeing these in either the article or the verification page?
    • Both sources have a list/table of transports with the last before the break leaving the country on 1 August. I was not sure how to paste that onto the evidence page. The transports were usually overnight and this one probably left Zilina on 31 July and crossed the border early in the morning on 1 August (although I would not be able to verify that). However, most sources date the transports from when they cross the border so it would be potentially misleading to say it was in July. buidhe 22:48, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This looks good; just a a couple of questions above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:19, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for your review! buidhe 22:48, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your replies. Source spot check passes. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:00, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from PM edit

I'm left wondering about the history of Jewish people living in this area prior to 1896 and the extent of anti-semitism during the later period it was part of the Kingdom of Hungary. When did Jews come to this area and what sort of Jews were they? Were the Jews isolated from the Slovak population or integrated? Had there been any pogroms in the area under Hungarian rule etc? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:45, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that unfortunately, given the poor state of the History of the Jews in Slovakia article, the Further information template is inadequate, and the Background section of this article needs expansion. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:19, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Peacemaker67: I have added some information. The background is really not something that sources on the Holocaust in Slovakia go into in any detail, so I am not sure how much more would be WP:DUE. buidhe 02:45, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is in no way WP:UNDUE to provide background on the history of anti-semitism in Slovakia in an article about the genocide of Jews in Slovakia. The history of anti-semitism in this region is very important background to this article:

  • The History of the Jews in Slovakia reliably cites that Jews were present in what is now Slovakia since the 11thC, and History of the Jews in Bratislava reliably cites Jews in Bratislava since 1250.
    • What Hutzelmann says is that "Jewish communities" plural did not exist until the late 18th century, which is debateable, but I have added a different source which has a different account.
  • This source cites a 2001 article entitled November's Brutal Bonfire: Anarchy and Anti-Semitism in the Slovak Revolution of 1918 which is likely to have further information.
  • This source] mentions a pogrom in Trnava in 1870, and restrictions on Jewish movement from as early as 1495 and also 1539 to 1800.
    • What's the relevance? No source on the Holocaust in Slovakia considers this relevant to what happened in the 1930s-40s.
  • all Jews were apparently expelled from Bratislava in 1360, and in the first half of the 15thC they were forced to live in a ghetto, and expelled again after the Battle of Mohács in 1526, and allowed to return in the 1700s
  • there were pogroms in Bratislava during the Hungarian Revolution of 1848
  • there were apparently 135K Jews in Slovakia in 1921, but only 89K in 1940. This would bear explaining.
    • Already explained: most lived in the areas annexed by Hungary and another 6,000 emigrated.

Another Background para broadly summarising this history of anti-semitism in Slovakia would be desirable. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:31, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Peacemaker67:,
I have to inform you that what you are referring belongs/covered in the article of History of the Jews in Hungary, starting with a timeline over 1000 years up today, anything connected with to the Kingdom of Hungary is naturally there. It should be carefully noted what goes to Hungary (-1920) and what to Slovakia (1920- inside Czechsolovakia,, 1939-1945 as an own state, etc.). We should not confuse the two, I understand the Slovak version of the article is meant also to cover what is the present-day territory's history, and not necessarily being an own state (just to avoid repetitions), but i.e. History of the Jews in Bratislava is not in in a separated scope, there anything connected the Hungarian Era or (Czecho)Slovak era may ultimately go. Thus I propose a short summarization in the Slovak article what concerns earlier than 1920, and filled with possible redirects to the Hungarian article.(KIENGIR (talk) 09:07, 8 May 2020 (UTC))[reply]
I disagree. Given the scope of the article, it is necessary for this article to fill in the background properly. The Slovak people (not the state) were living on the lands that were included in the Slovak State for centuries living alongside Jews, and any history of anti-semitism in these lands and by the Slovak people is directly relevant to this article, which includes the role of Slovak people in the Holocaust. A para about the history of anti-semitism in these lands prior to the creation of Czechoslovakia is definitely required. It doesn't have to cover every pogrom in nauseating detail, but it needs to give a general sense of the historical treatment of Jews by Slovak people. A very brief mention of "traditional religious antisemitism" doesn't cut it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:27, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Peacemaker67:, if you refer to the anti-semitism regarding Slovaks in connection with Jews, of course, but anything that was related to the Hungarians or the Hungarian state itself, should not. Though in the article there is alread an Early history and a 19th century section, so the route is open...(KIENGIR (talk) 09:51, 8 May 2020 (UTC))[reply]
Yes, that's exactly what I am talking about, the history of anti-semitism by Slovaks towards Jews in these lands is what needs to be in this article. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:40, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've expanded a bit on the nineteenth-century history, but I am not sure what the relevance is on going further back because none of the sources has deemed it relevant. The article already explains how antisemitism in Slovakia evolved in the early 20th century and how it became part of the program of the Slovak People's Party. Is there a specific aspect which would benefit from clarification? buidhe 12:31, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fairly satisfied with this response, but have a few other points which I'll get to after another read through. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:14, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, some additional things:
Lead
  • suggest "In October 1938, a month after the Munich Agreement, Slovakia unilaterally declared its autonomy within Czechoslovakia, but lost significant territory to Hungary in the First Vienna Award which was signed in November. The following year..." and drop the existing link to Czechoslovakia
    • Done
  • suggest "declared independence from Czechoslovakia with German encouragement and protection"
    • Partly done, encouragement implies the latter and trying to be concise in the lead.
  • both "Germany invaded Slovakia" and "Slovak National Uprising" link to Slovak National Uprising
  • suggest "After liberation by the Red Army, survivors faced renewed antisemitism"
    • done
  • "The Slovak government's complicity in the Holocaust remains a source of controversy." seems unsupported by the body, it seems clear that they facilitated it
    • Changed to "continues to be disputed by far-right nationalists".
Background
  • say that "Upper Hungary" covered much of what is now Slovakia
    • I just got rid of the term rather than try to explain it
      • I think that is a backwards step. Better to explain where this occurred in contemporary terms and explain how it relates to the entity being discussed in the article. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:02, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, I actually checked the source and it does not say anything about Upper Hungary, it just says "Anti-Jewish riots break out in western and central Slovakia" (in 1848–1849). It's hard for me to understand what an explanation of Upper Hungary would add to a reader's understanding of this article's subject, when "Slovak lands" is historically accurate and works just as well. buidhe 08:48, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • for Slovak national movement link History of Slovakia#Slovak National Movement
    • Done
  • should it be "anti-Jewish riots broke out in the wake of the Revolutions of 1848"?
    • Yes, fixed
  • "Jews were strongly associated with the Hungarian and Czechoslovak" seems out of place (in respect of Czechoslovakia), as we are only told about the establishment of Czechoslovakia in the next para, suggest replicating the sense of the sentence as it relates to Czechoslovakia in a sentence inserted after "(in 1921)".
    • Done
  • "although the violence was not nearly as serious as in Ukraine or Poland" seems to be trying to minimise. Is it relevant and necessary? If Poland is retained (I don't suggest it), link Second Polish Republic here, not later
    • It's highly relevant. Most of the postworld war I anti-Jewish violence readers are likely to know about is that east of Slovakia, where it was orders of magnitude more severe. I do not want to leave the false impression that thousands of Jews were murdered in Slovakia.
  • suggest piping Anschluss#Actions against the Jews to "a wave of Jewish refugees from Austria" rather than 1938 which is highly easter-eggy
    • Done
Some of the modifications I disagree recommended here, because they are inaccurate and unnecessary, will address the few in the edit log, as well disagree of eliminating Upper Hungary.(KIENGIR (talk) 06:47, 14 June 2020 (UTC))[reply]
(KIENGIR FYI, the changes that you objected to were recommended by Peacemaker, not Piotrus. buidhe 07:05, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe:, I know, sorry, should I relocate my comment in his section?(KIENGIR (talk) 07:12, 14 June 2020 (UTC))[reply]
I've gone ahead and moved it. buidhe 07:29, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
AS I've noted above, I don't think removing Upper Hungary is actually helpful. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:02, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe:, also here I reply you above comment, even if it is in the source, it is innacurate and follows that lazy practice that try to project present-day status quo to contemporary one, that should be avoided since it may lead to confusions. The term Slovakia or Slovak-lands that time is not well or could not be properly defined, as Hungarians also lived there and we cannot conceal it has been part of Hungary then (that is anyway a problematic practise of some authors), so mentioning it is totally complies with c/e and close pharaphrasing, that we anyway use when authours are lazy or less accurate.(KIENGIR (talk) 10:57, 14 June 2020 (UTC))[reply]
@Peacemaker67:, sorry if because of my comment placed in a improper place intitially would have confused me and you, yes I see the execution of your recommendation ended up in a different way you addressed (thus may initial comment was meant in general), now I repaired it with a compromise, you may see in the recent edit, so yes, we agree and not disagree on this.(KIENGIR (talk) 11:11, 14 June 2020 (UTC))[reply]
Rest of article
  • recommend "the Sudetenland, a primarily German-speaking area of Czechoslovakia" I don't think I've ever seen a source refer to the Munich Agreement affecting the "Czech lands" this is unnecessary parsing
    • Done
  • was Czechoslovak an ethnicity? I thought people were Czechoslovak citizens and ethically Czech, Slovak, German, Hungarian etc
    • Exact quote from Ward: "All in all, Hungary received over 10,000 square kilometers with more than 850,000 inhabitants. Slovakia’s losses included around 40 percent of her arable land and some 270,000 “Czechoslovaks” according to the 1930 census."
  • "but never carried out an execution before World War II."
    • The existing text is supported by the source, which says "the Slovak state never carried out a single death sentence". Obviously this doesn't count people who were killed outside of Slovakia or extrajudicial executions, and I've modified to be more clear.
  • per MOS:PERCENT, "95 percent vote"
    • That's not what MOS:PERCENT says, none of their examples have x percent used as an adjective.
  • under German protection→with German encouragement and protection
    • Done
  • foreign-policy→foreign policy
    • Done
  • "It was neither fully independent nor a German puppet state, but occupied an intermediate status" isn't a good reflection of the reliable sources, neither is the selection presented in the note. Quite a few describe it as a puppet state, and others as a satellite, others as a satellite. I suggest something like "Sources vary on the status of the Slovak State, with some describing it as a puppet state and others as a client state or satellite state." with citations of each of course.
    • Not done—from everything I've read, the recent trend in the last couple of decades is to place more emphasis on Slovak autonomy/independence from Germany, while emphasizing its responsibility for crimes.
      • For "puppet state", see [50] (2000), [51] (2010), [52] (2013), [53] (2013), [54] (2004), also p. 288 of Joseph A. Mikuš' Slovakia: A Political and Constitutional History : with Documents (1995), and that is just the first page of a Google Books results for "slovakia puppet state". For satellite state, see [55] (2006), [56] (2011), [57] (2012). Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:31, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't think these are very strong sources. Only one of the ones using "puppet state" is focused on the World War II Slovak State, they seem to be copying the descriptor from some other source (probably dated ones). The only exception is the last one, which is from 25 years ago and not a top-notch publisher as far as I can tell. The term "puppet state" is misleading because, according to the sources I have read, until the German occupation of the country, the Slovak State clearly had more autonomy and freedom of action than the other entities described as "puppet states" of Nazi Germany. All the sources that I've read particularly emphasize its autonomy in implementing anti-Jewish laws and arranging the deportation of Jews (and then stopping these actions against German wishes) prior to 1944. I could agree with "described as a client state[1] or satellite state[2]", but I think the current version of the article does a better job of explaining different views on Slovakia's autonomy, since most readers probably don't know the difference between a client state and a satellite state. buidhe 01:22, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sorry, but what? Those sources include an academic examination of the political and constitutional history of Slovakia published by Academic Press (Mikuš), the Routledge Handbook of Regionalism & Federalism, Czecho/Slovakia: Ethnic Conflict, Constitutional Fissure, Negotiated Breakup is published by the University of Michigan, Slovakia on the Road to Independence is published by Penn State University, Encyclopedia of the Developing World and Liberal Nationalism in Central Europe are also published by Routledge, and they are just the ones that say puppet state. Of the satellite state sources, one is written by Anton Špiesz, a Slovak historian awarded the Pribina Cross for contributions to Slovak history, Slovakia in History is published by Cambridge University Press, and The Oxford Handbook of Holocaust Studies is obviously published by Oxford University Press. It would be hard to find a stronger selection of sources, most are from university presses, the rest are from very high quality presses like Routledge. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:55, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant is the sources that call it a "puppet state" are not very strong, the authors do not appear to have done any original research that would lead them to this conclusion but are clearly quoting other sources (except in the one case). These are sources which are mostly about Slovakia in the 1990s and it's unclear where the authors got the idea that it is a "puppet state" is this just a habitual label or has any thought gone into it? Here is a specific analysis of why I don't think the sources have much weight:
  • 2000 book: references a controversial rally about the Slovak State, calls it "puppet state" but does not cite any source for it except newspaper articles from the 1990s[58]
  • 2010 book's full title is: Slovakia on the road to independence : an American diplomat's eyewitness account. Not a very strong source for wwii history.
  • 2013 book, titled Routledge Handbook of Regionalism & Federalism, apparently a tertiary source. Chapter is about "37. Czechoslovakia: A Peaceful Disintegration" by Michal Ilner. He appears to be citing Jozef Lettrich (d. 1969) for the World War II history. Needless to say the historiography has advanced a lot with access to the post-communist archives.
  • Other 2013 book: Encyclopedia of the Developing World, tertiary source, no inline citations, I cannot find out who wrote the entry.
  • 2004 book: Liberal Nationalism in Central Europe, (about post-communist nationalism), cites no source for WWII state being a "puppet state" but seems to take it as given
  • 1995 book: Arguably this is the strongest source, but I repeat that this notion has been challenged by higher quality and more recent sources.

The use of "puppet state" is frequent as a habitual label, but more recent scholarly sources that specifically have researched the history of the Slovak State have questioned the idea that it was a "puppet state", for instance Tatjana Tönsmeyer and James Mace Ward. The satellite state label is supported, but again I question how helpful it is because most readers will not have a political science background and know what the distinction is between client vs. satellite and so forth. buidhe 08:22, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

we have articles on all three types of pseudo-states, and they can be linked. This is a problem for me because the idea that Slovakia was a puppet state is not fringe and should be reflected in the article. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:53, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Ward 2013, p. 161.
  2. ^ Kamenec 2011a, p. 184.
  • italicise Freiwillige Schutzstaffel
    • Done
  • I don't think the "Overview" subsection works, much of it is redundant and we don't have leads for sections. If this is about measures taken between 1938 and 1941, I suggest dropping the Overview and integrating any unique material into the thematic subsections below it (and try to keep them chronological). For example, the emigration of Jews between 1938 and 1940 is stated twice, once in the Overview and once at the end of the 1938 deportation and emigration subsection. I'll continue once this is dealt with. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:44, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The number of emigrants is the only repeated information, because it is both relevant to the population of Jews and to emigration itself. Another reviewer explicitly asked me to move the population information from the Slovak State section above. There are no sections eg. for antisemitic propaganda and random violence against Jews because such sections would be very short. And statements that generally summarize overall measures such as "The persecution of Jews was a key element of the state's domestic policy." would not easily fit into any of the below sections, but are important as an overview.
      • It means the narrative jumps around too much, and I think it jars and doesn't flow. "Around 5,000 and 6,000 Jews emigrated between 1938 and 1940, and 45,000 lived in the areas ceded to Hungary." is information that could easily be slotted in elsewhere. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:53, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK, let me know if you are satisfied by the change. buidhe 19:44, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Around 5,000 and 6,000 Jews had emigrated", but this is just another example of the narrative jumping around here. Why talk about 1940, then 1938 to 1940, then 1938, then the 1938 deportations in detail. Why not put this material in chronological order and integrate this info into the subsections? "The total number of Slovak Jewish emigrants has been estimated at 5,000 to 6,000." is already in the 1938 deportation and emigration section where it belongs.
  • "OnIn his first radio address"
    • Done
  • add a sentence explaining what the First Vienna Award was when first mentioned in the body
    • I think this would be redundant, since the context makes it clear that we're discussing the partition/cession which was first discussed in the "Slovak independence" section. It would be better to try to shoehorn the words "First Vienna Award" into the prior section.
  • suggest "were transferred illegally to the Czech landsrump Czechoslovakia"
    • That's not quite right as until 14 March 1939, Slovakia was also part of rump Czechoslovakia.
  • to avoid confusion with ethnicity suggest "Slovakian government officials", suggest using Slovakian throughout unless referring to ethnic Slovaks
    • I don't think there is a semantic difference between the two terms as you suggest. I checked Oxford English Dictionary which gives exactly the same definition for both, the only difference is that Slovak is "The more usual term in U.S. usage, in preference to Slovakian". Most of the sources uniformly use "Slovak", which I also prefer.
  • "of Jewish property under Aryanization."
    • Done
  • "the tight limits imposed by the British on legal emigration to Mandatory Palestine"
    • Done
  • once you've introduced Nazi Germany in the body, use Germany thereafter, we all know who we're talking about and it is unnecessarily repetitive
    • Removed one use of "Nazi", in the other case it helps distinguish between the country and ethnic Germans in Slovakia. buidhe 19:44, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They stood to gain a significant amount of money; in 1940, Jews registered more than 4.322 billion Slovak koruna (Ks) in property (38 percent of the national wealth)" and later "Jews were required to register their property; their bank accounts (valued at 245 million Ks in August 1941)[d] were frozen, and Jews were allowed to withdraw only 1,000 Ks (later 150 Ks) per week" seem to be repeating information ie Jewish registration of property. Perhaps the latter could be modified to say "Jews continued to register their property..."
    • I am afraid that your suggestion would give the wrong impression, as in fact these are both referring to the same, one-time registration. buidhe 19:44, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Christian publications"? do you mean church newspapers, or newspapers run by Christians?
    • Clarified
  • "German negotiators convinced the Slovaks"? Perhaps you could mention Tiso, Tuka and Mach attended, especially as Mach became Interior Minister. Suggest "At the July 1940 Salzburg Conference, attended by Tiso, Tuka, and Tuka's fellow radical fascist, Alexander Mach, German negotiators convinced the Slovaks to replace several members of the cabinet with reliably pro-German radicals."
    • Not done—I don't think that listing the attendees of the conference would be adding anything to this article, since the details are already in the linked article. I did replace convince with demand because that is more accurate reflection of what was going on.
  • "By mid-1940, the position of Jews in the Slovak economy had been largely wiped out." seems out of place chronologically
    • Moved.
  • for expropriation link Nationalization#Expropriation
    • Done
  • "but had little expertise in running Jewish businesses"
    • Done
  • "During the Slovak Republic's existence, the government gained 1,100 million Ks from Aryanization and spent 900–950 million Ks on enforcing anti-Jewish measures.[e] In 1942, it paid the German government an additional 300 million Ks for the deportation of 58,000 Jews.[96]" really should be part of a later section
    • This is a point raised in a source which is specifically about Aryanization to illustrate how wasteful it was. Therefore, I think it is best to keep it in the Aryanization section. buidhe 19:44, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Down to Jewish Centre. More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:53, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for your comments. buidhe 19:44, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • lang template the foreign terms
    • Done
  • be consistent in the use of terms, after you introduce the Central Economic Office (ÚHÚ), you use them interchangeably
    • Switched to Central Economic Office consistently
  • "segregated into a labor unit"
    • Done
  • "As the focus shifted" when was this?
    • Clarified
  • "to restricting Jews' civil rights rather than depriving them of their property" would it better to say "after they had been deprived of their property through Aryanization"?
    • Done
  • "Slovak government propaganda"?
    • Done
  • suggest "several camps run by Organization Schmelt, which imprisoned Jews in East Upper Silesia to employ them in forced labor on the Reichsautobahn."
    • Done
  • suggest "the Slovak government acquiesced with the German government decision to deport the 659 Slovak Jews living in the Reich and the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia" where were they deported to, Slovakia or the General Government?
    • Clarified
  • "the Bishop of Spiš, Ján Vojtaššák,"
    • Done
  • "Except for the Independent State of Croatia"
    • Done
  • German captain link, was this an SS Hauptsturmführer or Wehrmacht? If unsure, perhaps "German officer" would be better
    • Source doesn't specify, so I changed to "officer"
  • suggest "Acting Protector of Bohemia and Moravia, Reinhard Heydrich," or "Director of the Reich Main Security Office, Reinhard Heydrich," he was not just an "SS leader"
    • Done
  • suggest linking Lublin District when you first mention Lublin, and use that thereafter
    • Done
  • Giuseppe Burzio→Burzio or "papal chargé d'affaires Burzio" if you feel his role is sufficiently obscure
    • Done
  • "Around 5,000 to 6,000 Jews fled to Hungary to avoid the deportations" is this another lot in addition to the 5,000 to 6,000 Jews mentioned a couple of times earlier?
    • No, the previous emigration ceased in 1941 and these 5,000 to 6,000 fled in 1942.
  • say what Hashomer Hatzair was, ie the Hashomer Hatzair Jewish youth movement"
    • Done
  • "Many owners of Aryanized businesses applied for work exemptions for the Jewish former owners. In some cases this was a fictitious Aryanization; other Aryanizers, motivated by profit, kept the Jewish former owners around for their skills" this repeats information provided earlier
    • No, because it explains how Jews used Aryanization to avoid deportation, which is highlighted in the source and relevant to the section.
  • "Enforcement of anti-Jewish laws lessened" when?
  • when you first mention SS in the body", link Schutzstaffel
    • It already is, earlier where it says " SS officer Dieter Wisliceny".
  • "HSĽS radical Alexander Mach"
    • Done
  • "Slovak bishops issued a pastoral letter" Catholic?
    • I believe the only other bishops operating in Slovakia at the time were Greek Catholic. Both of the sources just say "Slovak bishops".
  • "Germany put increasing pressure on the Slovak State" but wasn't it the Slovak Republic at this point? Maybe just Slovakia?
    • Changed to Slovakia, but I will note that most sources I consulted use the term "Slovak State" for the entire 1939–1945 period.
  • link Communist Party of Slovakia (1939)
    • Done
  • "bringing the total Jewish population to 25,000" in Slovakia?
    • Done

Down to Resumption of deportations (1944–1945), more to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:16, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks! buidhe 06:19, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • link Pius XII
    • done
  • "but the Slovak exceptionsrequests were not honoredaccepted by the Germans"
    • Done
  • "Anti-Jewish actions were nominally controlled by the Slovak State Ministry of Defense" but wasn't it the Slovak Republic by now?
    • Changed to Slovak Ministry..., but I will note that most sources I consulted use the term "Slovak State" for the entire 1939–1945 period. (see for instance Kamenec's chapter, cited here, "The Slovak state, 1939–1945")
  • "arrived in Slovakia to destroyarrange the deportation of the country's remaining Jews"
    • Done
  • suggest SS-Obersturmbannfuhrer Josef Witiska and link
    • Not done, I ended up removing the reference to Witiska as he is never discussed elsewhere in the article.
  • this is out of place, but suggest "the collaborationist Karol Hochberg"
    • Done
  • Einsatzgruppe 13→Einsatzkommando 13, a subunit of Einsatzgruppe H
    • Done—good catch!
  • out of place, but link Žilina at first mention (currently only in a caption)
    • The first reference is to Žilina district (which had significantly different borders to the current Žilina district) and the second to Žilina transit camp, so linked on the third mention
  • "Although most victims were arrested occurred during the first two months of occupation"
    • Done
  • "Einsatzkommando 29, another subunit of Einsatzgruppe H" also perhaps the section link to Einsatzgruppe H should be used for Einsatzkommando 13 too
  • "Einsatzkommando 14, another subunit of Einsatzgruppe H" with section link
    • Edited so that the Einsatzkommandos are mentioned at the first mention of Einsatzgruppe H.
  • "10,000 Jews survived in the annexed territories" Hungarian-annexed?
    • Done
  • "The trials painted Slovak State officials" should this be Slovak Republic?
    • Not done, see above
  • "As of 2019, the Jewish population iswas estimated"
    • Done
  • mention of what happened to Brunner and Witiska and would be a good addition
    • Not done, in both cases this is a bit complicated to explain and would take more space than is WP:DUE. It would also disrupt the flow of the paragraph on trials, as currently it focuses on Slovak trials and how the trials were perceived in Slovak society.
      • Then put it in a separate paragraph. There is absolutely no way on earth that explaining what happened to the main German perpetrators of the Holocaust in Slovakia is undue. Brunner (the architect of the 1944 deportations) and Witiska (the commander of the Einsatzgruppe that led the roundups) are central to the subject of this article. I appreciate that you are keen to emphasise the Slovak contribution, but this is a warstopper for me. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:00, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK, added a sentence which hopefully doesn't oversimplify too much. buidhe 10:30, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "nationalist Mečiar government in Slovakia" with link to current country article
  • Slovak State→Slovak Republic, there is another example
    • Not done, see above.
  • Jozef Tiso and the Slovak StateRepublic
    • Partly done.

That's me done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:28, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5 edit

  • Out of 89,000 Jews in the country Jews here is a MOS:EGG.
    • Changed to avoid
  • 69,000 were murdered in the Holocaust I think we shouldn't link "Holocaust".
    • Previous reviewers insisted on it. I would have just dropped "in the Holocaust" entirely. buidhe 03:23, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Slovakia lost significant territory to Hungary Pipe Hungary to the Kingdom of Hungary.
    • done
  • to Auschwitz concentration camp and the Lublin District I believe Auschwitz is too common to link.
    • I disagree.
  • Oh, may I ask you why do you disagree?
  • Even if people know what Auschwitz is they may be looking for more information on it.
  • had adopted Hungarian language and customs I think an article is needed between "adopted" and "Hungarian".
    • Not done; although the Hungarian language is a correct alternative, the Hungarian customs sounds wrong to me.
  • I meant "had adopted Hungarian language and customs" --> "had adopted the Hungarian language and customs" not that.
  • Yes I know but I don't think the suggested wording is an improvement.
  • in the Slovak uplands.[7][6] Re-order the refs.
  • expense of Slovak ambitions.[10][7][11] Same as above.
  • estimated at 135,918 (in 1921).[12][2] Same as above.
  • declare Slovakia's autonomy on 6 October 1938 Year isn't necessary here.
    • Removed
  • southern Slovakia on 2 November 1938 Same as above.
    • Removed
  • In October 1939, Tiso, leader Same as above.
    • Not done, otherwise it isn't clear when this happened.
  • autonomy from Germany;[36][35] Re-order the refs here.
  • The "Overview" isn't really chronologically; it first starts with an event in 1940 and then it continues with an event in 1939?
    • Previous reviewer asked for census information to be moved here. I've separated it into a separate paragraph, but placing it before or after doesn't help because either way it breaks strict chronology.
  • Sounds like it's harder to agree the suggestions and made them a reality.
  • ? I am not sure what you mean.
  • control, in September 1940. [85][88] Remove the unnecessary space here.
    • Done
  • valued at 245 million Ks in August 1941 Wrong symbol of Kčs? Or if does mean something else then what's the meaning of the abbreviation?
    • The Slovak koruna (Ks) is introduced correctly at the beginning of "Aryanization" section.
  • Oh I see. Probably slight my eyes over the sentence where it first was introduced.
  • Arpad Sebestyen as Schwartz' replacement --> "Arpad Sebestyen as Schwartz's replacement"?
    • Done
  • motor vehicles, sports equipment, or radios.[87][75] Re-order the refs here.
  • ordered to leave by 31 December 1941 Year isn't necessary here.
    • Done
  • Defense minister Ferdinand Čatloš and general Jozef Turanec reported massacres --> "Defense minister Ferdinand Čatloš and General Jozef Turanec reported massacres"
    • Done
  • it did not want to be burdened with their families.[135][42] Re-order the refs here.
  • historiographical debate over who proposed the idea.[137][95] Same as above.
  • fee was equivalent to about USD$125 at the time Per MOS:OVERLINK Dollar shouldn't be linked.
    • MOS:OL says nothing about currencies.
  • This says something different.
  • OK, done
  • Auschwitz is overlinked.
    • Only if you think it shouldn't be linked at all.
  • No I thought there was a second linked Auschwitz in the body.
  • 14 organized the deportations,[155][132] while the Slovak Transport Ministry provided the cattle cars.[156][157][146] Re-order the refs here.
  • SS leader Reinhard Heydrich visited Bratislava Introduce SS.
    • Linked on first mention, which is not here.
  • 18 September, no transports departed;[178][177][176] Re-order the refs here.
  • October 1942 before ceasing until 1944.[181][177][176] Same as above.
  • Jews remained after the deportation.[41][185][145] Same as above.
  • would discredit the church.[194][133] Same as above.
  • Many Slovaks opposed the deportations,[99][199][194] Same as above.
  • connection with the halting of deportations.[201][175][202] Same as above.
  • to avoid the deportations,[132][205][93] Same as above.
  • edited records to predate baptisms.[210][196] Same as above.
  • for laborers in the Slovak camps[221][201] and to increase productivity, to strengthen the incentive to keep their workers in Slovakia.[215][222] In 1943, the labor camps earned 39 million Ks for the Slovak State.[223][211][f] Same as above.
  • a German defeat was likely.[231][130] Same as above.
  • organized at Sereď[242][243] and Nováky.[244][243] Same as above.
  • On 19 March 1944 Germany invaded Hungary, including Carpathian Ruthenia Year isn't necessary here.
  • areas around Banská Bystrica,[241][240] Re-order the refs here.
  • percent of the total insurgent force,[269][240] Same as above.
  • because of the hunger and cold.[275][272] Same as above.
  • also hunted the Jews hiding in the mountains.[281][276] Same as above.
  • Jews were arrested and taken to Sereď.[284][267][285] Same as above.
  • 1944 and 1945, of whom 10,000 died,[250][296][212] Same as above.
  • executions occurred in the Topoľčany district District is part of the proper noun.
  • Holocaust Victims and Racial Hatred Day.[g][338] Re-order the citation and the note.
    • Fixed
  • Catholic and ultranationalist commemorations.[346][52] Re-order the refs.
  • Unlink USD in note B.
    • Per above, it doesn't seem to be covered by MOS:OL.
  • Although the Slovak government encouraged Jews to emigrate, it refused to allow the export of foreign currency, ensuring that most attempts There are here 3 unnecessary spaces.
    • It doesn't affect how the article displays.
  • True unless you try your best to see the differences. Even though you'd probably wouldn't see them.
  • others turned them in to the police You mean "into"?
    • This is correct: turned them in / to the police
  • practice in order to fit in with the Slovak middle class No hyphen in "middle class"?

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 10:34, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thanks for your review, I've addressed everything except ref order which is not required. buidhe 03:23, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re-ordering the refs is optional in my opinion. However I saw a lot of sources using these methode. It also looks nicer and I don't think will harm Wikipedia if the article does. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 22:24, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not have strong feelings about it and would never object if someone else reordered them, I just would rather write new articles than make time-consuming but minor fixes. buidhe 23:36, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No worries, I like perfection even with the citations and refs but doesn't really matter in my opinion. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:07, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Carabinieri edit

I plan to review this more thoroughly, but here are a few preliminary comments/questions:

  • I think the map File:Slovakia borderHungary.png could do with a legend in the caption. I find the one in the image description a bit confusing, partly because it's talking about territorial changes before and after the war.
    • I have expanded the caption but a full legend would probably cause the maps to exceed the section, against MOS:IMAGELOC.
  • Is there any way the map File:Karte Slowakischer Nationalaufstand 1944 - Aufstandsbeginn.png could be translated to English? Maybe the folks at WP:WPMAP or the person that created the map could help.
    • I have requested it from the original uploader: here.
  • The inflation-adjusted figures in the notes are much more precise than the original figures, which are probably rounded. In any case, what years of the Consumer Price Index are you using to adjust those figures for inflation?--Carabinieri (talk) 21:44, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • As you can see by looking at the wikitext, the template converts from 1942 to the last supported year (currently 2019). I have edited to have less precision in the figures. buidhe 00:06, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Those changes all look good. I'm starting on my more detailed review:

  • "many Jews had adopted Hungarian language and customs" Like the previous reviewer, this phrasing also stood out to me. Maybe "many Jews spoke Hungarian and adopted Hungarian customs" or simply "many Jews assimilated"?
    • I chose "adopted" because they had previously spoken other languages and had different customs. "Assimilated" raises the question, "assimilated to what?" (Slovak, Hungarian, or even German communities all existed at the time).
  • "The western Jewish communities were affected by rioting" Were they the targets of said rioting? "affected by" sounds a little euphemistic to me.
    • Rewrote
  • "was joined by the stereotypical view of Jews as exploiters of poor Slovaks (economic antisemitism), and "national anti-Semitism"", Is the end there quoting someone specific? If so, I'd suggest naming the person being quoted. If this is a term in general use, I'd suggest removing the quotation marks (and using the spelling "antisemitism" like the rest of the article).
    • Done
  • "to deport impoverished and foreign Jews to the ceded territory" Is this territory ceded to Germany? Hungary?
    • Clarified
  • " in 1940, Jews registered more than 4.322 billion Slovak koruna (Ks) in property" The requirement that Jews declare their property is only mentioned two paragraphs later. I'm not sure what the best thing to do is here, but when I read this I immediately wondered why this registration took place.
    • I'm not sure what to do either, it's important to attribute where this figure comes from.
  • Yes, I've had another look and couldn't figure out any other way of phrasing or structuring the information here. I guess it's best to just hope readers figure it out once they get to the later paragraph.--Carabinieri (talk) 19:52, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The process might more aptly be described as 'Slovakization'" This phrasing sounds a bit like editorializing to me. I would suggest attributing this as an opinion to a source.
    • Reworded
  • "was the appointment of SS officer Dieter Wisliceny as a "Jewish adviser" for Slovakia" Jewish adviser seems like an odd translation of Judenberater to me, since it makes it sound like the adviser is himself Jewish rather than an adviser on questions concerning Jews. That's not what the German term implies Is this translation commonly used? "Adviser on Jewish affairs" or something along those lines would seem like a more natural translation to me.
    • Done
  • "The Catholic Church opposed deportation" Is this referring to the Church in Slovakia or the Church in Rome?
    • Clarified
  • "Many Slovaks opposed the deportations, but this did not translate into action against them" Is there more information on this? Can "many" be made more precise? How do historians know about this opposition?
    • Clarified

I'll stop here for now and continue later. I've done a little copyediting as I went through the article. Please check to make sure I didn't misinterpret anything and revert any changes you disagree with.--Carabinieri (talk) 23:23, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for your comments, I think I've addressed everything so far. buidhe 06:46, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. I'm continuing through the rest of the article in the same vein:
  • The article doesn't explain why deportations stopped in 1943 or why anti-Jewish measures became less strict. Do the sources offer any explanation for this? The same goes for why Slovak politicians refused the German demand for deportations and for the decision to start registering Jews again in January 1944.
  • The article already mentions the most important reasons, namely likelihood of German defeat in the war, increased opposition from the Catholic Church, lack of people that the state was willing to deport.
  • "After the Battle of Stalingrad and other reversals in the increasingly unpopular war in the east" Unpopular in Slovakia? Were Slovakians directly involved in the war?
  • Yes, as stated in "Planning" section: "Slovak soldiers participated in the invasions of Poland and the Soviet Union".
  • "In late 1943, leading army officers and intelligentsia formed the Slovak National Council to plan an insurrection against the regime" Is there any way to briefly summarize the ideology of the Slovak National Council and the resistance groups?
  • Done
  • "many were arrested at the border and deported" Deported back to German-occupied Hungary?
  • Clarified
  • "SS officer Alois Brunner, who had participated in the organization of transports of Jews from France and Greece,[291][292] took over the camp's administration at the end of September" Am I right in thinking that before the end of September Sered was run by the Slovak State and it was taken over by the SS at this point? If this is right, maybe it could be explained a little more?
  • Done
  • I'd suggest maybe replacing the File:Nemecka10Slovakia3.JPG photo. To me, the grass in the foreground draws attention away from the memorial itself. There are several photos of the memorial on commons that in my view do a better job of depicting the scene. Even though it's a bit too up-close, I'd consider File:Nemecka10Slovakia5.JPG, but I realize this is more of a question of personal taste.
  • I ended up removing it because it does not do a good job illustrating the subject of the section.
  • "The number of Jewish communities decreased from 126 to 25, while the population decreased by 80 percent" Is this relative to before or after WWII and the Holocaust?
  • Clarified
  • "As of January 2019, Yad Vashem (the official Israeli memorial to the Holocaust) had recognized 602 Slovaks as Righteous Among the Nations for risking their lives to save Jews." I wonder if there might be a better place to put this sentence. The paragraph and section it's currently in don't discuss non-Jewish Slovaks' help for Jews. The last paragraph in the "German invasion" might be a more natural place for the sentence, although it would probably have to rephrased if moved there.
  • The problem with such a placement would be that it would imply that Yad Vashem's statistics are directly related to the actual help given to Jews, which Yad Vashem explicitly denies (they are individual cases and should not be considered a reliable overall picture). Thus, it's more accurately considered a form of commemoration.
  • The issue I see with the current location is that creates a sudden change in topic from the commemoration of the Holocaust in Slovakia.--Carabinieri (talk) 10:39, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure I follow. These awards were all made decades after the war and are a form of commemmoration. (t · c) buidhe 11:45, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I mean that the rest of the paragraph is about how the Holocaust was commemorated in Slovakia, whereas that sentence is about how the actions of Slovakians were commemorated by an Israeli institutions.--Carabinieri (talk) 04:16, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Holocaust relativism in Slovakia tends to manifest as attempts to deflect the blame for the Holocaust onto Germans and Jews" I've changed this sentence a little bit, but I'm still not entirely satisfied and am not entirely sure what to do about it. The issue I have is this: Saying that blame was deflected onto the Germans doesn't seem quite right, since they certainly deserve a lot of it.
  • Right, clarified that their intention is to absolve the wartime Slovak government of all blame.
  • " A 1997 textbook by Milan Stanislav Ďurica and endorsed by the government" Is this a textbook for schools?
  • Clarified
  • This is more of a personal opinion: I'm generally not fond of quote boxes, unless they state something in very memorable terms that can't be integrated into the main prose of the article. I can see the case for including the "Half of Bratislava was on..." quote on those grounds, but I don't really see it for the "Everyone understands that..." quote. I would suggest removing that one, but like I said this just a personal opinion.
  • Integrated the Tardini quote in text
  • Also more of a question of personal opinion: I don't think we should ever include links to google books in articles. We don't need to give free advertising to a company that preys on people's personal data. I understand there is no consensus on this issue and most of the community is probably in favor of google books links.
  • I've only included a very few of these where they can be followed to WP:VERIFY information. I think verifiability is generally placed over these other concerns although I would remove them if there was a general consensus for that.
  • I wrestled with how to express this last point and I'm still not entirely sure. It's about the article's overall tone. This might sound a little weird given Wikipedia's focus on neutrality, but to me the article is almost too neutral in a way. The article mostly focuses on numbers and locations of people deported and murdered, assets seized, institutions involved, etc. I wonder if it would be possible to paint more of a picture of what people went through, the suffering, and so on. To me the article currently reads as rather dry and overly factual. I know this is very tough when it comes to an emotional subject like this one. But I think by adding a few specific examples of what people went through and how they experienced it, this might give readers a fuller picture of what happened, even if those examples are anecdotal rather than representative for the Holocaust in Slovakia as a whole. This might even include the Slovak perpetrators' views of what happened, what they were thinking at the time, or how they later explained or rationalized what they did. I can't give any specific examples of where in the article this might be appropriate or what to add, since I haven't read the sources, but I suspect that the sources would include such examples.
  • I don't know if Wikipedia articles are the right venue for painting a picture of what people went through, which seems difficult to achieve without taking their POV (Actually for this you would be best served by looking at primary sources, memoirs and so forth, scholarly sources tend to be written in a detached style). Although some of the sources do use anecdotes, that's mostly for providing evidence for some point that an author is making. There are some evocative historical photographs that I would have liked to include (for example, [61][62][63][64]), but they are under copyright protection :( buidhe 23:48, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I disagree a little, but let me clarify what I'm suggesting. I'm not suggesting extended passages describing what individuals went through. I do think that a comprehensive article should give more than bare facts, figures, dates, etc. It should to some extent paint a picture. I think the quote describing the scene at the deportation in Bratislava is a good example of what I mean. If it accurately describes the situation, it definitely helps the reader form an impression of what those events were like. Ideally I'd like to see just a little more of that and not just in quotes but also in the body of the article, but I won't push this issue.--Carabinieri (talk) 10:39, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added another quotebox which describes the deportations (in the Planning section). (t · c) buidhe 11:52, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's all I have for now. I hope my comments help.--Carabinieri (talk) 19:52, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks a million for your comments, they are very much appreciated! buidhe 23:48, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for taking over two weeks to get back to you. I think those two things could still be improved, but other than that I'd like to congratulate you on a well-written article.--Carabinieri (talk) 10:39, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, thanks for your helpful comments! (t · c) buidhe 11:52, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Piotrus edit

  • the term Polish Jews should be linked (on a sidenote, this still doesn't have an article, just a redirect?)
    • Linked
  • Anna Cichopek is linked in text as a redirect to her notable book Beyond Violence: Jewish Survivors in Poland and Slovakia, 1944–48. If she is notable, might as well stub her (also consider whether her name shouldn't be Anna Cichopek-Gajraj) although [65] does not suggest she meets PROF yet, number of citations is low. She has a Wikidata entry already: [66]. Anyway, I am not sure if MoS would suggest delinking her or keeping the redirect?
    • I think this is appropriate, because all the coverage is about one notable book that she wrote. The linked article helps the reader by establishing her qualifications. Once she achieves wikinotability a separate article for her can be created and this link will work directly. I checked the book and it actually uses the long form of her name so I switched to that.

Very nice job overall and I tentatively support this (will try to read in mode depth if I find time in the near future; if I don't comment further treat this as support vote :D).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:39, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I really appreciate your support! buidhe 05:04, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note edit

@WP:FAC coordinators: is it possible for me to nominate another article? buidhe 10:45, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think that'd be fair enough. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:45, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
PM, Carabinieri, I'm looking at this with a view to promotion but will hold off a short while if you have any last-minute comments. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:06, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not entirely happy with some responses, so I'm not supporting, but am certainly not opposing. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:09, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm ok with the article being promoted.--Carabinieri (talk) 04:17, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Buidhe, can we attribute inline the quotes "agents of magyarization" and "the most powerful prop to the [Hungarian] ruling classes", especially given they could could come from any of three sources cited? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:15, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 7 July 2020 [67].

George Gosse edit

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:33, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nearing the end of my project to get all twelve South Australian Victoria and George Cross recipients to FA. Gosse is the only one from the Royal Australian Navy. He was a naval mine clearance specialist who served in the RAN in the interwar period and WWII. In April 1945 he was given command of a naval party responsible for mine clearance in the recently captured Bremen Harbour in Germany. He displayed courage in defusing three mines under very difficult conditions between 8 May and 19 May 1945, which resulted in him being awarded the George Cross, the highest award for heroism or courage, not in the face of the enemy, that could be awarded to a member of the Australian armed forces at the time. Have at it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:33, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass

All images are free. buidhe 10:55, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild edit

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

  • "the RAN College" The abbreviation (I assume that it is an abbreviation) is not bracketed after first mention.
  • Is it worth linking "acting" to Acting (rank) for readers not militarily inclined?
  • Is there any more detail about why failing the lieutenant's exam at first attempt ended his naval career?
  • No, but competition was fierce in the regular RAN between the wars, and his lack of application probably cruelled it for him. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:04, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there any information on why Gosse reenlisted when he did? More than a year after the start of the war, but before Pearl Harbour.
  • "In February 1942, he had been promoted to provisional lieutenant" The change of tense jars. Is there any reason why this is not mentioned in chronological order?
  • "the European port clearance diving base for the Royal Navy" Any chance of a, preferably, in line or, failing that, footnoted explanation of "clearance diving"?
  • "which had to be extracted about 18 inches (460 mm) down a 2-inch (51 mm) wide tube". Should there be 'from' after "extracted"?
  • Is it known who recommended him for his George Cross and/or when?
  • "substantively promoted" I'm not sure that this will mean much to an "average reader".
  • added link to Military rank#Types

Nice one. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:08, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review as always, Gog! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:04, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Your articles, like this one, are usually easy to review, enjoyable to read and educational. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:00, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5 edit

Hmm, haven't I seen this man before? I think I did. What do you think?

  • and experience with the Royal Navy Add here British before Royal.
  • the 2nd South Australian Mounted Rifles in the Second Boer War Mention here that the war took place in South Africa.
  • for further training with the Royal Navy Add here British again.
  • acting lieutenant commander on 30 September 1945, and was demobilised on 20 March 1946 After he defused the last mine what happened in that almost-full year?
  • He brought a Japanese mine back with him to the UK Pipe Japan to the Empire of Japan.
  • to the success of a most difficult and important operation I don't know if this is part of the quote but there's an extra space here.
  • Gosse was part of an armed forces recruiting campaign Pretty odd sentence. Shouldn't it be "an armed force"?

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:48, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look, CPA-5. All done except the bit about what he did for the rest of 1945 and early 1946, presumably mine clearance and related duties, but sources (including his navy records) don't say. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:32, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Peacemaker67: That sounds a little bit sad to hear maybe in the near future we would know what he did at that moment. I don't have a reason to not support this and I'd say give yourself a pet on your back for your work. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 13:50, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from AustralianRupert edit

Support: G'day, PM, I only have a few minor comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 22:50, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • in the infobox should the years of service be adjusted to 1958 when he retired from the RANVR?
  • in the lead, suggest starting a new paragraph at "In 1940, he joined..."
  • suggest starting a new paragraph here: "He was promoted to acting lieutenant commander on 30 September 1945"
  • do we know when he returned to Australia?
  • Unclear. His records indicate he was TOS HMAS Torrens (naval depot in Adelaide) in March 1946 just prior to demobilisation, so perhaps not long before that. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:36, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • His work was mostly "unspectacular" -- suggest attributing this opinion in the body of the article
  • do we know what is official occupation was when he enlisted in 1940, and again in the post war period?
  • Again, unclear, pre-war ADB says he "knocked around" and resisted serious employment, and I added "designer" for post-war, as his ADB entry uses that. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:36, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the References, "Up Top: the Royal Australian Navy and Southeast Asian conflicts, 1955–1972" --> "Up Top: The Royal Australian Navy and Southeast Asian Conflicts, 1955–1972"

Thanks for taking a look, AR! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:36, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, added my support above. Thanks for your efforts. AustralianRupert (talk) 03:55, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – pass edit

  • "Ashcroft, Michael (2012)" is listed in the sources, but not used in the footnotes. The ISBN listed here does not match the one in the Google books version linked to.
  • Caught me adding material after this source was brought to my attention by Dumelow. Fixed the ISBN to match the ecopy I now have and dropped the url. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:40, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is one newspaper source ("Recruiting Speaker Collapses". The Border Watch.) listed in the references with a short link in the footnotes, while another ("No. 37549". The London Gazette.) is included in full in the footnotes?
  • I think you'll need to remove the comma from the year in the issue number for ""Recruiting Speaker Collapses". The Border Watch.", for some reason it is adding a blank space after the comma which makes it unclear what the number is.
  • Neither is really suitable or per MOS (I'll raise it with the template wonks), but I think it is more MOS-compliant with the comma and space for now. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:40, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The MOS does not require grouping, only consistency. My issue with it as it appears is that it look like two numbers. I had to go into the wiki code to see what it was meant to be telling me. Harrias talk 09:53, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the subject of consistency, removing the comma would match "No. 37549" from the London Gazette, so I don't see how it would be a problem. Harrias talk 09:55, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In "Turner, John Frayn (2010)." the hyphen in the year range in the title needs to become an endash. Also, why is "Casemate" listed as the publisher, rather than Pen & Sword?
  • First one fixed, but the Google Books link goes to the Casemate one with that ISBN, so I'm not sure what you are getting at? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:40, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Google summary does say Casemate, but from what I can see, the book itself only lists Pen & Sword, and I would trust the book over a Google summary. Harrias talk 09:53, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Navy Divers, by Gregor Salmon has an interesting nugget claiming that Gosse wasn't even aware of being awarded the medal immediately after, though it doesn't look the highest quality source.
  • Actually that's not bad, also published by Ebury and Random House, so have included it and some detail from it, nice find! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:40, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know there's only so many ways of saying plain facts, but I'm not keen on the similarity below:
    • Source: "On 21 October 1940 he enlisted as an ordinary seaman in the Royal Australian Naval Volunteer Reserve."
    • Article: "On 21 October 1940, Gosse enlisted as an ordinary seaman in the Royal Australian Naval Volunteer Reserve."
  • I would attribute the view that he was a "law unto himself" to Crawford.

That's it from me. Harrias talk 08:08, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the source review, Harrias, a couple of queries/quibbles above. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:40, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Peacemaker67: Replied back. Harrias talk 09:53, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed both, Harrias. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:00, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to pass the source review now. The article uses a consistent referencing format, is sourced to high-quality reliable sources, does not appear to omit any major research of coverage of the subject, and spotchecks reveal no significant copyvio or close para-phrasing other than the minor point noted and resolved. NB: I will claim WikiCup points for this review. Harrias talk 10:03, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:06, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@WP:FAC coordinators: this is travelling well, can I have a dispensation for a fresh nom please? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:06, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 7 July 2020 [68].

2017 EFL Championship play-off Final edit

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 18:52, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Commonly accepted as the most valuable single association football match in the world, this play-off final went all the way to a penalty shoot-out. Marvellous, as they say, play-offs are the ideal way to get promoted but the worst way to lose. As ever, all comments will be addressed as soon as practicable, and thank you in advance for your kind attention. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 18:52, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review: pass edit

  • Ref #11 doesn't include work details.
    Done. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 16:09, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In ref #16, I would expect "Bleacher Report" to be the website or work, rather than the publisher.
    I'm following the convention that our own article uses. If you think that needs to be moved to italics, then I'll follow suit here. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 17:16, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The title of that article is in italics. Harrias talk 17:33, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, it was surreptitiously changed September last year. I hadn't noticed. Happy to follow that. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 20:08, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref #18, "Team news: Town vs Reading", Huddersfield actually credit the author, who needs adding.
    Added. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 16:09, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref #20 needs to be reformatted to match the other BBC sources, and needs author details adding.
    Done. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 16:09, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't notice before, but this also needs publication date adding. Harrias talk 17:33, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Added. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 20:10, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref #22 needs the publishing date added, and to be consistent, Reading FC should be linked.
    Added. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 16:09, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a recent event there are no obvious book or academic sources discussing the match. In time, it might be included in a history of Reading or Huddersfield, but no major publications had appeared on either club since 2017.
    Indeed. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 16:09, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • My only major concern is whether live commentaries of the game are considered "high-quality reliable sources". They almost certainly receive no editorial oversight given their live nature. While this wouldn't be a concern if they were used sparingly, they provide the entire sourcing for three of the four paragraphs of the match itself, with only "Huddersfield 0 Reading 0 (4–3 on pens): Danny Ward the shootout hero as Town win Premier League payday" from The Telegraph also being used in the fourth paragraph. As a consequence this means that the match is almost exclusively sourced to one publication, one author, which also raises concerns about whether it meets the requirement to be "thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature".
    Well I very much doubt the Daily Telegraph, the BBC nor The Guardian (for instance) would continue to host material which they deem to be in any way unreliable. Even match reports from "back in the day" were written by a sole reporter, usually dictated over telephone and transferred straight to print with no editorial oversight. I can add more "as it happened" sources, and other much more top-level match descriptions written after the event which are usually much more bland for corroboration of events. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 16:09, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added corroborating BBC sources throughout the match report. Nothing there is contradictory. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 17:17, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I've opened a thread at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates#Live sports text commentaries: are they "high-quality reliable sources". As I mention there, I'm not aiming to rehash this review, but look for a wider consensus going forwards (or finding out if there is already a consensus that I'm not aware of.) Harrias talk 18:15, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah well, there goes this FAC. These trifling sports articles are already treated with scorn by many and now we're suggesting that articles by the BBC, The Guardian and The Daily Telegraph may not be high-quality enough. The alternative, of course, is to reduce the coverage of the match itself to next-to-nothing per the post-match reports, but somehow I think that is doing our readers a disservice, not to mention that you'd have an article about a match, with less than 5% of the article being about the match. Never mind. It will certainly derail any chance of this review being completed in a timely fashion, FAC is slow enough as it is, but this is the icing on the cake. Never mind. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 18:41, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It perhaps isn't directly part of a source review, but ..with Wagner in particular noted as a leader of rare charisma and intelligence." is missing an opening quotation mark. Harrias talk 14:47, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Opening quote added. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 16:09, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Harrias cheers for the comments. I've responded above. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 16:09, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Harrias well with just one voice against the use of such sources, there seems to be a general consensus in favour of their use, specifically in the match report itself. Hope that helps. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 09:33, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I've been following the discussion. I've got some back to work training this afternoon (because after three months, I've forgotten how to do my job, or something...) After that I'm going to have another pass through checking the fixes and should hopefully be able to wrap this up then. Harrias talk 11:07, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As you say, the general consensus seems to be that these sources are acceptable, so I consider this point resolved. Harrias talk 17:33, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • One new point; because you added the BBC sources into the match summary to placate me, the first source after "Obita was then booked for what Barry Glendenning of The Guardian referred to as a "rugby tackle" on Quaner." is the BBC one, not the Guardian one which actually sources it. Harrias talk 17:33, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed.
Harrias cheers, I think I've now addressed your replies. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 20:10, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Great, all sorted. Harrias talk 06:57, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:53, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie edit

I've copyedited a little; please revert anything you disagree with.

That's everything. It's hard to write descriptions of match play that are engaging. There's a tendency for match descriptions to collapse into proseline; you've avoided that but it doesn't sparkle. Not something I'd oppose over, though. I don't have good advice on how to do better -- I think it's one of the hardest things to do well in writing for Wikipedia. Anyway, once the minor points above are fixed I expect to support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:45, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Christie I've responded above, apologies for not noticing your comments until now. I can do sparkling match reports when the matches are sparkling, so keep your eyes peeled for 1998 Football League First Division play-off Final...... Many thanks. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 08:54, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All but one point struck. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:09, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Looks good. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:28, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gonzo_fan2007 edit

Resolved comments from « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:58, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
*"The 2017 EFL Championship play-off Final was an association football match which was played" - "which" to "that"
  • Comme si, comme ca. Sure. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 09:05, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The match was to determine the third and final team to gain promotion from the EFL Championship" - "was to determine" to "determined"
    Okay. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 09:05, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If this is a British thing, than disregard, but "partook" can be more clearly or normally stated as "took part in"
    It's fine in BritEng. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 09:05, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You damn Brits. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:46, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Reading finished third while Huddersfield ended the season in fifth place." - rewrite to "Reading finished the season in third place while Huddersfield finished in fifth place" or something similar.
    No, I'm trying to avoid repetitive prose, such as repeating "finish" and "place" in your suggestion. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 09:05, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    How about just moving "place" to after "third". It comes across clearer when you say "third place" and then later in the sentence "fifth" is understood to have "place". « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:46, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Tweaked. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 07:32, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The winners of these ties competed for the final place for the 2017–18 season" - would "spot" be better than "place" here?
    Not in BritEng. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 09:05, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You damn Brits. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:46, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The game was played in front of a crowd of 76,682 and was refereed by Neil Swarbrick." - rewrite to "The game, which was refereed by Neil Swarbrick, was played in front of a crowd of 76,682."
    Not keen on adding comma'ed clauses when they're not necessary. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 09:05, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    My issue with this sentence is that the two clauses aren't really related to each other. It won't hold up any support, but I do think there is an opportunity to improve this sentence. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:46, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, I've tweaked. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 07:32, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although Michael Hefele was the first to miss, Reading's Liam Moore's shot was wayward and Jordan Obita's attempt was saved by Danny Ward, and Huddersfield won the final 4–3 on penalties." - kind of a long sentence, can you break into two or use a semi-colon somewhere?
    Broken up. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 09:05, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The following season, Huddersfield's first back in the top tier of English football since 1972, saw them finish 16th in the Premier League." - rewrite to "Hudderfield finished the following season, their first in the Premier League since 1972, in 16th place." (assuming that English top tier was the Premier League in 1972?) The recommended change is mostly to get away from "saw them finish" and convert to active voice.
    We didn't have the Premier League in 1972 so that's why it's worded as is. And again it's to avoid repetitive prose. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 09:05, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Cheers. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:46, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Reading's last appearance in the play-off final had been in 2011 when they had lost 4–2 to Swansea City." - change to "final was in 2011 when they lost"
    Sure. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 09:05, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Reading had also lost in the second-tier play-off semi-finals in 2003 and 2009" - drop "had"
    No, I'm not sure here, this reads better to me to keep "had". The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 09:05, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:46, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with assistant referees Jake Collin and Darren Cann, and Stuart Attwell acted as the fourth official" - change the 2nd "and" to "while"
    Done. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 09:05, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Kermogant found Chris Gunter who needed treatment after he was tackled" - add a comma after "Gunter"
    I usually get accused of comma abuse, but I'll add this. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 09:05, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a lot of colloquial descriptions of the game in the summary, but "snatched" seems a little too colloquial and not encyclopedic enough
    How would you describe a shot which was taken quickly and pulled a bit for which we would say "snatched shot"? The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 09:05, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know! Stolen? Seized? If it is very common BritEng, then fair enough. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:46, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, it's common, damn us Brits... The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 07:32, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Huddersfield's first season back in the top tier of English football since 1972 saw them end the Premier League in 16th place" - same comment as the lead
    See above. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 09:05, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's everything. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 23:24, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gonzo_fan2007 thanks, I've responded to each of your comments. Cheers, The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 09:05, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Gonzo_fan2007 Responded again, cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 07:32, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Huddersfield kicked off the first period of extra time and in the 2nd minute, a Brown header from a Mooy cross was cleared by Liam Moore." - In all honesty, it took me three times to understand the set-up of this sentence. Maybe change "and" to a semi-colon? Or change it up to say "Laim Moore cleared a Brown header after a cross by Mooy". « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:44, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Huddersfield coach Wagner stated:" - maybe "Hudderfield's coach Wagner stated:"? This wording sounds weird to me. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:38, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Aaron Mooy was named the man of the match." - a somewhat surprise, short statement in the middle of the paragraph. Can you add anything, such as why he was name MotM ("his energy and guile", his game winning shot, etc?) « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:38, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a recommendation. No worries if you don't like it. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:51, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Addressed all the above, I think I got everything but don't hesitate to point me at anything I've missed. Cheers again. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 17:39, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from WA8MTWAYC edit

A great article overall (I was really pleased with Huddersfield's promotion) and it meets the criteria imo. I've got some minor comments. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 09:51, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Two minutes later, Grabban's shot passed wide of Huddersfield's post." Grabban is not linked here (first time you mentioned him)
    Great spot, cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 15:04, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know if the Brits have other rules for Dutch names, but if the first name is absent, then the surname needs to start with a capital letter. E.g. Joey van den Berg scored the team's first goal; the team's first goal was scored by Van den Berg. There are three instances of "van den Berg" in the second half section.
    Indeed, 'tis the same here, and it would help if those three instances didn't say "van der Berg" too! The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 15:04, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, sharp! WA8MTWAYC (talk) 18:04, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Reading had the majority of the second half possession and won a free-kick wide on the left after Kachunga fouled on Tyler Blackett." Is "Fouled on" correct?
    It certainly ain't, fixed. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 15:04, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Reading started the second half of extra time but Huddersfield enjoyed the early possession with missed chances from Hefele and La Parra." La Parra > Van La Parra
    Learnt my lesson now.... The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 15:04, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "sending the play-off final to a penalty shootout for the third time ever." Maybe clarify that it was the third time in the history of the second tier.
    Vital. Thanks for noticing and picking it up. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 15:04, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WA8MTWAYC thanks so much for your great spots, and your support. Very much appreciated. Do let me know if there's anything else I can tweak. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 15:04, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Rambling Man No problem! I've read the article again, but found no errors or something like that. It's a great piece of work that also mentions the odd fact such as Huddersfield's negative goal difference (certainly quite unique).
There is however something you could do for me, but only if you're willing to of course. I've listed List of Burnley F.C. records and statistics as a FLC, but so far it has received only one review. Cheers. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 18:04, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Will do. Cheers again. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 18:45, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, The Rambling Man! WA8MTWAYC (talk) 20:35, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@WP:FAC coordinators: anything else required here? The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 14:30, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 7 July 2020 [69].

The Beautician and the Beast edit

Nominator(s): Aoba47 (talk) 00:32, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What do you get when you put the lead from The Nanny and a James Bond in a 1990s romantic comedy? Well, if you have ever asked yourself this (oddly specific) question, you would get this film. It is about a New York City beautician who falls in love with a Eastern European dictator after being hired to tutor his four children. The film received primarily negative reviews, and was a box-office bomb, grossing roughly $11.5 million against a production budget of $16 million.

This is my first FAC for a film article so I would greatly appreciate any feedback on how to further improve it. I was inspired by the FAs about films and looked to those articles for inspiration and guidance. I'd like to thank @Kailash29792:, @Shshshsh:, and @Numerounovedant: for helping with the peer review. Thank you in advance for any help, and I hope everyone is doing well. Aoba47 (talk) 00:32, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Kailash edit

Support: Having reviewed the article during the PR, I found it satisfactory then and still do. --Kailash29792 (talk) 09:50, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Drive by comment from Nick-D edit

I don't think I'll post a full review, but the statement in the lead that "the film performed well on the ancillary market and has since gained a cult following" and material on these topics later in the article appears to be based only on claims made by the star of this movie. Stronger (especially independent) sourcing is needed to support this. Nick-D (talk) 02:01, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Nick-D: Thank you for the comment. I highly doubt I will be able to find a stronger, more independent source to cite this information so I removed the statement in the lead altogether. Aoba47 (talk) 03:23, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Shahid edit

Support

As mentioned above, I was one of its PR reviewers. I enjoyed reading the article (film I'd never heard of quite frankly), and I find it comprehensive, well written and well sourced. Aoba47 was highly cooperative throughout the process. I'm sure a similar attitude will be employed by Aoba47 on this FAC as well if there are any constructive comments. Shahid • Talk2me 15:34, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for the support. It is a rather obscure film so that is understandable. Aoba47 (talk) 20:24, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:51, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Damien Linnane edit

  • 'is her first starring role in a film' - should this be past tense (was her first)? I note it is written as past tense in the production section.
  • 'the film made $22,548,300 when adjusted for ticket price inflation' - should this have a year? As in, as of what year is that the price due to inflation? Also I don't understand the reference supporting this; it's just a blank profile of Ken Kwapis.
  • It looks like the page was cleared. Here is the archived version of the webpage, which has the information, and I have adjusted the citation so the archived link is the first one available. I have also added the year. Aoba47 (talk) 18:51, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'The Beautician and the Beast was the twentieth highest-grossing PG-rated film of 1997' - personally I don't find this information helpful or interesting as no indication is given of how many PG-rated films were released that year. Is there any way you could clarify that at all? I mean, being the twentieth-highest grossing film is impressive if there were 60 PG films though for all the reader knows there were only 21.
  • I have removed this part as I agree that it is not particularly beneficial or interesting to a wider audience. Aoba47 (talk) 18:51, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you able to say what year it was made available on prime Video?
  • Unfortunately, I was unable to find the year it was first made available on Prime Video. I did find out that it was on Prime Video when the service was first offered to Canada in 2016, but that's not much help here. Thank you for bringing this up as I was able to find sources about how the film was available on Netflix (for a very short time) and is now available on HBO Max so I have added those references. Aoba47 (talk) 19:03, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes 'Bad Romance Podcast' notable enough to be featured alongside reviews from Roger Ebert and TV Guide?
  • I initially thought it was notable enough since it was hosted through Vulture.com, but upon further reflection, I agree that it is not high-quality enough and there are already plenty of reviews in this section so it is not really adding much. Aoba47 (talk) 19:05, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work as usual. Very close to supporting. Damien Linnane (talk) 07:31, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Damien Linnane: Thank you for your review. I believe that I have addressed everything, but let me know if there is anything that I missed or anything else that requires further improvement. I hope you have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 19:05, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the help and support. Aoba47 (talk) 18:54, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Paparazzzi edit

  • "Didier C. Deutsch praised it as a..." for which publication he was writing for?
  • Didier C. Deutsch is a music producer, with his book being cited in the article. I had previously introduced him with a descriptive phrase in the "Themes" section directly before this one, but I am open to suggestion on if something should be added here too. Aoba47 (talk) 05:26, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In a 2015 listicle, Refinery29's Erin Donnelly included Joy and Boris among those romantic comedy pairings which lacked chemistry.[54] However, in the same year, Refinery29's Lauren Le Vine considered the film a classic, " the first mention of Refinery29 is not wikilinked, but the second one is
  • Not sure how that happened. I have linked the first instance, and removed the second instance to avoid repetition. Aoba47 (talk) 05:26, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Jeff Vice called Drescher an inferior actress to Deborah Kerr (and Dalton was no Yul Brynner),"... Is this a quote without quotation marks or your interpretation of his comment? that text in rounds brackets sounds weird
  • I see your point. The parenthetical part does seem to have a more personal tone than allowed for Wikipedia. The unfavorable comparisons are sourced in the review, but I have revised that part to hopefully make the prose cleaner and more neutral/objective. Let me know if further revisions are necessary though. Aoba47 (talk) 05:26, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Drescher's voice was the frequent subject of criticism;Maitland McDonagh said Drescher had a "nasal honk [that] could shatter crystal", but believed her fans would enjoy her performance. Drescher received "... repetition
  • Thank you for pointing this out. Not sure how I kept reading over that. I have changed the second instance to "she" instead. Aoba47 (talk) 05:30, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Maitland McDonagh considered" for which publication he was writing for?
  • She wrote for TV Guide. She is referenced earlier in the "Critical reception" section and is linked there because she is notable enough to have her own Wikipedia article actually. I thought that was a male critic too, but I have honestly never heard of the name "Maitland" before. Aoba47 (talk) 05:30, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'll review the sources later. In the meantime, you can address my comments above. Regards, --Paparazzzi (talk) 05:07, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the review so far. If you ever need help with anything, feel free to ask and I will try to do so to the best of my abilities. I hope you are having a great end to your week. Aoba47 (talk) 05:30, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't find anything unusual with the sources. I'm going to support this nomination. Great work! Paparazzzi (talk) 00:27, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the support and looking through the sources. Aoba47 (talk) 00:36, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cartoon network freak edit

  • The poster's alt should describe the picture itself
  • I have added more information to the ALT text. Aoba47 (talk) 18:36, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the plot, you refer (amon others) to Joy Miller as Joy later on. Shouldn't the last name be used?
  • I used the first names because the film features multiple characters that have the same last name (i.e. Boris, Katrina, Karl, Masha, and Yuri). For this reason, using the last name alone would be confusing. Aoba47 (talk) 18:36, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • and some caged animals to safety. A headline in the New York Post praises Joy as a hero → I would connect those two short sentences to: "to safety, prompting the New York Post to praise Joy as a hero"
  • Revised, but I kept the "headline" part as it is important to the plot. Aoba47 (talk) 18:36, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • She misinterprets his job offer as teaching hairstyling → I'd add a "However," in front of this
  • party for visiting emissaries, during a summit meeting, to debut → are the commas needed here?
  • I do not think so. I have removed it. Aoba47 (talk) 18:36, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The cast is → I would rather say "Cast adapted from [source]."
  • Thank you for the suggestion. I have revised it accordingly. Aoba47 (talk) 18:36, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also in the cast section, the actors have to be sorted by their last names. As far as I see it here, they are sorted by their "relevance" in the film, but I wouldn't really recommend that.
  • I understand your point. I went with the order that was used on the Rotten Tomatoes citation. Aoba47 (talk) 18:36, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also another overall comment — shouldn't things such as "the concept for The Beautician and the Beast" be "the concept for the Beautician and the Beast"?. I'm just asking.
  • I do not believe so since "The" is capitalized in the film's title. Aoba47 (talk) 18:36, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we need to link all the actors again in the Production section? We have linked them in Cast already.
  • as a "spin" on the musical → I would simplify to as an homage to the musical
  • Rewrites on the script → Changes to the script may be a better option
  • Roger Birnbaum and Peter Marc Jacobson were also executive producers for the film. Howard W. Koch, Jr. was a producer alongside Graff.[5] → Any chance you can connect these two short, cut sentences?
  • You could add the running years for her Nanny sitcom
  • I was initially hesitant about this, but I see your point. It is helpful to point out that The Nanny was on the air at this time as it adds more meaning to the later criticisms about it for unfamiliar readers. Aoba47 (talk) 18:47, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • he had enough funny lines → "funny" may not be the most encyclopedic word. Any alternative?
  • I do not think it is unencyclopedic since the sentence is about how Drescher wanted Dalton to have humorous lines as well (most likely to avoid him just reacting to her character all the time). Aoba47 (talk) 18:47, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • in Wembley, UK → write out "UK" to United Kingdom
  • Eidelman composed seventeen → should be 17
  • and fluffy enough → again, not too enyclopedic
  • I think it is appropriate since it is in the context of a review. Aoba47 (talk) 18:50, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would link sitcome in the second para of the Critical reception section
  • Sitcom is linked in a previous section. Aoba47 (talk) 18:50, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would replace "romcom" with "[romantic comedy]". I don't think this term is really that known
  • Understandable. It is always good to remember readers that are more unfamiliar with the subject matter. Aoba47 (talk) 18:50, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Cartoon network freak: Thank you for the reviews. I believe that I addressed everything. I hope you are having a great weekend so far! Aoba47 (talk) 18:50, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have read your responses and all your comments seem to be justified. Thus, I can support this nomination. This is a really strong article. All the best; Cartoon network freak (talk) 19:29, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the support! Aoba47 (talk) 19:43, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

  • Ref #4
    • does not mention original title, The King and Oy
  • I have removed the original title. Looking back, this title was supposed to be sourced with the film commentary, and I somehow misplaced this citation there instead while rewriting the article. Apologies for that mistake. I decided to remove that part altogether as I no longer have access to the audio commentary to look back on to verify that information again. Aoba47 (talk) 22:35, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Add page number(s): p. A37–A38, or just p. A38

... [To be continued]... --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:53, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for the review so far. I have made the recommended adjustments, and I have gone through to add page numbers for the remaining Newspapers.com sources. Apologies for not adding them prior to the FAC. I'm not sure how that slipped my mind. I never thought about using clippings, but I could see how they would help with accessibility. Thank you again. Aoba47 (talk) 22:53, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have replaced the remaining Newspapers.com links wth clippings. I tried to find more accessible links for the two Highbeams sources, but I unfortunately could not find any. Aoba47 (talk) 02:04, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for being proactive. I made a few more edits. I hope they are self explanatory. You are good to go in my book. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 07:05, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking the time to do this review. You have helped to improve the article immensely. I hope you are having a great week so far. Aoba47 (talk) 15:54, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 7 July 2020 [70].

Fabian Ware edit

Nominator(s): Eddie891 Talk Work 15:29, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fabian Ware was fascinating. He went through three careers, first as a high level colonial educator, then editor of The Morning Post and finally as the founder and de facto CEO of the Imperial War Graves Commission. Gibson & Ward (1989) write that "There are many human beings who have made their mark in history, but none other has left such a profound and lasting memorial to mankind's sacrifice on behalf of democracy as has this remarkable Englishman". I hope I've been able to do him justice with this article after almost two years of work, bringing the article up from this state After comments by Gog the Mild, HJ Mitchell, copyedits by DuncanHill and a GA review by AustralianRupert, I feel this article meets the FA criteria, or could with your comments. I have access to all the sources, and can provide scans poorly taken photos upon request. Best wishes, Eddie891 Talk Work 15:29, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. I've been involved with this article for a few months and it's an excellent piece of work. My previous comments star at Talk:Fabian Ware#Expansion and sources. I believe the article is written to a professional standard and accurately reflects the body of knowledge on the subject. I have many of the books cited and in fact provided material from several of them to Eddie to assist in expanding the article so I'm familiar with the source material. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:10, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild edit

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

  • "In the lead-up to the Second World War, he refused to believe that another war could occur" I'm not seeing this in the main body.
  • Crane talks extensively about various British leaders refusing to accept another war as a possibility, and I had intended to add mention of it, but never did because the section mostly talks about other Britons and speculates as to what Ware could have done or might have thought or would have known. Cut.
  • "particularly Spenser Wilkinson, the paper's lead writer" Do you mean "lead" in the sense of the lead to a Wikipedia article? Or that he was the senior or most important writer?
  • actually the leader writer, a uniquely british thing that I thought was just most senior. I have linked to the article.
I assumed it would be. Rubbish copy editing.
  • " who thought he not promote tariff reform" Missing word?
  • should not
  • "Imperial War Conference" is duplinked.
  • fixed
  • References: Thys-Şenocak is listed but not referred to.
  • Yeah, added (not sure what happened there, but I knew where it should go). I cannot add a page number, because it's from the GBooks preview which doesn't have them, but I could add a chapter?

Having gone through this in some detail three times over the past year I feel that this is in pretty good shape. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:53, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • thanks again Gog! I've now added 'leader writer' to my mental dictionary. Perhaps in several years I might be proficient in British.
Maybe. I've been studying it for quite a bit longer, and I haven't got the hang of it yet. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:14, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie891 Talk Work 15:07, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Epicgenius edit

Reserving a spot here. I think the article looks good so far, but I will leave some comments later. epicgenius (talk) 15:16, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Epicgenius, and thanks for 'claiming' a spot! I want to stress that there's absolutely no rush here, but I was just curious when/if you thought you might be able to comment here? Eddie891 Talk Work 23:37, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • a failed effort to purchase the United Kingdom an airship - nothing wrong per se (I understand that you mean he purchased an airship for the UK), but at first I read this as "purchase the UK for an airship".
  • changed to to purchase an airship for the United Kingdom"
  • The unit soon began to focus exclusively on graves and the organisation was transferred to the British Army in 1915. In 1916, the Department of Graves Registration and Enquiries was created with Ware at its head. On 21 May 1917 the Imperial War Graves Commission was founded. - these three sentences either end or begin with dates, so they sound a bit like a timeline. Maybe spice it up a bit?
  • Ware was born in Clifton, Bristol on 17 June 1869,[1] the son of Charles and Amy Carew Ware, née Goulstone - I think you brought this sentence up on the Discord server already, but this sentence still needs revising. For one, I think you can get rid of the fact that he is the son (which is kind of obvious). E.g. "Ware was born in Clifton, Bristol on 17 June 1869 to Charles and Amy Carew Ware, née Goulstone"
  • went with your phrasing
  • to pay for attending the University of London. - weird phrasing, as "attending" is treated like a noun here. "To pay for tuition at the University of London" may be better.
  • changed
  • He married Anna Margaret on 1 August 1895, - Who is Anna Margaret? How did they meet?
  • From 1899 to 1901 contributed articles to The Morning Post.[2] - this sentence is missing something
  • somebody else added a word
  • A committee was formed with Ware as the chairman, and recommended the establishment of a technical institute in its report - this switches from passive to active voice
  • And the word "recommended", or a variant thereof, is repeated in the next two sentences as well.
  • cut this whole paragraph down based on Buidhe's suggestion below.
  • Through Milner's influence,[6] in 1905 the editorship of The Morning Post was offered to Ware by Lord Glenesk, the paper's owner. - the passive voice sounds weird here
  • flipped phrasing around
  • Shortly after beginning work, Ware came into conflict with Glenesk, who thought he should not promote tariff reform, and wrote asking Lady Bathurst[note 1] to intervene and threatening to resign. He disagreed with prominent members of the Conservative Party - Because both people in the sentences are male, these pronouns are ambiguous. Who wrote? Who disagreed?
  • Ware
  • When Glenesk died in November, his daughter, now Lady Bathurst, - Now I am slightly confused. His daughter became Lady Bathurst, but you mentioned Lady Bathurst before (with a footnote saying that Lady Bathurst was Glenesk's daughter). Maybe you should mention the familial relationship beforehand in the "wrote asking Lady Bathurst" sentence. This way you don't need to mention that Lady Bathurst is Glenesk's daughter again.
  • used to call her Lilias Borthwick in the first mention. How does it look now?
  • Looks good. If you're going to look it over during the weekend, I'll look back on Monday. epicgenius (talk) 20:33, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Morning Post''s - typo
  • fixed
  • The airship commissioned by The Morning Post was damaged when it arrived in England ten days after the Clément-Bayard No.2, - so it was damaged upon arrival? Or did it arrive in a damaged state?
  • Was damaged upon arrival because it's hangar was too small, hopefully clarified.

More later. 🇪 🇵 🇮 🇨 🇬 🇪 🇳 🇮 🇺 🇸 (talk) 15:28, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • many thanks for these Eddie891 Talk Work 19:04, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Epicgenius: Thanks again! I've given the article another read-through and caught most (all?) of the missing words and out of place sentences, and hopefully some of the unsavory wording. Not saying it's perfect, but I think it's better now. Perhaps you could take another pass? Eddie891 Talk Work 11:53, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is much better than before. Here are some other things I noticed.

  • The GRC's work continued to rapidly expand through 1915: by May 1915, 4,300 graves had been registered. - the second "1915" is repetitive.
  • Cut
  • On 6 September Macready recommended transferring the organisation completely to the Army. The transfer was completed by late October. - I think this can probably be condensed into a single sentence.
  • rephrased to "After a suggestion by Macready on 6 September, the organisation was transferred completely to the Army by the end of October"; let me know if that isn't better
  • Despite a ban on exhumations established by Joseph Joffre - you should probably give a description of a few words of what role Joffre has.
  • "French General" Joffre
  • Only one-fifth of the typists Ware had requested - do you know the number of typists?
  • Unfortunately, Longworth (the official CWGC history and most comprehensive source) only says one-fifth. A brief google search returned no promising hits
  • rendering the corpse potentially unknown - did you mean "unidentifiable"?
  • that's the word!
  • He also looked into establishing a 'Religious Advisory Committee' to helps settle religious questions - typo
  • fixed
  • For his work during the war, Ware was mentioned in despatches twice,[1] once by Douglas Haig on 10 April 1919.[121] In 1919 he was made a commander of the Order of the Bath - First, "twice, once" sounds strange and you can replace "once" with "including". Second, "1919. In 1919" sounds weird too. Can you rephrase so the year doesn't get repeated in such close succession?
  • replaced with "in the same year" but could come up with something slightly more creative if you don't think that works
  • had begun as early as 1919 - I think it would be easier to say "had begun in 1919" if that's the definite date. Otherwise, go with something like "might have begun as early as 1919".
  • It's just unclear whether discussions began earlier and whether Churchill was doing any more than making grand proclamations (he wasn't really beginning negotiations, just proposing them). Does "dated back to 1919" work better?
  • In 1926, it was concluded that - Who said that?
  • unfortunately, Stamp isn't forthcoming with the source, and doesn't specifically cite it anywhere. If I had to guess, its probably from a CWGC report, but a google search reveals no hints. I could post a question to the humanities ref desk, remove, or just leave as is. What do you think?
  • This isn't really a big deal. I think we can do without saying who said that.
  • He was an adviser at the 1937 Imperial Conference. - with the Royal Institute?
  • Quigley just includes him as an adviser, nothing about the institute. He was likely there in his capacity with the IWGC, but no way of really knowing. I know that the conferences would have people serving as advisors (O. D. Skelton did in 1923) to their ruler, but not as representatives, so Ware could have been to advise George V. Unfortunately, this is all speculation.
  • The road 'Boulevard Fabian Ware' - I think you can just say "Boulevard Fabian Ware" without quotes.
  • agree
  • BTW, was he survived by his wife and kids?
  • his obituaries don't mention it. The ODNB says his wife died in 1952 so yes on that. I'd assume his children survived him, but as Crane is fond of saying, his work was his life so T doubt any of the sources will mention conclusively. I can add his wife's life span to the article if you want?

That's all from me. epicgenius (talk) 14:17, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. With regards to prose, I think the article is all good now. epicgenius (talk) 16:48, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Theramin edit

Signing off

This is a great article on an important man (I admit, I did not recognise his name, and now I feel as though I should have. "Their name liveth for evermore", indeed.).

I noticed a few small nits from a read through. I was tempted to go in and just fix these myself, rather than writing the usual laundry list, but some of the fixes are not entirely clear and you might like to comment on some of them.

Done
  • I think Oliver Borthwick died in March 1905, a few weeks after his 32nd birthday. Not really "in late 1905".
  • quite right. Source does say late 1905 but given that there was a times obit (which I've added as a source) in March, it's highly unlikely he was alive in late 1905.
  • spelled out name
  • I am usually very relaxed about redlinks, but for both Lancelot Bathurst and Oliver Borthwick, do we think there will be enough to justify the redlinks?
  • Oliver got an obit in the New York Times and The Times (though the NYTimes is just a paragraph) so he's borderline, and I figured might be worth the link. LJ has a Wikidata entry but no claim to notability so I'll cut the link, good call.
  • Longworth just says 10th French Corps, but it's reasonable to assume he was talking about the 10th Army Corps and added French to clarify that it wasn't a britis formation
  • Seems rather odd not to link Lady Bathhurst under that name (I know we already have a link under another name, but that is only clear once you get to the footnotes: perhaps her change of name could be mentioned nearer the link).
  • I just converted her first instance to Lady and refactored the note for clarity. She would have been Lady Bathurst since her marriage which if I remember from writing her article was in the 1890s. Her name wasn't changed in between afaik, she is just referred to interchangeably by the sources.
  • I think there have been several places called Winchester House. This one was 21 St James's Square.
  • Just said 'St' James Square' so we don't include anything Longworth doesn't explicitly say, good call.
  • "Jewish graves were to be marked with a double triangle on a stake" - with a link for Jewish but not for Star of David? (I assume the triangles overlapped to create a star in the traditional manner, not displaced like the double triangles on a cardinal mark.)
  • Presumably, and I've added a link -> nice call
  • Cut the second mention and made the first legible, good spot
  • We have an "ambassador Ambassador of the Soviet Union".
  • so we do, cut
  • We could link the Italian article on General Ugo Cei.
  • added

My main comment is that the flow is a bit uneven and staccato in parts, with several passages of: "On [date] [action]" … "On [date] [action]" … "On [date] [action]". That can easy to slip into / difficult to avoid in a largely chronological biography, but some elegant wordsmithing to smooth the narrative would be welcome. Theramin (talk) 00:39, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks Theramin for those most helpful comments. I've enacted most of your changes, some comments. As to the uneven and staccato-ness, I'd completely agree --> elegance isn't my strong suit. I'll take a look at it later today and hopefully smooth it out some. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:36, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • blegh, It's choppier than I thought. I've tried some elegant wordsmithing, but I fear it mostly consists of burying the dates where possible. Let me know what you think-- any suggestions you may have would be welcome. Eddie891 Talk Work 02:13, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you asking me to copyedit the article? I can take a look, although I tend to use a lighter tool than the lady currently on my user page, and it might take me some time to get around to it. Perhaps someone else might like to have a go? Theramin (talk) 23:37, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was my way of saying that I've tried to smooth it out as best I can, but it very likely needs another set of eyes. If your time allows I'd appreciate a copy-edit, but please don't feel at all obligated. Eddie891 Talk Work 23:45, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the site plan
  • Suggest adding alt text
  • Don't use fixed px size
  • removed
  • Noting that File:Sir_Fabian_Ware.png has been nominated for deletion at Commons - that will need to be resolved one way or the other before promotion
  • Hi again, Nikkimaria. It seems that we will be unable to verify that the image is in the PD. Although I think it most likely is, I don't see that information forthcoming. File:Fabian Ware.jpg is the fair use version, but I'm at a bit of a loss as to what to do now. I reached out to the cwgc and they were unwilling to release any pictures of Ware. Seems to me like the commons image should be deleted and fair use one used unless we get a definite publication date. Your thoughts/advice here would be greatly appreciated. Best wishes, Eddie891 Talk Work 13:56, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Might be worth reaching out to MrClog to see if he got an answer to his email, although I see he's gone inactive. Otherwise if no other potentially free image exists then yes, we should use the fair-use version. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:56, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nikkimaria I left a message on their talk (albeit only a day ago) but they were also active within the month that the NPG should have responded. I've looked pretty extensively, but cannot find a clearly free image of him. Here's what I propose doing, given that it's unfortunately not clear the image is pd: Closing the fair use images FFD request as keep, replacing the commons image with that one, and keeping a close eye on the issue. If MrClog hears back and it turns out the image is public domain, (with your consent) I'll ping you on Fabian Ware's talk to re-review the licencing. Should a pd image arise, the (unused) fair use image can then be deleted. I've looked extensively and read into the issue, and that seems like the only way to resolve it. The CWGC already turned down my request to release an image, though I fully intend to ask them again by letter. Hopefully this will allow the image review to be resolved. Let me know what you think sorry for all this pinging, if you'd rather I didn't, I'll stop. Eddie891 Talk Work 00:29, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The FUR should be a bit more expansive. Other images are appropriately licensed but I did notice some style issues in captions. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:19, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria: I’ve had a go at those changes, if there’s a more specific thing you want changed about the FUR, just let me know. I really cannot thank you enough for bearing with me on this image review so far- it’s been quite the learning experience for me, and I’m really sorry that the images needed so much work- I should have been more diligent in checking them before the FAC. Best wishes, Eddie891 Talk Work 15:05, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. That's better and good enough for our purposes. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:07, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Canadian_Corps_-_Canadian_war_graves.jpg needs a US copyright tag, and when/where was this first published?
  • Er, I'm not sure when exactly, but the source website says "Restrictions on use: Nil Copyright: Expired" I could add at {{PD-because}}, but I am not sure whether there's an applicable tag. Replaced with Prince-Edward-Duke-of-Windsor-King-Edward-VIII (retouched).jpg, because I cannot be sure about the publication date.
  • Same question here I'm afraid: where and when was this first published? Additionally the UK tag in use requires that the image description include details of steps taken to try to ascertain authorship. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:35, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh dear, I had hoped an image from another FA wouldn't need licencing work. Replaced with File:17th Earl of Derby.jpg
  • Sorry, another question on that one: what's the status of this work in the US? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:51, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nikkimaria: My understanding is that under the old (Canadian) Copyright Act, photographs were protected only for 50 years after their creation, so this would have entered the PD in 1988, meaning it was in the PD on January 1, 1996, meaning it is in the PD in the US. Not sure if this is correct Eddie891 Talk Work 16:14, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolutely it's PD in Canada. However, the US situation is a bit more complicated than just a 'PD in 1996' yes/no, and depends on when the item was published - see the Cornell copyright chart. Also on looking more closely at this, it seems the watermark suggests a UK rather than Canadian origin? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:45, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nikkimaria: sorry to be a bother, but I think I've finally got it with File:Edwin Lutyens.jpg, (1921 publication, credited author died in 1930) Eddie891 Talk Work 23:09, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, just add the credited author and date of death to the author field in the image description and this should be good. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:59, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Site_plan_for_the_Forceville_Communal_Cemetery_Extension.jpg: when/where was this first published and what is the author's date of death?
  • replaced with File:Cimetière britannique de Forceville 5.jpg,
  • File:Thiepval_Memorial_to_the_missing.jpg: since this is in France, which does not have freedom of panorama, this will need a tag for the monument.
  • Sorry but I don't know what to tag it with here, replaced with File:Merchant Navy Memorial - south elevation 01.jpg and File:India Gate in New Delhi 03-2016.jpg

Nikkimaria (talk) 20:31, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nikkimaria: mostly replaced the images with better ones that illustrate parts of the text still. Let me know what you think. I can add alt text, but am embarrassed to admit that I don't really understand the concept of alt text (and our page doesn't help my understanding much). The main thing I am unclear on is how much description and detail the alt text need to give. Best wishes, Eddie891 Talk Work 14:06, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Typically you'd want alt texts to be fairly concise. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:35, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've had a go adding them, but I don't hold any illusions they are good
  • Nikkimaria: would you have a look now? Many thanks for dealing with my image-incompetence. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:15, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Partial source review edit

  • Evaluation of sources listed under "Newspapers, gazettes, journals & others" only
  • All sources look OK to me.
  • Para that starts "On 5 July 1902..." isn't this a bit WP:UNDUE because both sources cited are from more than a century ago? If no more recent sources find this part relevant, I would suggest reducing it.
  • I've cut down
  • I don't understand why some non-book sources are cited inline and others are listed in this section.
  • There should only be websites inline (mainly because they don't often have publication dates). I tried to move those that I missed.
Source checks
  • Checked smh.
  • Checked Guardian 1901. I can't see where this source supports the content.
  • It's published in 1900 actually, revisiting the source. It's more specifically cited in The Morning Post 1900
  • Checked Guardian 1949. It generally supports the sentence but not the phrase "bachelier-es-sciences" (although the other source does). Is French really necessary here? The link redirects to Bachelor of Science.
  • No particular reason I guess
Other comments
  • Publications are listed in text with no or minimal further details, eg "He published Educational Reform: The Task of the Board of Education in 1899" and "Ware published an account of the work of the IWGC in 1937 titled The Immortal Heritage". This might be better handled by a dedicated "List of works" at the end of the article. buidhe 15:54, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Buidhe: excellent points on all counts, I've added a dedicated 'list of works' but kept mention of the IWGC book because (though it's all alone) I think it merits a mention in the prose. Eddie891 Talk Work 20:35, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't figure out what order the Edinburgh and London Gazette references are supposed to be in. buidhe 21:47, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • well they should be organised by date... (doesn't mean they are ). Think I fixed them up. Eddie891 Talk Work 19:10, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Twentieth Parliament source should clearly state it is New Zealand parliament. buidhe 21:51, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I am satisfied with sources in this section only, other sources (including those directly footnoted) not evaluated. buidhe 19:13, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note edit

Hi, noting the partial source review above but I would like to see all sources checked for reliability and formatting, and I see Buidhe has kindly requested that at the top of WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:24, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – pass edit

Formatting and consistency

  • "The Dominions Office and Colonial Office List Comprising Historical and Statistical Information Respecting the Oversea Dominions and Colonial Dependencies of Great Britain" is listed in the References, but I can't see a short citation to it?
  • Cut-- There was a duplicate mention of one of Ware's awards earlier, another source went into more detail.
  • Generally book sources only include a year, not a full date, as you use a number of times. Per MOS:DATEUNIFY, "publication dates in an article's citations should all use the same format", so I would expect that for books, either all would use YYYY, or all would use DD Month YYYY, not a mix.
  • think I got them all to YYYY
  • "Skelton, Tim; Gliddon, Gerald (2008)" links the publisher, but no other book reference does.
  • un-linked
  • "Winter, Jay (2014)" lists a location, no other book references do.
  • cut

More to follow. Harrias talk 15:27, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ref #72, "Records" and ref #98, "History of CWGC" treat Commonwealth War Graves Commission as a publisher, but in ref #5, "Sir Fabian Arthur Gouldstone Ware", and ref #112, "Sir Frederic Kenyon sculpture added to CWGC collection", it is a work. Also, ref #188, "Records" uses a completely different format again (including possibly for the title). Be consistent (also #147, #151 and #155).
  • standardized to |website=Commonwealth War Graves Commission I believe
  • Ref #115, "How WWI remembrance monuments created beauty from chaos", needs a publication date and author added.
  • I don't see an author, added date. It's listed as part of BBC Four's feature here, but I doubt we can say for certain it was a single author
  • The use of all caps for "Tony Law" in the lead indicates that it was him; it's relatively common for "magazine" style article such as this. Harrias talk 17:01, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref #117, "Their name liveth for evermore", needs a publication date and author added.
  • added both
  • In ref #155, use Wikipedia's style guide and adopt title case for the title, rather than all caps.
  • Done
  • Ref #170, "Report of Imperial Committee on Economic Consultation and Co-operation. – Motion of Approval", Houses of the Oireachtas should be a publisher, not a work, I believe.
  • Well it's listed as a |website=, but changed to publisher
  • Refs #91 and #174, be consistent about how to format National Archives sources. There is also a stray asterisk in #174.
  • I think I standardized and definitely got the *, but could you double check please? There's a |work= for #91 but not for #174 but I think that's because they are different sources
  • One uses "The National Archives", while the other is just "National Archives". Harrias talk 17:01, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • standardized.
  • Refs #145 and #176, be consistent about how to format Hansard sources.
  • Think I got them
  • The first gives the title as "Imperial War Graves Commission HC Deb 04 May 1920 vol 128 cc1929-72" (the title and subtitle on the page), whereas the second simply uses "War Memorials" (the title alone). Harrias talk 17:01, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just the title will be fine, cut
  • Refs #182 and #187, be consistent about how to format Westminster Abbey sources.
  • Think I got them

More to follow. Harrias talk 15:42, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • A quick search around does not reveal any major source omitted, but I do wonder about Chapter #13 of Empires in World War I, have you managed to have look over this? Harrias talk 15:48, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've read the GBooks preview several times, but it's choppy enough that it's hard to get a great impression of anything-- My feeling if I remember correctly was that it mostly said a lot about the commission and sort of repeated Longworth a pretty good bit and quotes some of his interviews at various times -- not really the stuff to put in an encyclopedia entry. With that being said, I will file a request at REX for the chapter and if they don't get back reasonably quickly will either purchase the book or bike to my local University Library to read the chapter. Perhaps there's a few sentences of detail to add. I should be back here one way or another by Saturday or Sunday. Eddie891 Talk Work 16:21, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Honestly, if you're aware of it and don't feel that it adds anything significant from what you've seen, I'm not too concerned. The article includes all the major works on Ware that I've come across. Harrias talk 17:01, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Harrias: I've just gotten the chapter from REX, I'll look into if there's anything worth adding shortly. Best, Eddie891 Talk Work 20:19, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I'm not such a fan of that chapter already, there's a good bit of over-simplification and what seem to be flat out errors (i.e. getting the establishment of the National Committee for the Care of Soldiers’ Graves date wrong and the date Ware was made acting director of education, and omitting the airship debacle completely from why Ware was fired). I think I may get a few attributed quotes out of it, but I'm leery of relying on the chapter for specific details. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:04, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok Harrias, I've added a sentence and there's not much else worth adding... It quotes Ware pretty extensively so I could add some quotes, but I personally don't feel they would contribute very much to the article, let me know what you think. Best, Eddie891 Talk Work 21:32, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks

  • I checked every instance of ref #2, and in each case the cited fact appeared in the source work. The only point of concern was one instance of close para-phrasing:
    • Ref #002: "From 1899 to 1901 he contributed articles to the Morning Post."
    • Article: "From 1899 to 1901, Ware contributed articles to The Morning Post."
  • Ref #034 is fine.
  • Ref #072 is fine.
  • Ref #118 is fine.
  • Ref #176 is fine.

Just that one instance of close para-phrasing to sort out, and then we're done. Harrias talk 07:17, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Harrias I've rephrased and split, let me know what you think. Many thanks again for taking this on. Best, Eddie891 Talk Work 12:35, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Eddie891 That's all good for me now, I've marked this as a passed source review. Note that I will claim WikiCup points for this review. Harrias talk 14:46, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 7 July 2020 [71].

Erin Phillips edit

Nominator(s): Sportsfan77777 (talk) 12:56, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Erin Phillips, one of the most decorated two-sport athletes in the world. Phillips is a two-time WNBA champion, an Olympic silver medallist, a FIBA World Championship gold medallist, and basketball isn't even her best sport. Phillips is generally considered the best women's Australian rules football player in the world, having run away with the league MVP award (the AFLW best and fairest award) twice in her first three seasons.

If promoted, this would be the first FA for a women's basketball player (and ninth overall among basketball players in general). It would also be the first FA for a women's Australian rules footballer (and third overall among Australian rules footballers in general). Sportsfan77777 (talk) 12:56, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Teratix edit

Excited to see some women's Australian football content up for FA, and a very fitting choice of subject! Just starting with some comments on the text up to the end of her basketball career, but I'll follow up with a fuller review of the AFLW content references, images etc.

  • Optional: link basketball to women's basketball (and similar for Australian rules football)
  • Australian Football League Women's I've only seen the league referred to as the AFLW or AFL Women's
  • lack of professional opportunities for women's footballers female footballers fits better here
  • winning the league premiership generally teams, not players, are spoken of as winning premierships. Players might be said to have won a premiership medal, or have played in a premiership team.
  • Phillips plays as a midfielder link Australian rules football positions#Midfield
  • one of the leading goal scorers in the competition is this intended to be a quantifiable statement (i.e. Phillips has kicked the xth-most goals in the competition or has won x goal-kicking awards), or just a comment on her goalkicking skills?
    • It's intended to be a quantifiable statement that is quantified in the AFLW part of the article. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:14, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Carlton suburb of Melbourne I'd delink Melbourne here
  • Australian rules football defender Australian rules football already linked
    • Per MOS:REPEATLINK, it's okay to repeat a link in its first use after the lead. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:36, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not sure how this aids readers. If they're unfamiliar with the sport, wouldn't they click the link on its first occurrence? – Teratix ₵ 14:23, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Victorian Football League (VFL), the precursor to the modern Australian Football League (AFL) my understanding is that the VFL was simply an old name for the AFL, not a separate league entirely as "precursor" seems to imply
    • Changed to "which was later renamed as the modern Australian Football League (AFL)" Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:36, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I could also do "Australian Football League (then known as the Victorian Football League, or the VFL)" if that makes more sense? I'm not sure. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:36, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • women's footballers → female footballers
  • opportunity to train with the Port Adelaide Football Club just "Port Adelaide" should be fine
  • Australian national basketball team player Rachael Sporn avoid this lengthy false title
    • Switched to "Rachael Sporn, a member of the Australian national basketball team."
  • She averaged 15.0 points no need for .0
    • I did this because it would be weird for the averages to have different levels of precision throughout the article. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:36, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, it's a bit jarring for me, but not a major issue. – Teratix ₵ 14:23, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 4.9 assists per game. She led the league in assists "assists" twice in close succession is a bit jarring
    • I'm not sure there is a good fix for this. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:36, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Something like "4.9 assists per game (leading the league)." perhaps? – Teratix ₵ 14:23, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • free throw percentage at 80.0% no need for .0
  • who were led by Lauren Jackson relevant to article on Phillips?
    • It means more that her team lost to the best Australian player ever than a team based in Canberra. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:36, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • her teammates Tracy Gahan and Jessica Foley were named to the team relevant to Phillips?
    • My intent was to explain the reasons for the team's success.
  • entire draft "draft" is fine
  • along with 5th overall pick Sancho Lyttle from Saint Vincent and the Grenadines relevant to Phillips?
    • I removed the country but not the player (mainly to keep in that she wasn't the highest international selection). Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:36, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 6 rebounds MOS:NUM suggests the numeral should be spelled out as "six"
    • I kept this because when listing points/rebounds/assists together, it's weird to have one as a number and another as a word. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 08:15, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • top scorer Katie Douglas club or league top scorer?
  • the Sun swept link "swept" to whitewash (sport)
  • Less than three months later in April though, → In April, however, less than three months later,
  • 5 steals → five steals
  • needing to miss a week → missing a week
  • 8 rebounds → eight rebounds
  • perennial league leader in blocks Brittney Griner another lengthy false title
  • 4 assists → four assists
  • 7 points and 3 assists → seven points and three assists
    • Kept because of consistency with points being a number, and for points to always be a number. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 08:15, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In EuroLeague Women, they were eliminated EuroLeague Women was already linked in the last paragraph
  • helped the Opals qualify for the following year's World Championships in August by winning the Oceania Qualifying Series this reads as if Phillips personally won the Qualifying Series for the Opals
    • Changed to "with their victory in the Oceania Qualifying Series" Sportsfan77777 (talk) 08:19, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • easily by more than 30 points omit "easily" here, a bit POV and redundant to "more than 30 points" in any case
  • third consecutive runner-up to the United States → "third consecutive runner-up finish to the United States"
  • could not manage to trade away → could not trade
  • 5th place → fifth place
  • 4.0 assists → four assists
  • Phillips was named a co-vice captain along with Laura Hodges, while Penny Taylor was named captain after these positions were voted on by the players why not just "Phillips and Laura Hodges were voted co-vice captains by their peers, while Penny Taylor was voted captain?"
  • in a game where the team had 26 turnovers which team?
  • 4 assists → four assists
  • 2.0 rebounds → two rebounds
  • playing basketball and the national team retirement from national team is clearly implied
  • comparing her to then-teammate Lindsay Whalen Whalen has already been linked
  • retirement from the WNBA immediately before the start of the 2017 WNBA season drop the second WNBA
    • I specified WNBA to avoid confusion with AFLW. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:49, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, it doesn't seem so confusing to me in the context of the sentence, but not a major issue. – Teratix ₵ 14:23, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • in order to return to Australian rules football in the AFLW → so she could return to the AFLW
    • I would prefer to emphasize the sport change, but at the same time, I don't want to leave out AFLW either. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:49, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2019 WNBA season can drop WNBA here too, I think

Looks great so far. – Teratix ₵ 14:03, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tera, did you want to revisit in light of the responses to your comments? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:46, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I've been a bit busy offwiki recently and wanted to wait until I had the time to complete a full review. – Teratix ₵ 14:23, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On to the Australian rules football section:

  • Port Adelaide Football Club → Port Adelaide
  • on the condition that they receive → if they received
  • license → noun form is spelled "licence" in Australian English (crops up in a few places)
  • in the event that → if
  • did not get a license → "get" is a bit informal – maybe "receive", "obtain" or "was not granted"?
  • Phillips' quote is quite long, especially for prose, and could probably be shortened a bit
  • 2017 AFL Women's season → 2017 AFLW season, or even just 2017 season
  • in the ladder → on the ladder (appears in a few places)
  • the press had not expected either team to be top two in the ladder one article from one outlet ≠ the press
    • In Adelaide's case, the article states "The Crows have defied most experts". Then with Brisbane, they state that they were an even bigger surprise (suggesting that opinion was also widely held). Sportsfan77777 (talk) 10:20, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • who were led by Daisy Pearce relevant to article on Phillips? Only one of sixteen players on the ground.
    • She is the one who received three votes in that game. And I thought it was worth specifying because she is regarded as one of the league's other star players. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 10:03, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2017 AFL Women's Grand Final 2017 AFLW Grand Final, or even 2017 Grand Final
  • the inaugural AFLW Grand Final omit, match is clear from preceding sentence
  • won the AFLW Grand Final best on ground → won best on ground
  • Her on-the-shoulders mark against Melbourne was a finalist for AFLW Mark of the Year this isn't mentioned when discussing the Melbourne match, maybe talk about it there first
    • I re-worded the sentence to "She was also a finalist for AFLW Mark of the Year for an on-the-shoulders mark that she took against Melbourne, losing the award to Darcy Vescio", so that it doesn't sound like I mentioned it before. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 10:03, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2018 AFL Women's season → 2018 AFLW season, or even just 2018 season
  • turned out to be → was
  • co-captain defender Chelsea Randall maybe "their co-captain Randall"? (already written in full earlier)
    • I cut co-captain instead of defender, as defender is more linked to them giving them up lots of goals. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 10:03, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Optional: link concussion
  • with a one-point loss to Western, I find Western Bulldogs is almost always written in full, maybe abbreviated to "the Bulldogs", but never "Western"
  • The first paragraph of the 2019 section has a bit of an odd structure – going to the end of the home-and-away season then jumping back into round 3 and 4.
    • I viewed it more as describing the outcome to Adelaide's season (the wins and the ladder position), then the outcome to Phillips's season (the season-bests). I didn't want to "save" that Adelaide won the last six games for the very end of that paragraph. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 10:30, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • the lowest score in AFLW history this was true at the time, but has now been bested (worsened?) by Richmond, who kicked just 0.3 (3) against St Kilda this year
  • 2019 AFL Women's Grand Final → 2019 AFLW Grand Final
  • Optional: link "global COVID-19 pandemic" to Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on sports instead of the main article
  • Style of play section could use some analysis from authors other than McGarry, otherwise it should be attributed to him
  • Link Australian rules football positions#Forward line?
    • I linked this and midfielder again (since the other one was in the lead). Sportsfan77777 (talk) 10:03, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • isn't → is not
  • Probably omit children's names per WP:BLPNAME
    • I think it's fine because she frequently mentions them by name in her own posts and articles. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 09:51, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think the names add enough to the article to justify their inclusion, since the children are not public figures. The presumption in favour of privacy, especially for minors, is strong. – Teratix ₵ 03:34, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • doesn't → does not
  • Port Adelaide Football Club and the Hawthorn Football Club → Port Adelaide and Hawthorn
  • club ambassador for the Port Adelaide Football Club → club ambassador for Port Adelaide
  • grade school → primary school (Australian English), link if desired
  • Captions: Delink Barack Obama and White House
    • My impression was that links in image captions are encouraged, especially if they are not repeat links? Sportsfan77777 (talk) 09:41, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sure, but readers will be familiar enough with Obama and the White House that links won't be necessary for their understanding. – Teratix ₵ 03:34, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • I would assume so for most people in the US (and probably Australia too?), but are people from other countries really that familiar with the US? Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:08, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, Obama is an especially recent and prominent leader, and the White House is well-known as the president's residence. He's not solely well-known in America, or even Western countries. And I'd imagine most readers of this article, on a sportswoman active in the US and Australia, will be from Western backgrounds anyway. – Teratix ₵ 10:55, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • Okay, removed. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 12:42, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
              Comment: He is well known now, but will he still be by football fans in twenty years time? Who was president when you were a child, or just before you were born? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:40, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
              If Obama becomes less prominent over time, the link can always be reinstated. – Teratix ₵ 00:58, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
              • I agree with Hawkeye on this one. For the sake of inclusivity, I don't think there is a person or place I wouldn't link (except for major countries per wiki policy). Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:04, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References:

  • Sydney Morning Herald → The Sydney Morning Herald and Adelaide Advertiser → The Advertiser
  • 1: Does the Footy Girl's Guide have a numeric page number for Phillips?
    • I only have the Google Book version, which doesn't specify it. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 09:41, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 6: I doubt the uploader has the appropriate permissions from Fox
    • I didn't think that was a problem? Sportsfan77777 (talk) 09:41, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Per WP:ELNEVER, linking to copyright-violating material is prohibited. It is a bit of a pain if the source isn't readily accessible, but policy is that we need to be very cautious and conservative in these matters, because publicising copyright violations reflects poorly on the site. – Teratix ₵ 03:34, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Okay, I see what you mean. I changed the format to "cite episode" instead of "cite video" and left out the link. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:08, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 7: consider using Template:Cite podcast or similar
  • 17: what makes this source reliable?
    • As Hawkeye pointed out below, it's decently sourced. And I was able to find other sources that verify most of the info in the article. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 10:46, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why not just use those sources then? – Teratix ₵ 03:34, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK, so the source has now been removed, but isn't that leaving some information unsourced? – Teratix ₵ 10:55, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes, added sources for the 2007 ACL injury and the 2008 WNBL Grand Final. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 12:42, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 47: what makes this source reliable?
    • The information I used is mostly from a quote by the coach. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 10:46, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Are you thinking of 46? – Teratix ₵ 03:34, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, I'm fairly certain you were referring to the SB Nation source? Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:08, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sorry, I was confused because there was a nearby quote box from a coach referenced to ref 46 (now ref 45). Anyway, I've found this recent discussion on SBNation's reliability, and the consensus seems to be that it is a blog site and should be considered on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the writer, type of blog and material referenced. The writer doesn't seem to be any sort of expert, but the material being referenced is pretty uncontroversial, relating to Phillips' playing time and matches she started. However, considering the high referencing standards for FAs, it would be best if a replacement source could be found. – Teratix ₵ 10:55, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2 and 94 are duplicates
  • Missing site for 106
  • 120 and 166 are virtually identical but lead to different places – can they somehow be distinguished?
  • 135: consider using Template:Cite video or similar
  • Spotchecks already done by Hawkeye

That's all I've got, no major issues as far as I can see. Again, apologies for the delay in reviewing. – Teratix ₵ 14:23, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks Sportsfan, I'm now happy to support this article for promotion. – Teratix ₵ 13:32, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Cas Liber edit

Taking a look now....I made these changes. Otherwise looking good in comprehensiveness and prose. Support from me. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:47, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Hawkeye7 edit

I reviewed this article at GA, and support its promotion to featured status.

Image review edit
All images are appropriately licensed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:08, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Source review edit
  • fn 15 is from a blog, but by a fairly well-known sports journalist
  • fn 17 another blog. Article is footnoted though. Consider replacing with the original sources.
  • fn 69 consider adding a language=pl card
  • fn 118 compare with fn 149
  • fn 119 The Guardian is a newspaper, so should use a newspaper card like fn 130 and 144
  • fn 133 compare with fn 131
  • fn 168 We don't need the publisher
  • Spot checks performed on fn 15, 17, 22, 61, 97, 123, 173
Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:08, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note edit

@Teratix and Hawkeye7: - are you both satisfied with the corrections made? --Ealdgyth (talk) 14:22, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, I am happy with the changes made. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:34, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added some follow-up comments and completed my original review. If these are addressed I see no outstanding issues. – Teratix ₵ 14:24, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Factfanatic1 edit

Hello @Sportsfan77777: I was looking through the FA noms/candidates and saw this article. I noticed that many of the references were not archived so I went ahead and archived 134 of the references, which should be most to all of them. By doing this, in case any of the articles are removed by the website or otherwise become dead, they'll always be available since they're archived. I'm quite busy so I most likely won't not do a full review but I will try to at least review your prose and sources. I did do a quick skim and things do look good though. Good luck! Factfanatic1 (talk) 23:13, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 7 July 2020 [72].

Robert Goff, Baron Goff of Chieveley edit

Nominator(s): Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 04:32, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the Lord Goff of Chieveley. He was Senior Law Lord of the United Kingdom's House of Lords for a few years, and is best known for establishing restitution and unjust enrichment in English law. To this end, he co-authored the authoritative textbook (Goff & Jones) on the area, and developed the common law as a judge.

This article was promoted to GA not long ago. Following generous comments and encouragement from the GA reviewer and a peer reviewer, I've decided to nominate it for FA. I'd be very grateful for any comments or feedback. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 04:32, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review
The source given in the box is meant to apply to all the details: crest, escutcheon and motto. The photograph follows the written description and is therefore heraldically correct. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 01:03, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Header image is NOT copyvio from [73], which was published at a later date. The image appears to have been published at Commons first.
Thank you. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 01:03, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other images appear to be relevant and freely licensed. buidhe 19:07, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Working on a source for your first point. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 15:41, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 01:03, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Ergo Sum edit

  • The first paragraph of Early life: I got lost on who the subject of some of the pronouns were, but it seems to be dwelling a bit excessively on his father's military career.
  • I'm hesitant to remove the information about his father, because I think Goff's military background and upbringing have an effect both on his personality and his judicial policy. I have, however, used the word "Lionel" in the first two lines to make it clearer that the paragraph is about Robert Goff's father. Any discussion of Robert himself starts in the next paragraph. Does this work? Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 15:05, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence about his relationship with each of his parents could be rephrased; reads a bit awkwardly to my eye. Maybe an intro to the effect of "he had a closer relationship with his mother than father", then go into the explanation without casting it as an explicitly causal matter.
  • "with a place to study at" Oxford. This sounds very unusual to my ear. Perhaps this is a Britishism. But for the context, I wouldn't know what it means.
  • It says he's off to Oxford, but then says that the same month, he was drafted into the military. The first part should mention that he intended to go to Oxford but that plan did not materialize (until later).
  • I've rewritten it as "he left Eton in December 1944, having received an offer of admission to New College, Oxford, after he completed his military service." Does this work? Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 15:09, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's a little unclear to me now. Did he receive an offer before leaving Eton that would be redeemed after his military service? It's a minor point, but seems worth clarifying. Ergo Sum 18:06, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Truthfully, I used the language of the source I cited. I'm quite sure that he was given an offer, but that it was valid only upon his completion of military service. I'm rewriting it as "having received a deferred offer of admission for after he completed his military service." This is standard language with admissions offers in the UK, but I hope this isn't a Britishism... Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 01:08, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "his Tutor included"...proceeds to list two people. This is case disagreement, no? Should not it read something like "among his tutors were..."?
  • Capitalization. E.g. bar, tutor. In know in American English, these are not capitalized. Is this a feature of British English?
  • This was raised during the GA nomination. The Cambridge English Dictionary spells it "the Bar" in British English and "bar" in American English. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 15:15, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Noted. I was not aware of this. Ergo Sum 18:07, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Capitalization of "Dean". I believe MOS:CT advises against such capitalizations.
  • Lots of official positions and future titles of nobility are put in parentheses following an individual's name. This breaks up the flow of some sentences. I wonder if they could be simply offset by commas in the case of the former and left out altogether (but link the name) in the case of the latter.
  • "refused to the book in all." Is this a typo?
  • "on weekends" doesn't need to be parenthesized.
  • The two sentences about Queen's Counsel can be joined.
  • Done. I've also replaced "1967" with "the following year" so that it reads more comfortably. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 15:29, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "trademark intellectual development". Use of the word "trademark" made me double-take in this context, since there is discussion of common law vs. statutory law. I'm sure a synonym can be found.
  • This is inadvertently a great catch on a different point. The discussion is actually between the common law and the civilian legal systems. I realise the ambiguity in the sentence: "common law" could be read in its other sense, as the body of law produced by the courts. Goff's strongly-held view was that as the (English system of) common law is developed by judges, it can evolve incrementally, whereas legal development in civilian legal systems relies on legislation and so is more clunky. The point on suspicion of codes and legislation is because of the greater emphasis that civilian legal systems place on them. I will use a different word for "trademark" and also address this ambiguity. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 06:46, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have rewritten this line, and replaced "trademark" with "characteristic". Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 15:35, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "closer together" should be "more closely together".
  • When describing him as warm and kind, it may be advisable to tweak it so that it reads "he was also described as...", so as to avoid any POV.
  • I don't know if there needs to be a separate header for later years when it's only two lines.
  • I'm hesitant here. This was originally a section on its own, but I merged it into the earlier section for the reason you've given. My hesitation is because this is a key part of his life story, and I feel as though this warrants a clear signpost, instead of a reader having to find it under a section about Personal Life. Does this sound reasonable? Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 15:40, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I myself would fold it into the larger section, but that's just my preference. I defer to your judgement on the matter. Ergo Sum 18:09, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, an interesting read and a quality article. Nicely done. I expect to support once these matters are addressed. Ergo Sum 01:46, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ergo Sum: Thank you for your comments. Would you have a look at my responses and let me know your thoughts? Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 15:42, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
With all sticking points addressed, I'm happy to support this article. Ergo Sum 18:10, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I supported the article at peer review, and I believe that it deserves FA status. My only concern is about the separate section for the "Later Years and Death" section when it's only two sentences, but this is a minor issue. Nice work, Kohlrabi Pickle. Aven13 17:44, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you, Aven13. As you're the second reviewer to point out the separate section with "Later Years and Death", I have merged it into "Personal Life". Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 23:59, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from KJP1 edit

Will definitely review this but it will take me a few days to have the necessary time. KJP1 (talk) 20:57, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

General
  • Copyvio - You'll see that Earwig, a very handy tool, is showing "79.4% match Violation suspected", to the Beatson Tribute, [74]. A lot of this is quotes/titles etc. which aren't a problem, but there are some instances where the paraphrasing is a bit close for comfort, e.g. "did not share his father's interests and refused to shoot after his eighteenth birthday". It would be worth trying to remove these.
  • Ah yes, I didn't realise. Interestingly, I had originally paraphrased that exact line quite differently from how it's now written. Another reviewer pointed out that it sounded clunky. I subconsciously then reworded it back to its original phrasing. I've paraphrased some of the very similar phrases. Earwig still indicates a 77.7% suspicion for match violation but that might just be because I organised the page very similarly to the Beatson tribute. The rest of it is very standard; titles, quotes, case names, lines like "which were published in 1978 and 1986". Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 01:36, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Infobox
  • "Scots Guard" - "Scots Guards"? - Not my turf, but I've always heard it as the Scots Guards, and the Wiki page redirects "Scots Guard" to "Scots Guards". You call it Guards in the Military service section, so we need consistency at least.
Lead
  • Citations in the lead - Personally, I prefer not to have them, as it's an easier read without. You've used them for direct quotes, and I know many do, and have done so myself, but I don't actually think they're a requirement, if they're repeated, and cited, elsewhere in the body, which would be my preference, MOS:LEADCITE. But it is possible I'm wrong on this. I know it was discussed at GAR, so leave if you prefer.
  • I quite like the idea of a lead without citations. I've copied the quotes into appropriate places elsewhere in the text and removed the citations from the lead. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 01:55, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
University education
  • ""Tutors" - l/c "t"?
Academic career
  • "Apparently in equal astonishment that Goff needed to think about the offer, Murray granted the time, following which Goff accepted the offer" - I'd probably drop the second, repeated, "the offer". I'm also not quite sure about the double "astonishment"? Does it quite have the "encyclopedic" tone? That said, it's in the cite.
  • I've changed the words. You're right that it's not quite encyclopaedic, but I'd left it because it made for engaging reading. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 01:55, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Goff & Jones on the Law of Unjust Enrichment
  • For comprehensiveness, and for the benefit of the general reader, could you do a line or two on the central concept of Unjust Enrichment. It's something like the UE article, "when one person is enriched at the expense of another in circumstances that the law sees as unjust".
  • "Not knowing where it fit" - "Not knowing where it fitted".
Career at the Bar
  • "there was very little small work for junior barristers at the commercial Bar" - this is another one where the paraphrasing is uncomfortably close (indeed exact). It's also one that won't be clear to a non-specialist who won't necessarily understand "small work".
  • Good point. I've removed most of the line and merged it with the next line. It now reads: "He described his time as a junior barrister as "lean", because at that time, the bulk of cases went to senior barristers, who tended to have almost permanent junior barristers assisting them." Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 02:53, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Judicial career
  • 1.b. - Comprehensive - as discussed on the Talkpage, I think what's missing here is a summary of Goff's leading cases, both "legal" and "national". I know you're working on this.
Fostering links with foreign jurisdictions
  • "visiting Jaisalmer Fort, among others" - is the fact that he did a bit of sight-seeing really notable? Particularly as it's cited to an unverifiable photo.
  • You're right; I just thought it added a nice bit of intrigue. I have access to the photo (indeed many photos of Lord Goff) but dealing with copyright has been complicated, which is why they're not up on the page. An earlier version (indeed the version that was promoted to GA) had many more photos. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 01:58, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Work with the Inns of Court
  • "a committee of Benchers, including Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Lord Chancellor) and James Callaghan (a former Prime Minister)" - is it worth making clear that Callaghan was an honorary Bencher?
  • Do you mean making clear that Callaghan was a Bencher or that his appointment was honorary? If you mean the latter, I wouldn't put it in because it is the intuitive conclusion and also it doesn't really make a difference to what the sentence is trying to convey. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 02:58, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Personal life
  • "They had four children: Katharine (1959), Juliet (1961), William (1964, d.1967) and Thomas (1966)" - not convinced that lists of the article subject's children are appropriate, unless they themselves are Notable. Perhaps, "had four children, one of whom died young". Or some such.
Arms
  • Does the coat of arms need to be quite so big!?
  • I've shrunk it to about half what it was. Should be okay now - but let me know if it is still too big. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 03:06, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Images
  • I know you've had a image review, so I'll only observe, in relation to the book cover, that I once got into trouble when I uploaded a photo I'd taken of a book dust jacket, as it was held that it infringed copyright. Here, there's no dust jacket and no image, so you should be fine.
References
  • Cite 9, Wildy & Sons, seems odd. Is it doing anything beyond proving the book's existence? If it isn't, would Worldcat do, [75]? Some FAC reviewers object to commercial book-selling sites, particularly Googlebooks.
  • Cite 11, Diplock - does the Cite need an attribution in the References? I know it is attributed in the main body but to me, it looks a little odd without one in the Refs.
  • Did you mean attribute the quote to Lord Diplock in the references? If so, I've now done that. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 03:44, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cite 29, photo - not convinced by this (see above).
  • Resolved, as above.
  • Cite 36, Sarah Cousins - was this privately published? Not sure it meets RS, even though SC was his wife?
  • Fair point. It doesn't say anything that the other sources don't repeat anyway, so I've removed it. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 03:54, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overall
  • It's a great first FAC. Prose is high-quality, coverage is good. For me, a bit more on the leading cases, and the ironing out of a few instances of close paraphrasing, will bring my support. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 10:37, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fine with the above. The only thing I’m not seeing is a “Major cases” summary, which I think Kohlrabi is working on. KJP1 (talk) 16:17, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@KJP1: Sorry this has taken me so long! I've now done a section on cases of significance, split into those cases which were of national significance, and those of legal significance. I've added detail to the former, but not the latter. I find it difficult to place the latter's significance in terms that would mean anything to a lay reader. For instance, there's Westdeutsche Landesbank v Girozentrale which outlines the circumstances in which resulting trusts arise, or Spiliada v Cansulex, which is one of those legal heavyweight cases establishing the doctrine of forum non conveniens in English law. You can see a sample of what it might look like here. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 04:47, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies too, and to the coordinators. A combination of work and personal life is proving demanding just at present. I think your additions on the important case are excellent, and I’ll be pleased to support. One quick thought. As they form mini-paragraphs, do they needs cites to conclude? I shall move onto the Source review as quickly as I can but tomorrow and Wednesday look pretty dire work wise, so it may be a few days. KJP1 (talk) 21:10, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks KJP1! I've added case citations for each paragraph - does that work? Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 04:41, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed it does, and the case summaries are exactly what I think is needed. Which sorts my comments/queries, so very pleased to Support. Shall now move to the, much -delayed, Source review and spot check. Apologies - and I promise it will be done today. KJP1 (talk) 09:58, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Harry edit

  • The lead is a little short for the length of the article.
  • Suggest linking barrister in the lead. Not all English-language legal systems have a two-tier profession.
  • You need to introduce Stephenson so the reader knows why his opinion is important.
  • That's a good point. I've changed it to "the former Lord Justice of Appeal Sir Stephen Tomlinson". Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 05:18, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • And you need a reference after a quote, even in the lead.
  • Is this still the case if I've reproduced the quote exactly in the body and tagged it with a citation there? Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 05:18, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a great catch - never realised how redundant they can be. There were 4 instances throughout the article and I found that all 4 could go. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 05:18, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • described it as "admirable" You need a reference for the quote
  • The book's propositions, however, caused some confusion "However again"
  • In the latter year, Goff was appointed to the House of Lords.[1] He was elected a Fellow of the British Academy in 1987, and would go on to hold Honorary Fellowships at three Oxford University colleges: New, Lincoln, and Wolfson. I'm not sure it's wise to break the chronology.

All in all, excellent work. Certainly no insurmountable hurdles. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:00, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell: Thank you for your helpful comments and encouraging words, Harry. I've resolved most of your comments, bar two. Would you let me know what you think? Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 05:18, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Harry? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:18, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Many apologies. I'll be back in the next day or so at most. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:33, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the delay. Yes, I believe you need a reference for the quote in the lead (per WP:V: All quotations [...] must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. As for the chronology, now I look at it again I don't think it's an issue. Support, pending a reference for the quote. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:11, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added references for both quotes in the lead section. Thank you for your thoughtful input, Harry. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 06:50, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note edit

As this is a first FAC, we should have a spot check of sources as well as the source review. Also @KJP1: to return for his concerns? And we need HJ Mitchell's concerns addressed. --Ealdgyth (talk) 14:14, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ealdgyth, I have exams at the moment but I'll resolve all these concerns when my exams finish next week. I mentioned this to Ian Rose, apologies for holding things up. Some of KJP1's concerns are still unresolved - I'll resolve that next week too. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 16:17, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In order to save a little time, while Kolhrabi’s sweating their exams, I’ll pick up the Source review. KJP1 (talk) 16:38, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ealdgyth: Just a friendly ping to say that all the reviewers' concerns have now been resolved and a spot check and source review done. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 03:03, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

To include spot checks - marker from KJP1 (talk) 15:52, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sources and source referencing
  • Source 1, Beatson - I fear this is going to tee you off, but the 30-odd pages of Beatson's tribute support some 90 references, from his birth on page 246 to his declining health on page 272. Would it help the reader to cite the page numbers within the text? There's definitely guidance somewhere on when you should cite page numbers within an article, obviously not necessary with a single-page newspaper article. I'll try and find it.
Haha, I did think of doing this but I was concerned that it would result in an extremely long list of citations, and that I would have to redo the citation each time I used the tribute. (unless I'm missing something on how citations work) I could instead do this: where the Beatson tribute has referred to something else to support a claim, and where I've made that claim in the Wikipedia article, I could replace the citation with the original, i.e. the one Beatson cites. Would this work? Alternatively, I would be happy to redo the citations indicating page numbers, that's no problem at all. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 05:06, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source 2 - re. the above, here you do cite the PDF page numbers, out of the 164 in total, which is helpful.
  • Sources 5/7/11/18/24 - 5 has Goff as "Goff of Chieveley, Robert Goff, Baron" while in Source 7 he's lost his barony, "Goff of Chieveley, Robert Goff", while in Sources 11/18/24 he's plain Robert Goff. Your choice, but it should be consistent.
This is a complicated one. I'm going to split them up based on the titles he had at the time of writing/delivering them. I hope this split approach makes sense.
  • Source 5, 11, 21 and 24 now read: "Baron Goff of Chieveley, Robert Goff".
  • Source 7 now reads as "Goff, Robert". At this point (1966), he was still a junior barrister.
  • Source 18 now reads as "Goff, Sir Robert". It's from 1983, by which point he was a Lord Justice of Appeal and so had been knighted. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 10:38, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source 6 (as an example) - In the sfn system, which I love but others loathe, it's easy to link authors, such as W. R. Cornish. It's absolutely not a requirement, but you do have a number of authors who have their own Wikipedia articles.
  • I'm not familiar with that. How might I do this? I've just used the cite function on visual editing, which tells me to "authorlink", and I have no idea what that means... Kohlrabi Pickle (talk)
Yeah - it's a bit more complicated than sfn, but I've done 2 and 4 for Tomlinson. Don't worry about it. I'll do them. KJP1 (talk) 13:07, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much - I'm grateful for the help. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 04:56, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source 7- Here, you've used a url, giving the Worldcat link. Personally, I like and use these as I think they help the reader verify things, although other esteemed editors do not. But for other books, e.g. Sources 37/40, you've not given the urls. I think we need to use them consistently, or not use them at all.
  • I'm not quite sure what you mean. Don't 37 and 40 also have links to Worldcat? Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 11:21, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nope - although you can get to Worldcat via the isbn, if you want a direct link, you need to insert a url. I've done this for Before Memory Fades. Again, don't worry about it - I'll do the other books. KJP1 (talk) 13:14, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source 8 - Tom Denning? A little informal?
  • A fair point. I tried to find the original journal to see how he signed off but it proved impossible. I've changed it to "The Lord Denning, Tom Denning", in accordance with the title reflected on the UK Parliament website here: [76]. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 11:13, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources 12/13/32 - here you have truncated titles, "The Brimies" etc., but elsewhere e.g. Sources 20/34, you give the full case title. I think we need consistency. Personally I think the full titles are preferable. The links to Bailii are excellent. Can any of the other cases be so linked? Lastly, 12/13 and 32 have unitalicized titles, while the other case headings are italicised. I think they should all be.
  • I wanted to ask your opinion before proceeding with this because I'm struggling a little. I can't find a suitable Wikipedia template for citing English cases. The "cite court" template is designed for American cases and formats the date, volume and page so that it doesn't match England & Wales case citation conventions. If (as I have done with the leading cases), I simply write out the case citation applying E&W conventions, then I'm not quite sure how to link it to Bailii. Should I just add a link to all the text as I did with citation 12? Or should I do it something like citation 13? If I do it like citation 12, it looks messier, and I'm not sure whether there is some convention requiring me to reflect when the link was retrieved. If I do it like 13, then I lose the ability to italicise the case name. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 11:35, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - it seems surprising there’s no UK equivalent. I’ve asked another editor for advice. KJP1 (talk) 07:44, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was asked. I'm not sure what I can do to help. You could, I suppose, add a link after the citation, manually.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:03, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wehwalt, KJP1 Might it be useful for me to create a new template and apply that here? It'd be another first for me and I'm not sure what the process is or how long it takes, but English cases have rather standard citation conventions, so it wouldn't be too difficult to come up with the parameters. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 01:47, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source 14 - I'd be inclined to amend the title. I don't think "New date" is properly part of it.
  • Source 16 - I think you need the key symbol here, to indicate it's paywalled.
  • Source 19 - Sir Jack here has his knighthood which he's missing in Source 1.
  • Source 26 - Is this dated?
  • I'm unfortunately not able to find the date. I know it's from the Society of Legal Scholars online newsletter, and I know it is on page 39, because I managed to retrieve a physical photocopy of it, but the newsletter itself is behind a password protection, so I can't find out which issue it was. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 12:17, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source 28 - Not paywalled, but not generally accessible either. Does this need to be indicated?
  • Source 31 - I think you need the BBC in there as the publisher.
  • Source 36 - Prabhat Prakashan is an Indian publisher, but the isbn takes me to a Google Book snippet that shows this was published by Ocean Books. A subsidiary?
  • I've used a different WorldCat link to Ocean Books - it should work now. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 12:17, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source 37 - My guess is that it's Hay House India, which is based in New Delhi, [77]. But if Worldcat says they don't know.... Although with other books, Sources 36/40, you don't have publishers' locations in, so you could always leave it out.
I found a different WorldCat link that fills it in as New Delhi. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 12:17, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source 40 - here, you've got the location, Kibworth Beauchamp but not the publisher. I think they're Matador, [78]. This throws up a bit of a concern, as they're a self-publishing outfit, although I don't think they're on Wiki's proscribed list. Nevertheless, they probably don't have the editorial controls that a mainstream publisher would. Given the recent frenzy over high-quality sources, are there other sources for the post claims they support.
This claim is also in the Beatson tribute. Changed the citation to that. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 05:03, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source 41 - I'm also a bit dubious about this. What is it? I assume FEM Publishing is Francis E Miller Publishing, i.e. the author. Ruthtrek doesn't look like a usual publisher. "England and Wales" is a rather loose publisher location. Again, is it some sort of self-publishing outfit? Who is Francis Miller and why are they writing an open letter to Lord Goff? The tone is rather odd. If there's a stronger source, I'd use it.
This is also in the Beatson tribute. Changed the citation. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 05:03, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have to break off now, but Batch 2 will follow. KJP1 (talk) 18:04, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kohlrabi Pickle - Think we're nearly there on the Sources. As above, have asked for advice on citing UK cases and we'll see what comes back. KJP1 (talk) 08:19, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't Sources 3 and 12 the same, just with Goff differently titled? KJP1 (talk) 08:48, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Similarly, aren't 2 and 4 the same? KJP1 (talk) 08:57, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You're quite right. I've merged both sets. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 01:54, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're ok on the legal cites now, and thanks to Wehwalt for looking in. I've done them in a way that is consistent (I hope!), and allows readers ready access to them for Verification. It would be better if we had a citation template for UK legal cases, like the US one, but we haven't. So - for the purposes of the Source review with spot checks - I'm done. Apologies to you, and to the Coordinators, for this, and the review, taking a lot more time to complete than I'd originally planned. Who knew Lockdown would end up being so busy. KJP1 (talk) 10:59, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spot checks
  • I've checked the 25 online sources (1/2/12/13/14/15/16/17/18/19/20/21/23/24/28/29/30/31/32/33/34/38/39/42/43) and am quite satisfied that they support the material in the body of the article. Although Kohlrabi's a first-time FAC nominator, I think the article shows excellent use of a comprehensive range of high-quality, up-to-date, reliable sources (excepting the minor concerns set out above regarding Sources 40 and 41). KJP1 (talk) 22:35, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Featured_log/July_2020&oldid=970547737"